UPDATE: Nancy Pelosi at CNN Town Hall: If Only Democrats Impeach Trump, 'It Will Divide The Country'

[DonViejo]

Source: Mediate

by Joseph A. Wulfsohn | 12:41 am, May 24th, 2018

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was pressed about the calls from her party for President Trump‘s impeachment, something she had previously expressed caution on. At a CNN Town Hall, Chris Cuomo invoked a recent poll showing that more than 70% of Democrats want the president impeached and asked her why she wasn’t exactly onboard.

Pelosi began by explaining that she prioritizes “what is unifying for our country” and that she was “hesitant” when there were calls to impeach President George W. Bush for getting the U.S. involved in the Iraq War. “There is an investigation, if it takes its course, let it take its course, but I do not think that impeachment is a policy agenda,” Pelosi said.

The former Speaker urged voters should be more focused on other aspects of the Democratic agenda like their recent push to rid big money out of politics.

“Impeachment is, to me, divisive,” Pelosi continued. “Again, if the facts are there, if the facts are there, then this would have to be bipartisan to go forward. But if it is viewed as partisan, it will divide the country, and I just don’t think that’s what we should do.”

Read more: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/nancy-pelosi-at-cnn-town-hall-if-only-democrats-impeach-trump-it-will-divide-the-country/

---

UPDATE:

CNN Town Hall Questioner Challenges Nancy Pelosi: Shouldn’t There Be Proof of Russia Collusion by Now?

by Aidan McLaughlin | 9:50 pm, May 23rd, 2018

The first participant at CNN’s Town Hall with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi opened with a direct question: where’s the evidence of Russian collusion?

“If Trump actually colluded with the Russians, why isn’t he found guilty of it after a year of investigation?” Joshua Gonzalez, a law student at Georgetown University, asked the Democrat. “Wouldn’t there be some kind of concrete proof by now?”

“Well you know there is an investigation going on under counsel [Robert] Mueller,” Pelosi replied. “And that is where — we wouldn’t have any idea what is going on in that, and nor should we know what’s going on in that investigation. But it takes time, and I trust counsel Mueller and his work,” she added.

CNN’s Chris Cuomo, hosting the town hall, asked if Pelosi thought Mueller should release his findings before the midterm elections so that voters could make their decisions based on the investigation.

Pelosi said Mueller should proceed with the investigation in the way he thinks best. She pointed to the indictments that have already come from the Russia investigation, and stressed the importance of Americans feeling like their vote counts and is not “distorted by a foreign power.”

###

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-town-hall-questioner-challenges-nancy-pelosi-shouldnt-there-be-proof-of-russia-collusion-by-now/

[Jim__]

1. Will divide the country? The country is as divided as it can be.

We really have to do what's right for the country. Trump is a Russian agent. He needs to be removed.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

26. No question!! 70% of Democrats can't be wrong... impeach 45!!

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

59. It will unite

the country when we all put country first. It's time. HAS to be done.

[brush]

96. He does seem to be working with/for Putin but the numbers to...

impeach aren't there now as impeachment starts in the House and Dems are not the majority party.

And we know Ryan (he with no spine), won't initiate it and even if he did it wouldn't pass the repug-dominated House.

And remember, if it somehow got through the House it would then have to go to the repug-dominated Senate for trial and we know they would never find trump guilty.

Pelosi is just aware of the numbers right now.

After Mueller reports the number might change.

Fingers crossed pls.

[C_U_L8R]

2. That thinking got us 8 years of BushCheney

Granted Pelosi wants to pick her battles for the optimal time but geez, the country needs defending from these traitorous crooks.

[Demsrule86]

84. Bush could not be impeached because just like now we didn't have the votes in the Senate...And I

personally don't think Bush should have been impeached. Shitler should be impeached and convicted but that won't happen...so lets work on getting him out electorally.

[dumbcat]

99. It doesn't take any votes in the Senate to impeach

It doesn't take any votes in the Senate to impeach.

[Demsrule86]

102. What is the point of impeachment if you can't remove the president from office?

This requires a conviction in the Senate 67 votes...you do understand that an impeached president is not necessarily removed from office? Clinton wasn't. You must convict in the Senate... I am against impeachment without conviction.

[dumbcat]

103. Uh, that's what I was trying to tell you

It doesn't take any votes in the Senate to impeach, the House does the impeachment. Bill Clinton was impeached.

If you don't see the point of impeachment without removal, I guess you have to take that up with the framers of the Constitution.

My point above stands. We don't need any votes in the Senate to impeach Trump.

[Demsrule86]

137. I know that...my post reflected that the reason we shouldn't impeach is because we can't convict

in the Senate, Perhaps you could explain to me the value of impeachment without removal?

[dumbcat]

143. I think we agree

I see no value in impeachment without removal (though some do, just for the optics.)

Still, my point was that votes in the senate are not needed to impeach.

[Demsrule86]

144. I know that...and perhaps I wasn't clear...but yes we do agree

[Chemisse]

3. She is right.

If only Dems want impeachment then it is a partisan move, and would enrage half of America. Imagine if the GOP did that to Hillary, had she become president.

Hopefully the Republicans will get on board once the Mueller investigation is completed. If not, we just need to have majorities in Congress who can harness him until his term is up.

[relogic]

9. Imagine Reality

Imagine if the traitorous, party before country repub mob party accepted President Obama as a legitimately twice elected President.

Imagine if they cared about all country(people) and not grabbing it all for themselves.

Imagine if Hillary Clinton or Obama actually, criminally committed with their Administration just one of these crimes now before us.

Imagine the outrage of all of America if HC or BO said and spoke so ignorantly and devisively the things said everyday by the orange buffoon and his complicit party.

[7962]

17. But they never tried to impeach him for all the perceived "illegal" acts they claimed.

Pushing to impeach trump before Meuller releases whats he's found and what proves it would be a huge mistake and invite retaliatory acts against the next Dem president.

[relogic]

19. Impeachment?

No, I never argued for impeachment as much as I wish that even was a remedy in the long view (it’s not). I only address constantly the irony, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonace of so many supposedly thinking individuals in the millions who exalt their departure from any honest principles for purely self-interest.

[rpannier]

13. They're already enraged

[relogic]

16. Irony

Trump=The final death thrawls of irony

[Chemisse]

68. Bu6t they're not riding down out of the hills with their guns.

I actually saw this happen just before the election.

[Fullduplexxx]

14. The left went after nixon we survived the right webt after clinton we survived that as well

[Demsrule86]

45. We had congress and gop helped.

[Chemisse]

70. We've never had a complicit Congress before.

It makes all this especially chilling.

[lagomorph777]

15. Unfortunately I think Nancy has no choice but to acknowledge the math.

Given the utter corruption and complicity of the RePutin Party; given the number of even theoretically available Senate seats in 2018, we can't get 2/3 in the Senate. Impeachment is impossible, unless Mueller can somehow shame quite a few Senate RePutins into saving their country. That's a very very long shot.

Realistically, restraining Turd by at least gaining a majority in the House, and (maybe, another long shot) getting a slim majority in the Senate, is the best realistic outcome.

And that outcome is a lot better than what is happening now, and very much worth fighting for.

[JaneQPublic]

30. That is the crux of this matter, which Pelosi knows full well, despite giving "division" excuse

Impeachment, as you say, lago, is nearly impossible, although I no longer believe the GOPers are capable of shame. Instead, self-interest might cause them to turn on their POTUS, if his approval ratings tank and he becomes an anchor pulling their careers down with him.

Often people keen on impeaching Trump don't know it takes 2/3 of the Senate to convict. Nor do they know that most of the seats to be contested in November are already held by Democrats (or Independents who caucus with Dems), so there are nowhere near enough "flippable" seats to make the needed numbers. As explained in Wiki:

"The 33 senators in Senate Class I will be up for election: 23 of the seats to be contested are presently held by Democrats, and eight by Republicans (three of which are retiring), with two being independents....

Additionally, special elections are scheduled for the same day, to fill vacancies in the other two Senate Classes: in Minnesota, and Mississippi."

MORE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2018

Add to that, Pelosi is right about Impeachment talk being a gift to the GOPers. Only impeachment could make Trump look like a sympathetic underdog. Bill Clinton's approval ratings spiked to the high 60s once impeachment proceedings began. With Trump, all his former voters now with buyer's remorse could be goaded back on the Trump Train, ready to vote him in for another term.

I totally agree it's better to have a restrained Trump in office -- if not totally hobbled and broken -- than to have a Trump rejuvenated by a failed impeachment attempt.

And if by some miracle the Dems were able to convict Trump in the Senate, we'd still end up with Pence, which would be even worse. Pence isn't as ignorant, lazy, or blatantly flawed as Trump, but he's even more evil, because he actually believes the positions he takes, with all the conviction of a religious zealot.

[Chemisse]

71. AND if impeachment talk is part of the midterm elections,

It could drive their base out from under the rocks, to come back and vote.

[PSPS]

35. She's right. The GOP doomed Nixon.

[KPN]

66. They won't this time, even if they are the minority in the Senate. They have learned

that playing hard ball, never giving an inch, works to their advantage every time. It makes them look strong -- and that appeals to too many voters. Conversely, we look weak, which has the opposite effect, turns off too many voters.

Will we ever learn?

[apnu]

38. The GOP did that to Bill Clinton

The House, on partisan lines see: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll543.xml

Everybody was OK with that then, they're OK with that now.

I see this as yet another Democratic retreat. Pelosi is saying she wants to let Trump go on all this unless she has Republican coverage. But the Republicans don't give a shit about Democratic coverage and their hypocritical supporters are good with that.

Show some backbone Democrats! We had 8 years of hyper partisan politics from the GOP and you kept reaching across the aisle only to get slapped 100% of the time.

STOP DOING THAT! How many times must your hand be bitten before you get the message?

[DeminPennswoods]

47. Impeachment made Clinton more popular

IIRC, Clinton's approval numbers reached 70% during the impeachment proceedings. It wasn't so much that 70% of Americans were that much in love with Clinton, but that they viewed the impeachment as partisan and petty.

[Demsrule86]

50. The GOP lost big time in 98 because of the impeachment.

We can't risk that with the courts at stake...and there is no way to convict without the GOP. Clinton remained in office so would Trump.

[KPN]

69. That's speculation. There is also the explanation that the economy was flying high via the

dotcom explosion that influenced the election results in favor of Ds. It was more likely a mix of both.

There's absolutely no way we can achieve impeachment right now, but making some noise about it is important -- if only to shore up the notion that the Ds are not just going to roll over and cry uncle for the sake of unity again. There's a difference between making noise about impeachment and striving to bring it to a vote by Democratic leaders (Pelosi and Schumer).

Pelosi should be stronger in her statements however. It would be reassuring and show greater strength on her part if she would say something like "we will impeach when we have clear evidence from Mueller's investigation that there was in fact collusion or other impeachable offenses committed." Her statements at this point leave the door wide open for the same namby pamby approach we took to Bush/Cheny Iraq. Strength appeals to voters, namby pamby does not.

[Demsrule86]

79. Impeachment caused Clinton favorables to go up...there is a public record.

Here is a poll from 98. What is the point to impeach if you can't convict. You could actually help Shitler win a second term.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/

[KPN]

86. Thanks. I agree, there is no point right now. I just think we need to make sure we aren't

looking weak. And frankly, I think Pelosi came off rather weakly in that particular exchange. Divisive? Unity? No clear statement that we will pursue impeachment at a time if and when we have evidence to support it? She left too much to reading between the lines on that in my view given her and the Dems response to Bush/Cheney Iraq.

[Demsrule86]

97. I agree with not looking weak. But if she evaded the question it would have looked weak too.

Have you considered, we never had the votes to convict Bush? Also, his actions were about policy not criminality. We don't even know if he lied or was deceived for sure about WMD...terrible president but is that impeachable? Just saying had we impeached Bush, I don't think we would have gotten the House and Senate in 06. And Bush would have remained in office. We didn't have the votes even after we won in 06...and Dems took office in 07...would impeachment without conviction have been a good idea?

[KPN]

138. Yes. I agree. I just think the day after we did win the House in 2006 was not the day to

proclaim that impeachment was off the table. That's when she made that now somewhat famous statement (there's a reason it's somewhat famous). Saying Democrats are not about getting even is one thing, but promising that, as a new majority, House Democrats would not seek to remove GW from office was an enormous and unnecessary concession to Rs right up front. It exasperated many Democratic voters and reinforced the already formed impression many have of our party. Every time we do something like that, it only emboldens the Rs further. We aren't ever going to beat bullies by offering concessions in the hope that they will be reasonable.

My underlying point is, it just didn't need to be stated, at least not in such a direct and final way. Aside from this and maybe a few other differences I've had with her position, I'm fine with Pelosi -- she's done a great job as House Dem leader overall. But she and we need to recognize that upwards of 40% of potential voters support impeachment. The message we need to be putting out is simply that we will be tough on criminal acts by any elected federal official regardless of the office/position they hold. That's enough in itself without commiting to or directly taking a position on impeachment.

[Demsrule86]

139. What would we have impeached Bush on anyway? WMD's we can't even be sure he wasn't tricked

as others were. I don't like Bush and would have liked to see him gone...but we can't impeach presidents we don't like. We never had the votes in the Senate to impeach Bush anyhow... just like now...perhaps a different time would have been more appropriate for Nancy's remarks but she was right. When we vote or don't vote or vote for third party's (which I have never done) we need to consider that their has been but two successful impeachments in US History - Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Both were acquitted in the Senate. Both were political impeachments. Thus we are going to be stuck with whoever wins. And the parties are clearly not the same as some on the
left left (Greens mostly)with a little help from the Russians proclaimed. Vote Democratic as if you life depended on it...it probably does. It will take decades to undo the damage Trump has done to this country and the courts.

[KPN]

140. Well, we agree that impeachment would have gone

nowhere, but she didn't need to make that particular finite concession at that particular time. She could have used stronger phrasing or just left it to the bit about we're not going to pursue something just to get even.

Seems I'm just more sensitive to our party being perceived as weak compared to R's than you. As the saying goes, perception is reality.

[Demsrule86]

141. She could have been more sensitive...but I don't think that is her style...one tough lady. So I

agree with you on all points.

[KPN]

142. She is one tough lady for sure. I'm good

with her as House Dem leader.

[Demsrule86]

146. Me too...no matter what she does she will be hated by the right and some on our side as well.

I do agree she needs to understand how hard it is not to impeach Trump...for the rank and file...including me even though I know it would be foolish if we can't convict. I hate that smarmy bastard.

[Demsrule86]

133. Nope first time since 1934...and only repeated by Bush in 02 after 9-11.

"Stunned by the Democratic resurgence in the midterm elections, Congressional Republicans tore into one another yesterday over who was to blame for their failure to make the traditional opposition party gains in an off-year election.

The soul-searching and recriminations -- and a possibility of Congressional leadership challenges -- came as election results showed that Republicans had been unable to increase their 55-to-45-vote margin in the Senate and that Democrats had picked up five seats in the House.

The Democratic surge was the first time since 1934 that the President's party had gained seats in a midterm election and it whittled the Republican lead in the House down to 12 votes and the majority to 6. The Democratic victories were even more remarkable in a year marked by the monthslong scandal over President Clinton's affair with Monica S. Lewinsky."

[former9thward]

115. The GOP did not lose much at all in 1998.

That is a myth that has been repeated over and over again but without facts. Before the 1998 election 45 Dem and 55 Rep in the Senate. After the election exactly the same. Before the 1998 election 207 Dem and 226 Rep in the House. After the election 211 Dem and 223 Rep. A loss of 3 for the Republicans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

[Demsrule86]

132. Yes they did...when you consider it was a midterm...

"Stunned by the Democratic resurgence in the midterm elections, Congressional Republicans tore into one another yesterday over who was to blame for their failure to make the traditional opposition party gains in an off-year election.

The soul-searching and recriminations -- and a possibility of Congressional leadership challenges -- came as election results showed that Republicans had been unable to increase their 55-to-45-vote margin in the Senate and that Democrats had picked up five seats in the House.

The Democratic surge was the first time since 1934 that the President's party had gained seats in a midterm election and it whittled the Republican lead in the House down to 12 votes and the majority to 6. The Democratic victories were even more remarkable in a year marked by the monthslong scandal over President Clinton's affair with Monica S. Lewinsky."

[MBS]

39. I agree.

I would guess that Pelosi is just as outraged and alarmed by * as we are. Probably more, because she has more detailed knowledge to stir her outrage.

But, strategically, she's got a point. in addition to the issue of dividing the country even more, it simply won't work until (a) the facts are so overwhelming and/or (b)Democrats have a clear majority in the senate and can also rope a big chunk of Republicans to stand with them so that there's a strong chance that we can get a 2/3 vote for impeachment.

In the meantime, the Democrats should continue to point out Trump's corruption,obstruction of justice and danger to national and international security at every opportunity and point out the anti-worker and anti-environment agenda of Trump and his enablers - in addition to putting forth a consistent, articulate, positive Democratic agenda on immigration, jobs, health care, the environment, and restoration of competent, honorable, clean government.

[KPN]

64. Enrage half of America?

Seems to me like all of America is already enraged. The GOP created this national political environment of enragement, and Trump is pouring more gas on that fire daily.

Pelosi should be a bit stronger re: impeachment especially with her past history of "impeachment is not on the table" re: Bush/Cheney Iraq. I think she could do a better job of framing the impeachment issue. She should be saying something like "if the Mueller investigation concludes collusion of any sort with Russia, at that point we will definitely pursue impeachment." She's currently leaving the door wide open to taking the namby pamby approach.

[Alethia Merritt]

130. Yes, she is right. Watergate was a bipartisan effort and it mostly united the country.

I think Nancy meant it would keep the country divided. But I think, if the articles of impeachment were strong enough, it would drive the Trumpians back underground where they belong. They would not feel as bold about their bigotry.

[Girard442]

4. What exactly about NOT impeaching Trump is unifying?

I mean, is there any way this could all end with libs and humpers gathered around the campfire holding hands and singing songs? I see only two possibilities: we defeat them or they defeat us.

[jonno99]

128. +1 nt

[NRaleighLiberal]

5. So let's let this thing create untold damage so that we don't do what is already done?

I don't get it at all. Watching it all burn down right in front of us - and we continue to bring butter knives to nuke battles.

[Owl]

119. Exactly. Well said.

[vi5]

6. Aaaand here we go again.....

....we have to be worried about "dividing the country" and not being "bipartisan".

We have to "look forward" and not backward.

We have to be the adults in the room.

Next I'm sure we're going to hear about keeping the "good parts" of the GOP tax scam (the same way we had to keep the "good parts" of the Patriot act, NSA, etc.

And then we all wonder.

[Va Lefty]

8. THIS!

[hatrack]

21. So FUCKING SICK of this . . .

Eight years of "reaching out" and "bipartisanship" and what did we get? Legions of zombie morons voting alpha zombie morons into positions of real power.

And what can stop the looting, the destruction, the national Cult Of Stupid? Well, certainly not impeachment - not now.

Just enough. ENOUGH.

[Demsrule86]

51. How about given the behavior of the GOP, it is not possible to get Trump out of office by

impeachment and conviction...don't need to make him a sympathetic figure.

[Owl]

120. So tired of our milquetoast responses.

Ugh.

[vi5]

122. I'm tired of it all...

...tired of keeping our powder dry.

Tired of having to be the adults in the room.

Tired of the high road.

Tired of the excuses.

Tired of being told this is the best we can do.

Tired of that fucking Will Rogers quote being trotted out as an excuse for our shitty state of affairs.

Tired of hearing about "big tents" as an excuse to not do anything.

Fucking tired of it all.

[Owl]

125. I understand completely.

[Siwsan]

7. And leaving him in office will most likely destroy the country

If the mid-terms don't turn things around, we are done.

[ehrnst]

10. I trust that she knows what she's talking about. Her Democratic peers have elected her

their leader over and over again.

She is saying that impeachment should at the very least wait until after there is clear illegal activity documented and proven on the part of DOTUS, AND a clear majority in the House. The threat of impeachment will mobilize his base this November. "Collusion with Russia" is vague, even if there is proof he was involved in meetings, but great lengths were taken to insure plausible deniability for him and Pence (not including Pence on transition emails, Hope Hicks, under an alias serving as the messenger to DT, etc.). To impeach you need "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." Money laundering is specific and may be the best bet.

I also hope that there are areas of investigation ensnaring Pence, so he could be brought down shortly afterwards.

Impeachment will not guarantee that he is removed, and a resignation would be preferable. That way we can focus our energy on blocking damage by Pence, hopefully with a Blue Congress.

We also need clear non-federal charges made prior to him being removed, which would be non-pardonable by Pence. Hopefully the acting AG is as fierce and committed as Schniederman was.

[7962]

18. All good points. nt

[Shipwack]

62. I get your points, and somewhat agree with them, but...

What happens if there is clear evidence of wrongdoing and we -still- don’t get any Republican support? Won’t they say that the investigation was a political hit job, and the “manufactured evidence proves this?

Trump (and others) are already laying the groundwork for this. Hell, he even floated the trial balloon of a “2nd Amendment” solution if he should lose, and there was virtually no push back against this.

[ehrnst]

73. Well, yes, as long as there are enough traitorous GOP left in congress

they can block an impeachment, and say that it's all "partisan" - which is why the Democratic leadership must NOT be promoting impeachment before that time, so they can point to evidence and say, "This is what indicates he is unfit for the office, not us."

And yes, DT is laying the groundwork for this, and Republicans are jumping ship before it does.

[Mc Mike]

11. The repug side, which always threatens civil war,

is already dividing the country, every day, all the time.

[Paladin]

12. Get out of the way, Pelosi.

There's a evil, mentally-deranged man-boy in the White House, the nation hasn't been this divided since the Civil War, our country's status in the world is at an all-time low, and we need to do something about it. Now.

[Wwcd]

60. We should have done something about it in the past two elections

2016, & Obama's midterms.
We'd be looking at an entirely different state of our nation today.

So to those who failed to see the writing on the wall, failed to show up to vote, failed to see the wool being pulled over their eyes in 2016, ...They all got what they "voted" FOR.

What did these 'voters' give our Dem Leaders to work with?
What support do they have right now that the voters armed them with?

This craphole we're raging about is the sole fault of stupid people, ignorant voters & the voters who never gave a crap when it was necessary to vote.

Same ones who rage on the Dem Leaders today, armed them with nothing at the last midterm polls.

[Eliot Rosewater]

78. And I sure dont want Nancy to "get out of the way" sigh...the ONE person who knows more

about this than any 100 of us combined, no thanks, please stay Nancy!

Nancy of course likely would impeach if she had the numbers but she doesnt. And if she had the numbers and still didnt, I would probably call her office and complain.

Her ONLY reason not to at that point would be civil war. She might be right there too, but at that point I would WANT her to IMPEACH.

[Wwcd]

98. Knowing that the glorious MSM investors want a good return on their money,

the idea of another shitshow of "Impeachment!!" from the Dems would be a boon to these investors.

They'd go from 'The 24/7 Trump Promo Show of 2016' to "The 24/7 Trump Impeachment Debacle of the Dems Party Show."

The Media investors would love it.

Problem is, we'd again, never hear another word from MSM as to any Dem winning seats in Repub districts & States.
We'd again hear the same ones who set out to weaken , infiltrate via frauds & usurpers claiming the Dems are the problem that must be replaced by a utopia of free stuff, so "impeachment" will become a 24/7 talking point that drowns the voices of the reasonable & the Party of good governance, the Democratic Party.

Yes Trump should be removed, but the Dem Party has only what its been given via the shortsighted voters & lazy non voters.

We are running strong now as we go into the midterm election, THIS IS OUR FOCUS.
Impeachment demands are noted, but success will only come with a change in power structure in the House & Senate.

[Demsrule86]

85. And there is no way to get him out as we don't have the votes in the Senate to convict...she is

right and you are wrong. Let's kneecap him by taking the house...and the impeach shit makes it harder to take the house.

[Wwcd]

100. There has already been impeachment papers introduced to the House. Several times.

Paul Ryan buried them & they were never heard nor seen again.

So, next idea?

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/06/568818578/democrat-pushes-vote-on-trump-impeachment-dont-expect-it-to-succeed

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/rep-steve-cohen-introduces-new-articles-of-impeachment-against-trump/

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-rep-brad-sherman-just-introduced-1499883664-htmlstory.html

[Owl]

124. Agreed.

[hatrack]

20. Oh, noes - division!! That would be . . . . horrible!!

[SHRED]

22. If we take the House in the mid terms

And Mueller releases a damning report.

Then what Nancy?

[Eliot Rosewater]

80. So do we have the votes in the senate or not, we dont, let me save you the time

So does she do this exercise that CANT work and risk civil unrest unlike anything we have seen or does she WAIT till she has the votes?

[Demsrule86]

87. We still don't have the votes in the Senate...so we work towards getting him out in 20.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. She should be saying this IN PUBLIC right now

The moment when actual impeachment is possible has not arrived yet. The political priority now is to strengthen Democrats in Congress in November's election. Impeachment is a pipe dream under any circumstances without Democrats making strong gains in Congress. It plays into Trumps hand to mobilize his base for the mid terms by casting the Democrats as only being out for his scalp.

What Nancy says is close to true so she is not being totally disingenuous. As others have noted, America already is divided. What a "highly partisan" impeachment effort risks is locking in that division for many years. If the choice is between locking in that divide by impeaching Trump on one hand with little Republican support, vs leaving that division in flux by allowing Trump to complete his four year term, I vote emphatically for the former. But we haven't reached that bridge yet. When Mueller issues his report (assuming he is able to), or should he be dismissed, we might then be able to put a wedge in Republican support for Trump. Tactically Nancy's official line makes the most sense at this moment in time.

[Demsrule86]

88. Tom it is never going to arrive. The GOP will never go along and we don't have the votes in the

Senate.

[Yavin4]

24. This is why Nancy Pelosi should not be a leader at this time.

She, and other Democratic leaders, completely fail to grasp the severity of the times. They still prioritize playing nice with the Republicans.

[NurseJackie]

27. Aw.

[Eliot Rosewater]

82. I cant, i just cant. I have to step away maybe, if on one side we have actual NAZI'S

openly working with the KGB and on the other side we have WHINERS...

WHINERS?

Nah, we cant survive like that.

[NurseJackie]

89. So much whining. Temper tantrums and hand-wringing.

82. I cant, i just cant. I have to step away maybe, if on one side we have actual NAZI'S
openly working with the KGB and on the other side we have WHINERS...

So much whining. Temper tantrums and hand-wringing. What good purpose does it serve?

All I'm trying to say is that it's wasted energy that does more HARM than good. It's divisive and it weakens the party.

[Demsrule86]

90. This is exactly why she should be a leader...she deals in reality.

We won't ever have enough votes in the Senate before 20...the math is clear.

[Yavin4]

113. At a different time, yes, but we lose when we don't call out a party that has no values other than

making rich people richer and more powerful. We're not dealing with a simple difference of opinions or philosophy. We're literally dealing with people who are compromised entirely by wealthy people from here and abroad. IOW, the Republicans are openly supporting, aiding, abetting, and committing CRIMINAL acts.

Treating them as if they're distinguished colleagues is flat out wrong, and that's why the Dems may not have the blue wave that they're expecting.

[Demsrule86]

135. Impeachment talk can only help Republicans by stirring up their base. The reason mid-terms

are better for party not in the White House is because of enthusiasm...lets not give the GOP a way to motivate their voters. We need to run on local issues in the conservadem areas and healthcare... we need to save our Senate seats. Also while we have hope for the House...we still face a gerrymander and pickups will be in traditionally GOP areas where impeachment would be seen as overturning an election.

[runtel]

149. Nancy Pelosi

I think she and every democrat in the country grasps the severity just fine. Yes she should be leader if we win the house. She can get more blood out of a turnip than anyone else. She also knows when to hold them, she's not folding, just biding her time.

[mcar]

25. She is correct

When Dems take the House back, they can/should focus on real investigations, public hearings under oath of all Dotard's corrupt little toadys.

And they can/should pass legislation to clean up the mess, even if it goes nowhere.

Without a 2/3 vote in the Senate to remove, impeachment goes nowhere.

[NurseJackie]

31. Of course she's correct! I'm so sick of all the whining and hand-wringing and....

25. She is correct

Of course she's correct! I'm so sick of all the whining and hand-wringing and smears of Democrats (and the Democratic leadership).

Without a 2/3 vote in the Senate to remove, impeachment goes nowhere.

Clearly, the loudest of the whiners and chronic complainers and party-haters are under some sort of mistaken impression that "impeachment" means instant removal from office (it doesn't) and that it's easy to get 67 senators to vote to remove (it isn't) and that it's a one-shot deal (no do-overs) and that there's no political price to be paid for a hastily conceived and executed and failed attempt (there will be).

All those who are stomping their feet, shaking their fists, and having a full-on temper tantrum at Pelosi won't change a thing with their behavior.

[mcar]

57. One would think people would know more about the process

[Eliot Rosewater]

83. People who have NO clue what the job Nancy does entails, the REALITY

of how impeachment works, etc.

FUCK i am sick of this shit

[Demsrule86]

91. Do some believe that if we impeach Trump, he is out of office? Have they not heard of conviction

which takes what 67 votes in the Senate?

[brer cat]

110. +1000

[JustAnotherGen]

117. It's true NJ

Yep - they are behaving like Rhoda.

[George II]

118. Bazinga!

[Hortensis]

145. Yes, she is wise and correct. Our democracy is broken

BECAUSE the working center it cannot function without is broken apart. We HAVE to rebuild it “in order that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from" our nation.

I imagine Nancy sleeps well in these dangerous times only because she works herself to near exhaustion most days.

[mcar]

147. I want her to be our next Speaker

She earned it, she's great at it, and it'll drive the RWNJs and some others crazy.

[Hortensis]

148. :) Me too, but her colleagues will choose.

She didn't rise to the highest position any woman has ever held -- and stay there -- because she isn't extremely good at it.

She was 41 when she first held political office, in her late 40s when she first ran for elective office. That was in an era when men felt free to describe women in their 30s as over the hill, right in public, and to ask female colleagues to take notes and make coffee. Not all of it passive-aggressive hostility either, some still thought that was appropriate.

[azureblue]

28. and if it does divide the country

it will divide the liars, the cheaters, the greedy, the people who collaborated with a foreign power to influence an American election, those who think they are above the law, the people who will throw this country under a bus to make a buck, from those who believe in the founding principles of this country. Honesty. Integrity. Government of and for the people.

I say, so what if it divides us? There is no appeasement, no common ground, with those who betray America. Would you seek common ground with murderers, thieves, and rapists? Of course not.

[Ferrets are Cool]

29. It can't get much more divided without a civil war. nt

[CanonRay]

32. The country is already divided.

We have to try to save it.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

33. Nixon's presidency was not in jeopardy until he lost the support of members of his own party. NT

[JoeOtterbein]

34. No, Nancy it will not cause any more division because we really

need to remove the danger to America called Trump! Impeach for Unity Now!

[Demsrule86]

44. Impeachment will not remove Trump.

[Honeycombe8]

36. That's no reason not to impeach, if warranted. It's just a result, if it's only Dems.

But if it's warranted, he must be impeached. We don't leave a treasonous, corrupt person in office because the other side is in on it.

[Demsrule86]

43. There is no way get him out without GOP votes in the Senate.

[Honeycombe8]

114. Even after the mid-terms, you think? nt

[Demsrule86]

134. The way the Senate elections are in 18, it is mathematically impossible to get enough Democratic

votes....way more Democratic seats up than Republican seats. We need 67 Senate seats. I just don't think the GOP will go along with impeachment and conviction.

[Honeycombe8]

150. Oh, yes. Now I remember reading that. Best we can hope is to get more power w/more seats.nt

[Demsrule86]

152. Exactly right...and we have eight conservadems at grave risk...including Joe Manchin in

West Virginia and Claire McCaskill in Missouri....big dust up with Black leaders in Missouri a while back...I wonder if these folks will like being represented by a Republicans better because that is what will happen if they don't support Claire.

[Orsino]

37. It's stupid for her to be asked the question, and stupider to expect an answer...

...but the most stupid of all is her letting herself be pinned down like this.

Yes, articles of impeachment hav been composed and many more could be presented, but it's silly to expect Dems to move on this without the substantial backing of a Mueller report. Everybody wants and needs relief yesterday from the atrocities of the Republican Party, but impeachment is one of the few avenues left. It's got to be done right.

After a Mueller report, or after more guilty pleas, that would be a more likely time for Dems to begin serious impeachment talk. It shouldn't be this way, but it is.

[Demsrule86]

42. You need Republicans to impeach.

[Orsino]

55. And even with a Mueller report and a hundred more indictments, that'd be a hard sell. n/t

[Demsrule86]

56. They Wont do it in my opinion.

[Orsino]

58. I think they'll have to, eventually, or Trump will resign.

But if I'm wrong, America really will be over. Presidents don't come any more visibly corrupt and incompetent.

(He said, a decade after Bush.)

[Demsrule86]

67. I think it is possible he resigns also.

America won't be over regardless...Trump will go.

[Demsrule86]

40. She is correct. Impeachment must be bi-partisan. We won't have the votes in the Senate to convict.

I would not risk helping Shitler get a second term.

[left-of-center2012]

41. Are we not divided now ?

[Zorro]

46. Here is what I think Pelosi should be emphasizing

Trump is the face of the Republican Party, and Trump's policies are Republican policies. These policies will persist until Congressional Republicans are voted out of office. I'm not hearing that message clearly from Democratic leadership. It should be their daily focus.

Make criticisms personal and use pejoritive language effectively. Not lame-ass "this is a bad policy" statements, but make comments along the lines of "Senator McConnell has betrayed his constituents and this country by enabling his contributors to direct policy that will kill thousands of Americans..."

Talk like fighters. And fight fire with fire.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

48. Reading is fundamental, people.

She wants to wait on the Mueller report. That's the wise course of action.

If we send out futile premature impeachment charges every other week that wither and die on the House floor, it's about as sad and pathetic as the Republicans attempting to repeal the ACA dozens of times during President Obama's tenure.

If there's one thing we want this movement against Trump not to be, it's sad and pathetic.

[backtoblue]

123. +1

We have got to let Mueller finalize his investigation. Moving to impeach without all the facts, being the minority, and trying to convince brainwashed republicans is a bad idea at this time.

We all want to see the evil monster impeached. But we need facts, numbers, and a willing Congress.

I'm not happy about it, but it's the reality we're dealt with.

[kimbutgar]

49. Everyday it becomes clear this country will not survive twitlers presidency and we

Could end up into a virtual civil war. With blue states refusing to accept federal rules and stop making payments to the federal government. We are definitely facing a dystopian future. Where lies are the truth and truth are lies.

[WestIndianArchie]

52. This is why she should not be speaker.

[Demsrule86]

92. This is why she is a great speaker. She deal in reality not wishful thinking...we

won't have the votes in the Senate to convict Trump in 18...impossible given the Senate lineup in 18. Impeachment without conviction is a waste of time.

[awesomerwb1]

53. I'm reluctantly willing to give Pelosi and the Dem leadership

the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Because impeachment by itself means absolutely nothing. It does not remove the president, it does nothing since the Senate would not convict and remove.
What it may do is give even more ammunition to dump and his gang of traitors to fire up his base. And those f-ckers do vote.

That said, I wish Dems would get more creative and way aggressive in framing(and pointing out) all of what's going on as massive corruption, abuse of power, etc.

I'm tired of wasting my time, energy and my money supporting politicians and candidates who lack the energy and the will to
speak up and simply settle for lame, wimpy and passive tweets and nothing else.

[Shipwack]

65. Agreed.

We need leaders with spines and fight in them, not passive enablers.

I think one of the reasons that many call for impeachment is that it is the obvious and biggest tool in the box. We don’t see our leaders resisting at all, so we want to take out the big hammer.

As much as I want the Mango Mussolini deposed, we’ll get only one shot at it. We have to wait until after midterms (at the very soonest) to expect our top leaders to start pounding the drums. Earlier than that, it’ll be a right wing “get out the vote” bullet point.

I have heard that the reason Ms Pelosi keeps getting elected speaker is that she plays the obstruction game very well. This could be true. I don’t see it, but maybe it involves a lot of invisible behind the scene arm twisting that is too subtle (or hidden) for me to grok.

[dameatball]

54. When family members cannot talk politics, the country is already divided. Fire him.

[GulfCoast66]

61. She is absolutely correct

I am think some on DU do not realize that impeachment does not remove Trump from power nor in anyway limit his power. I fact, a failed impeachment would do the opposite.

Cause if we impeach and the Senators do not convict(which will never happen) then it will strengthen Trump because it will be perceived as a win for him and a loss for Democrats.

This is why we need Nancy as the speaker. She can withstand all the criticism she gets, much from her own party.

[itcfish]

63. How many democrats

voted to impeach Clinton?

[brooklynite]

72. Any House candidate who proactively talks about impeachment gets cut off from my funds...

Liberal activists are already engaged; to get the disaffected moderates, talk about economic issues.

[Demsrule86]

93. Good point...we need to flip votes.

[LenaBaby61]

74. Never change Dems ....

The country's straight-out falling apart.

We have our FIRST ruskie president.

tRumputin & thuglicans are treasonous scoundrels DESTROYING our country

People will literally be DYING because they'll have NO health insurance, courtesy of ....

Nancy's framing of impeachment is priceless

Po' little tink tink Dems

STILL bringing marshmallows to a machete fight vs thuglicans.

Never change Dems. Never change

[Demsrule86]

94. Ok fine...show me how we impeach and convict Trump even if we get the house...find 67 votes in

the Senate... I eagerly await your reply because if it is possible shitler should be kicked out of office...show me how it happens.

[LenaBaby61]

111. "Ok fine...show me how we impeach and convict Trump even if we get the house...find 67 votes."

IF you cannot SEE just how ineffective and weak Dems have mostly become, even when in POWER, then me trying to explain anything to you about how Nancy continues to wrongly frame the impeachment argument, then I can't explain anything to you. I know you couldn't have forgotten about Al Franken could you?

[Demsrule86]

136. Nice evading the question...but where do the votes in the Senate come from? And Franken is a red

herring and has nothing to do with this. I have forgotten the Franken issue because it is not relevant. He chose to resign...didn't have to so let's drop it. We can't get 67 votes in the Senate in 18. It is mathematically impossible and since you evaded the question, you probably know that. So what I see is just another post bashing Pelosi and Democrats for no good reason. It is not possible to do what you desire...hey I want a unicorn, but I have zero chances of getting one. The same is true of conviction of Trump in the Senate ...now maybe the GOP will join us but I consider that akin to getting a unicorn. The corrupt GOP isn't going to help us. And calling Dems weak and ineffective seems harsh and inappropriate. This is a Democratic website. We support Democrats.

[KPN]

75. I like and support Pelosi, but I think she needs to be a bit more straight-forward

about the impeachment issue to show strength, especially given the position she took to Bush/Cheney after Iraq. She is leaving too much to reading between the lines in her current statements, and in so doing, giving the appearance of leaving the door wide open for the same namby pamby approach for the sake of national unity as she did last time.

She should be saying very clearly that "if and when we have clear evidence of collusion or other impeachable offenses from the Mueller investigation, we will absolutely pursue impeachment, but not until and only then." That is a reasonable statement and shows strength. Strength is appealing to too many voters; the appearance of weakness has the opposite effect -- it's a turn off for too many voters.

[Demsrule86]

81. There was never a chance to convict Bush either. Impeachment without conviction is a waste of time .

[LenaBaby61]

112. "Nancy Pelosi at CNN Town Hall: If Only Democrats Impeach Trump, 'It Will Divide The Country."

I think she needs to be a bit more straight-forward about the impeachment issue to show strength, especially given the position she took to Bush/Cheney after Iraq. She is leaving too much to reading between the lines in her current statements, and in so doing, giving the appearance of leaving the door wide open for the same namby pamby approach for the sake of national unity as she did last time.

THANK YOU!

[Qutzupalotl]

76. The flaw in the line of succession

is that if you impeach the President and VP, the Speaker of the House becomes president. The House leads the impeachment charge, so this opens up the Speaker to charges of self-interest. That is political suicide. The country would likely be almost ungovernable if an impeachment elevated the Speaker.

I think this was Pelosi’s dilemma in 2007. Cheney was perhaps even more culpable than Bush, so an impeachment would need to have taken out both, elevating herself.

I don’t have a solution for this, but it is a real problem. The current corruption filters down to about Hatch or Mattis.

[still_one]

77. As long as republicans have the majority in both houses impeachment isn't going to happen

[Demsrule86]

95. Even if we get the house...we can't convict in the Senate...it is a sad thing when the GOP

Congress refuses to exercise oversight over the executive branch...but here we are.

[notdarkyet]

101. What about no one being above the law. Trump is the walking embodiment of high crimes and

Misdemeanors. We throw minor criminals in prison for years, but if you’re president, you can rip the treasury, hurt citizens..never mind the list is too long. Impeachment is minor punishment for his crimes.

[kurtcagle]

104. Impeachment is like Censure

It does not, by itself, lead to removal, and after Bill Clinton, it pretty much lost its teeth as a political vehicle. The Senate cannot remove a sitting president without the House voting for impeachment, however.

[Civic Justice]

105. They said that about the Civil Rights Act.... But the country figured out how to deal with it.

TRUMP HAS TO BE TAKEN OUR OF OFFICE, be it by impeachment, imprisonment of whatever.... This country can't afford to allow this madness to continue.

The ignorance is and has been exemplified, by his own character, his criminality and his incessant attack of every aspect of our governance, including our legal system.

No one of same and sound American Democracy Values is going to passively accept and submit to the continuance of this buffoon's acts and conduct

Congress needs to stop playing games and get on with it.

[DonCoquixote]

106. Pelosi, I try to defend you

But seeing as how you have placed yourself as a shield between two people that needed impeaching, I have to say this is why people get frustrated with you. Never, ever remove that threat,, even if all it does is make trump sweat. Do not fold your hand before we sit down at the table!

[meadowlander]

107. Treason is divisive.

Impeachment is the only remedy.

Yes, it would be better for the country if the Republicans were stepping up but it's not the Democrats that are creating or exacerbating the division. And the country is looking to all of Congress, not just Republicans, to show leadership in condemning what has happened.

Mueller needs time to complete his investigation but when the reports come out, Democrats need to respond appropriately to any crimes uncovered whether that is "divisive" or not. And that's the only thing we should be saying right now.

[DeminPennswoods]

108. Right now, the math doesn't work

Dems could impeach Trump if they regain the House in Nov, but there aren't 67 votes in the Senate for a conviction. Failing to convict would only allow Trump/Trump supporters to claim "victory".

Pelosi is right that Mueller needs to finish his investigation issue his reports and return indictments. Then all of American can see the results. You only get one shot at the king and it has to bring him down.

[BlueStater]

109. That's a bullshit excuse.

Outside of people actually murdering each other, the country couldn't possibly be more divided than it already is. A bunch of shithead rednecks rioting should not be used as a justification for keeping a petulant tyrant in power.

[NurseJackie]

121. That's not what she said. It's not an "excuse" it's reality.

A bunch of shithead rednecks rioting should not be used as a justification for keeping a petulant tyrant in power.

That's not what she said. It's not an "excuse" it's reality. A "Democrat-only" impeachment effort is doomed to failure and will have other consequences as well. It's a one-shot deal. Rush and fail now, and we'll never get another chance. Ever.

All I'm saying is that anything worth doing, is worth doing right. Measure twice, cut once. Your anger and venom is misdirected.

[BlueStater]

131. It IS an excuse.

And I understand why she used it since I suppose she can't simply outright say that they can't impeach the bastard because they don't have the votes, but it's still a lame lie. And yes, it's a lie. Impeaching him or not impeaching has absolutely nothing to do with his dumbass supporters throwing a temper tantrum if he was removed from power.

[Marthe48]

116. If we don't get rid of traitor trump and his ilk

there will be no country.

The repuke have attacked The Constitution of the U.S.A. relentlessly. Why they hate our country, I don't know, but they are destroying this nation as surely as if they were bombing it.

[Bradshaw3]

127. She is thinking long-term strategy when people want to go to the mattresses

And she is right. This administration is the most corrupt, anti-democratic in the history of our country and deserves impeachment, conviction and jail time for many. If we lived in a sane, just democracy that's what would and should happen. But it's not going to happen, any more than if Pee Brain did shoot a baby on Fifth Avenue. So she is following a path that she believes will win back Congress in the next two elections and the White House in 2020. That is the only thing that will change the direction of our country.

I just hope like hell Nancy Pelosi is the next Speaker of the House.

[Demonaut]

129. pssst...It's already divided Nancy

[riversedge]

151. she is correct. We need Republicans in on this.

[Bradical79]

153. He has to be impeached eventualy

Whether she's right or wrong on the practical and strategic aspect, if Trump isn't impeached, it's a signal that rule of law and Democracy is on its deathbed in this country. It's already been significantly damaged over the years.

[raccoon]

154. You may not have noticed, Nancy, but the country has been pretty divided for some time. nt

[JCMach1]

155. Time for her to go