Pelosi raises impeachment

[cilla4progress]

Source: NY Times

Link to tweet

?s19

No link yet.

---

Good play on Speaker Pelosi's part, I think. She is cautious, but resolute.

[htuttle]

1. Neither link works

Twitter account is protected.

Here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/us/politics/impeaching-president-trump.html

[greyl]

2. One has to follow that protected account to read it.

Account only has 7 followers right now.

Edit, links to sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/us/politics/impeaching-president-trump.html
https://politicalwire.com/2019/05/16/pelosi-raises-impeachment-to-break-trumps-stonewall/

[cilla4progress]

3. Ooops!

Let me try again!

[BumRushDaShow]

4. Here is the article

Pelosi Raises Impeachment as a Way to Break Trump’s Information Stonewall

WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Thursday that House Democrats could always open an impeachment inquiry to pry free documents and testimony from stonewalling Trump administration officials — a sharp response to the White House’s blanket claim that House requests served no “legitimate” legislative purpose.

“The courts would respect it if you said we need this information to carry out our oversight responsibilities — and among them is impeachment,” Ms. Pelosi said during her weekly news conference at the Capitol. “It doesn’t mean you’re going on an impeachment path, but it means if you had the information you might,” Ms. Pelosi said. “It’s about impeachment as a purpose.”

Her threat was the first time Ms. Pelosi suggested using impeachment as an information-gathering tool, although she had made the suggestion in private before, according to a person familiar with her thinking.

For weeks, the speaker has fought back efforts by many in her caucus to move ahead with impeachment proceedings based on President Trump’s order to ignore all House subpoenas on a broad range of investigations. Her stance has not changed, her aides said. But Ms. Pelosi’s statement reflects her mounting anger at the White House over a block-and-deny strategy that has stymied efforts to marshal public outrage over Robert S. Mueller III’s report on the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russia during the 2016 campaign and his findings on whether the president obstructed justice.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/us/politics/impeaching-president-trump.html

[Fiendish Thingy]

8. So glad to know the Speaker agrees with me.

Ive been posting about the strategic use of opening an impeachment inquiry to break through Trump's obstructions for weeks now...hope she follows through.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. Well here's the thing-

In order to cover bases needed for any requests in court to obtain what has been requested, they need to make sure that they follow all the steps necessary to obtain the info through use of the House Rules so that the court doesn't kick it back to them and tell them that they "didn't do x, y, z, per their own procedures, before seeking a remedy from the court".

People forget that the Watergate Hearings weren't the impeachment hearings. They were informational hearings that preceded any impeachment moves and actually gave them the info needed to then begin an impeachment inquiry (where once started, Nixon resigned).

[Fiendish Thingy]

16. Nixon didn't resign for a few months after an impeachment inquiry was opened

Which was in Spring 1974. Up until then the hearings were part of a standard congressional investigation.

[BumRushDaShow]

18. However the actual impeachment "hearings" had not commenced before he resigned

And yup, the "Watergate" hearings were part of the precursor investigative process before the inquiry was opened, as I noted. Unfortunately what DUers want is to skip over any fact-finding "investigation" and just jump into impeachment and sortof guess at what charges (articles) should be voted on.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Exactly what I wrote to the Speaker in an email today!

[Perseus]

7. Very good, we need to start bombarding them with emails/letters to force real action from them

Otherwise we will get screwed and we will all have a very rude awakening. Evil works fast, its ruthless and doesn't care what you or anyone says, you have seen from Barr he doesn't care, he lies, he knows he is lying, he knows we all know he is lying and he just continues, and that is what is going to happen if we, the people, don't start putting the pressure on them to take real action.

[Perseus]

6. Ok, stop the threats and get started

It is threat after threat and nothing happens...We need action because in the mean time the party of trump is laughing and moving forward with their horrible agenda, they are not waiting for Democrats to do something, and believe me when I say that they will get to changing the Constitution and many of the laws that protect the citizens and the rule of law, that is what dictators do and that is how they get away with whatever they want. The time for them to begin changing the Constitution in the favour is going to start very soon, Barr must be impeached, and maybe Kavanough as well to prevent the disaster that I see coming if the Democrats continue on their useless threat campaign, WE NEED ACTION NOW!

[GreydeeThos]

19. +1

[onetexan]

23. agree, need to get it done ASAP

we need to set the narrative leading up to the election next year, that this corrupt man is a criminal, and the GOP is complicit in their continual enabling of him.

[LovingA2andMI]

10. About Damn Time...

Get It DONE!!!

[empedocles]

11. Step by measured step the Speaker moves forward.

Every week moves forward. Every week seems to have some good news.

[Skittles]

12. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[DownriverDem]

14. Your timing

is all off. No joke.

[Skittles]

15. I'll believe it when I see it

if starting a war based on lies was not enough for Nancy, I doubt anything is

[DownriverDem]

13. Cautious

is good. We are dealing with a dangerous madman with a suck up Senate. When the time comes, there will be no doubt to the majority of the country.

[Nitram]

17. Yes, this is the right approach. Pelosi has brains, experience, and guts.

[Ramsey Barner]

20. When the linked NYT article says Dems read "the entire unredacted Mueller report,"

"Thursday’s 12-hour reading of the entire unredacted Mueller report in a hideaway Capitol committee room before a few reporters"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/us/politics/impeaching-president-trump.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

the NYT really means "redacted," doesn't it? I listened long enough to hear a reader reach a redacted section.

[NurseJackie]

21. I trust Nancy Pelosi's judgement on this. SHE is smarter than people give HER credit for.

Experience we can trust!

[Bayard]

22. "Legislative purpose" argument is total bullshit

One of Congress' main duties is oversight.

I know tRump has never even looked at the Constitution, but surely his lawyers have?