Nancy Pelosi is a badass MF and I want her to be Speaker

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[David Dennison 18851]

Fellas, they are going to impeach him, so settle down.

[DixonHur 11296]

4 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Elections have consequences. Sure it sucks that we have a clown doing clown things in the White House.

impeachment is a political process. That means reps vote and they consider how it would influence a whole range of things. Do they have enough votes to impeach? What are the political consequences if it fails? How big of win for trump would that be? What are the political consequences toward moderate Dems trying to win an election in a red area in 2020? If an impeachment vote is successful, what are the political consequences of that? Would it increase or decrease probability of trump being potus until 2024? We all know that a successful impeachment vote would not result in removal - the only result would be political consequences. 

The game is to get the clown out of office as fast as possible and to minimize the harm he causes. The house has ongoing subpoenas, investigations, etc.  Trump is only being removed from office by losing the 2020 election or by running out his term in 2024. 

This is our concern dude....there are too many people worried about their own place at the political money trough instead of doing their constitutional duty.  

 

[retread 2951]

Aunt Nancy is responsible for her duties. I don't think the Founders ever envisioned a person acting like this in the WH and the House NOT impeaching him.

The fact that the Senate is as corrupt as Cheeto doesn't absolve her of her responsibilities.

[David Dennison 18851]

3 minutes ago, retread said:

Aunt Nancy is responsible for her duties. I don't think the Founders ever envisioned a person acting like this in the WH and the House NOT impeaching him.

The fact that the Senate is as corrupt as Cheeto doesn't absolve her of her responsibilities.

Then the Founders should have made it a duty. Impeaching the president is not a duty of Congress.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

10 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

This is our concern dude....there are too many people worried about their own place at the political money trough instead of doing their constitutional duty.  

 

Her constitutional duty is to get the tyrant out of office. That requires politik. 

Impeachment is a political process, not a constitutional duty. That is reality. Rambo isn't going to show up and take out the traitors. 

[DixonHur 11296]

3 minutes ago, retread said:

Aunt Nancy is responsible for her duties. I don't think the Founders ever envisioned a person acting like this in the WH and the House NOT impeaching him.

The fact that the Senate is as corrupt as Cheeto doesn't absolve her of her responsibilities.

This.  I have a hard time believing that when the Founders included impeachment in the constitution they intended it to have a higher threshold than Trump.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

6 minutes ago, retread said:

Aunt Nancy is responsible for her duties. I don't think the Founders ever envisioned a person acting like this in the WH and the House NOT impeaching him.

The fact that the Senate is as corrupt as Cheeto doesn't absolve her of her responsibilities.

Her duty is to investigate and show the world what trump and his admin have been up to. Her duty is get Cheeto out of office. He isn't leaving by impeachment. He is leaving by losing the 2020 election or running his term out in 2024

[David Dennison 18851]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

This.  I have a hard time believing that when the Founders included impeachment in the constitution they intended it to have a higher threshold than Trump.

Absolutely, but they left it up to Congress to decide whether to exercise the power.

[Biff Tannen 45667]

Just now, GW Hayduke said:

Her duty is to investigate and show the world what trump and his admin have been up to.

 

[retread 2951]

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

This.  I have a hard time believing that when the Founders included impeachment in the constitution they intended it to have a higher threshold than Trump.

Yep. Any president before him would have been gone long ago. Just b/c the other half of Congress and the Executive are beyond redemption doesn't mean she shouldn't act.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-asks-appeals-court-to-block-subpoenas-for-trump-bank-records/ar-AAG1Kjx

 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

5 minutes ago, retread said:

Yep. Any president before him would have been gone long ago. Just b/c the other half of Congress and the Executive are beyond redemption doesn't mean she shouldn't act.

Connect the dots between potus being gone and Pelosi acting.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

It’s nice you’re okay with our elected officials abandoning the constitution in a moment of national crisis where the only remedy outside of an election is a lawful constitutional impeachment process.

but many people are not are not okay with it. 

[retread 2951]

Since the DOJ memo precludes indictment, then impeachment by the House is all that's left.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s nice you’re okay with our elected officials abandoning the constitution in a moment of national crisis where the only remedy outside of an election is a lawful constitutional impeachment process.

but many people are not are not okay with it. 

How would impeachment remedy trump?

 

[lemonlime 5503]

22 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-asks-appeals-court-to-block-subpoenas-for-trump-bank-records/ar-AAG1Kjx

 

Why is the DOJ involved in this?  They aren't (supposed to be) trump's personal lawyers.  

[GW Hayduke 1953]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s nice you’re okay with our elected officials abandoning the constitution in a moment of national crisis where the only remedy outside of an election is a lawful constitutional impeachment process.

but many people are not are not okay with it. 

I'll ask again with your tone.

It's nice you're okay with whining about some fantasy that impeachment would remove trump.

but many people understand trump is only leaving if he loses 2020 or his term ends in 2024

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

9 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

How would impeachment remedy trump?

You do it and see what happens. 

Right now it’s like you’re asking “How do I get to third base when all I can hit are singles?”  

You still hit singles but maybe you can steal second or the next batter hits a double.  This shit is not written in stone.  You do the best with what you have and hope it works out.

The only way to guarantee you will never score is to choose not to play. 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[retread 2951]

Like Lurch said earlier, the Rs were with Nixon until they weren't. There is a non-zero chance that the Senate would convict. I admit not much above zero, but it's there.

Get up there make contact with the ball like Hugo said.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You do it and see what happens. 

Right now it’s like you’re asking “How do I get to third base when all I can hit are singles?”  

You still hit singles but maybe you can steal second or the next batter hits a double.  This shit  is not written in stone.  You do the best with what you have and hope it works out.

No one truly feels that 2/3 of the senate is going to vote to remove. It is possible that 1/2 of the house wouldn't impeach, much less getting 2/3 of the senate.

Although, I wounder if there is something pelosi and the house could be doing? Actually there is, and they are. And that is investigating. 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

2 minutes ago, retread said:

Like Lurch said earlier, the Rs were with Nixon until they weren't. There is a non-zero chance that the Senate would convict. I admit not much above zero, but it's there.

Get up there make contact with the ball like Hugo said.

And when the Rs have a desire to pull a Nixon, do you think Pelosi is going to hold things up? Of course not.

[Lurch 5922]

And when the Rs have a desire to pull a Nixon, do you think Pelosi is going to hold things up? Of course not.

And we’re suggesting that impeaching in the House may help them get there in the Senate

[Lurch 5922]

Consider this. Any R senator saying he would convict right now would be in Trumps crosshairs for an extended period of time. He’d be putting himself out there not even knowing if Pelosi would ever pull the trigger on her half of the equation first.

Now, if the House does its job and all the Senate has to do is pull the lever and this whole circus is over in a snap, it’s quite possible some of them would be happy to do it and instantly affix their lip to Pence’s ass.

[lemonlime 5503]

Also, have a trial.  Lay out all the evidence, and god knows there's more than enough, and get the GOP senators on record as okay with it.  If the republic is going down, at least create a record for the history books of the traitors.

Edit to add: with side benefit of making people like Susan Collins have to defend their vote when they're up for reelection.

Edited August 21, 2019 by lemonlime

[DixonHur 11296]

I'd say the odds of removing Trump via impeachment aren't as low as a rag-tag bunch of framers defeating the greatest military on the planet...but here we are nonetheless 

[RayDog 682]

Moscow Mitch won't allow a trial.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

19 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Actually there is, and they are. And that is investigating

There was an investigation. It was non-partisan.  It found evidence of several national security crimes committed by the president.  The next step is not more partisan investigations. 

[Lurch 5922]

Moscow Mitch won't allow a trial.

I do wonder what the process is there. Can he just not do it?

[RayDog 682]

Just now, Lurch said:

 

I do wonder what the process is there. Can he just not do it?

 

Lawrence O'Donnell talked about it on a show last year as he worked in the Senate during an impeachment of a lower level official.

He said the Constitution does not require that the trial be timely so they worked on it as they had time and it took over a year.

Moscow Mitch does not have to start the trial so he won't.

[DixonHur 11296]

1 minute ago, RayDog said:

Lawrence O'Donnell talked about it on a show last year as he worked in the Senate during an impeachment of a lower level official.

He said the Constitution does not require that the trial be timely so they worked on it as they had time and it took over a year.

Moscow Mitch does not have to start the trial so he won't.

But, he has to deal with the fallout if he doesn't...which might prove difficult once all the facts are laid out by the House impeachment process.

We won't know until we try. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

It’s pretty clear what Pelosi is trying to do here: 

She’s trying to run out the clock and impeach him in the House at a moment in time when it will make Republicans in the House and Senate most uncomfortable and politically vulnerable.

She’s playing politics with national security which is never okay.

Sadly, it will likely be considered a politically shrewd maneuver by the Chuck Todds of the world...if it goes according to plan, which is always uncertain.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[David Dennison 18851]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s pretty clear what Pelosi is trying to do here: 

She’s trying to run out the clock and impeach him in the House at a moment in time when it will make Republicans in the House and Senate most uncomfortable and politically vulnerable.

She’s playing politics with national security which is never okay.

Sadly, it will likely be considered a politically shrewd maneuver by the Chuck Todds of the world...if it goes according to plan, which is always uncertain.

No, she isn't. No matter what the House does, Donald Trump will still be the president until at least January 2021.

[David Dennison 18851]

19 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

But, he has to deal with the fallout if he doesn't...which might prove difficult once all the facts are laid out by the House impeachment process.

We won't know until we try. 

Really? You really don't know how Republicans in the Senate will react to impeachment?

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

25 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No, she isn't. No matter what the House does, Donald Trump will still be the president until at least January 2021.

If Trump starts a bloody war after Pelosi passed up the opportunity to impeach him with overwhelming evidence, it gives the republicans an excuse down the road to absolve themselves of responsibility.

“Well, we would have impeached and removed him before he started the war that cost thousands of lives but Pelosi and the democrats decided not to impeach.  There was nothing WE could do about that.”

[David Dennison 18851]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If Trump starts a bloody war after Pelosi passed up the opportunity to impeach him with overwhelming evidence, it gives the republicans an excuse down the road to absolve themselves of responsibility.

“Well, we would have impeached and removed him before he started the war that cost thousands of lives but Pelosi and the democrats decided not to impeach.  There was nothing WE could do about that.”

I couldn't care less about that.

[Jive Turkey 12594]

Pelosi’s slow play is working.  Although I’m sure she didn’t see it playing out like this.

Impeachment talk was hot and heavy when the economy was cooking, and it looked like the Dems needed to do something to stop Trump from re-election.  

But we are about to slide into a recession.  It’s coming.  And that is gonna be the end of Trump.  Tons of Republicans were willing to hold their noses around Trump and stick with him because they were all making money with a sizzling economy.  But when that goes bye bye, so will his non-white supremacist supporters.  And his hard core base won’t be enough to carry Trump in 2020.

The last thing you want to do now is start impeachment proceedings to jazz up Republicans.  And I’m talking about the non-white supremacists.  They’d jump back on the Trump bandwagon just to spite Pelosi.

[DixonHur 11296]

12 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Really? You really don't know how Republicans in the Senate will react to impeachment?

 

Neither do you, which is the point.

[David Dennison 18851]

2 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Neither do you, which is the point.

I know exactly how they'll react and so do you.

[DixonHur 11296]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I know exactly how they'll react and so do you.

No, you think you do, but neither of us are oracles.  

 

[David Dennison 18851]

13 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

No, you think you do, but neither of us are oracles.  

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

You realize you’re thinking exactly how McConnell wants you to think.  

“Don’t dare try it.” McConnell says

Dennison, “okay boss”

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

The majority of Senate have the backing of their constituents because they adore Trump. Only way to excise this tumor is to vote them out. I don't think Pelosi would prefer to slow play this, but it is the only play due to the absolute polarization of our society right now. Pelosi and company have to provide such overwhelming evidence of Trumps nefarious incompetence that even his devout followers push the issue with their Senators. Any impeachment push now would be symbolic at best and may give Trump a political win ahead of the election. Otherwise, the 'people' need to be louder and force everyone's hands. It is slowly happening, but not nearly there yet to override the Senates constituents. 

*Also, there may be indication that the play here is to highlight how deep the corruption on the GOP side is. Pelosi and co. may think they can connect dots that show that the GOP and Trump are all connected through the NRA and foreign governments; hoping to get the head shot ahead of the 2020 election. 

Edited August 22, 2019 by SmokeyTheBear

[GW Hayduke 1953]

Some weird stuff going on here.

It seems that every time trump shits his pants in front of the world, folks come in here and blame Pelosi.  

There is a strange delusion that Pelosi is protecting trump.

There are some political realities:

A GOP controlled senate is not going to get a 2/3 vote to remove based on what is currently known about trump. To attempt to do so, would not be politically advantageous. Folks can disagree on that last point but then you have to consider timing and view it through the primary goal of all this - 2020 election.

Hoping that maybe today the senate would vote to remove or thinking there is a chance of that is not based on reality.

The potential exists that additional evidence is out there that would change the GOP’s minds. I think that potential is very very slim based on how far McConnell, Graham, and other folks have abandoned all norms and principles. Even so, let’s see what the subpoenas uncover - note this is about timing.

The only real chance of removing trump IMO and most realistic observers, absent a smoking gun or some new evidence, is the 2020 election.

Knowing that, how does impeachment, house investigations, the execution of subpoenas, the timing of the release of evidence, the timing of public testimonies, and the timing of a potential impeachment hearing, influence the probability that trump loses the 2020 election?

The bottom line is that trump is causing massive harm every day he sits in the White House. That sucks. That is shameful. However, elections have consequences. It is time to put on some big boy pants. Cowboy up. It is time to realize that there is one singular primary goal to all of this. That goal is keep trump out of the White House for a second term. Everything else is secondary to that single primary goal.

[David Dennison 18851]

27 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You realize you’re thinking exactly how McConnell wants you to think.  

“Don’t dare try it.” McConnell says

Dennison, “okay boss”

Kind of like, I don't know, nominating Merrick Garland.

[DixonHur 11296]

43 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

absent a smoking gun

Are you kidding?  Trump is a walking, talking smoking gun.

That said, you are missing the broader point.  I agree that it's probably too late to get him out of office via Impeachment.   But, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be impeachment hearings. 

Impeachment is as much about perception, as anything else.  I'm tired of the Dems playing nice only to have their teeth kicked in by the GOP.

The vast majority of Americans are not as politically engaged as we are.  The Dems need to shove Trump and Company's in their faces every night on TV and every day in the papers.  Make it almost impossible to ignore how awful Trump has been for the country and our allies and how corrupt he is. If not, all people will remember is that he said he was cleared of all wrong doing and assume he's telling the truth because the Dems would have impeached him if it wasn't true.

His stink needs to hang like a pall over his enablers so that they too are voted out of office.

Not sure how old you are, so I don't mean this in a condescending way, but after the Starr report came out only 30% of the country supported impeachment.  Once the proceedings began and it was blasted on the news 24/7, that number rose to 50%. 

Clinton was not convicted either, but the damage was done.  In the 2000 election, the GOP gained 8 seats in the house and 1 in the Senate...hell, it probably cost Gore election based on his popularity before the impeachment.

 

[David Dennison 18851]

17 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Are you kidding?  Trump is a walking, talking smoking gun.

That said, you are missing the broader point.  I agree that it's probably too late to get him out of office via Impeachment.   But, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be impeachment hearings. 

Impeachment is as much about perception, as anything else.  I'm tired of the Dems playing nice only to have their teeth kicked in by the GOP.

The vast majority of Americans are not as politically engaged as we are.  The Dems need to shove Trump and Company's in their faces every night on TV and every day in the papers.  Make it almost impossible to ignore how awful Trump has been for the country and our allies and how corrupt he is. If not, all people will remember is that he said he was cleared of all wrong doing and assume he's telling the truth because the Dems would have impeached him if it wasn't true.

His stink needs to hang like a pall over his enablers so that they too are voted out of office.

Not sure how old you are, so I don't mean this in a condescending way, but after the Starr report came out only 30% of the country supported impeachment.  Once the proceedings began and it was blasted on the news 24/7, that number rose to 50%. 

Clinton was not convicted either, but the damage was done.  In the 2000 election, the GOP gained 8 seats in the house and 1 in the Senate...hell, it probably cost Gore election based on his popularity before the impeachment.

 

Um, no, the Supreme Court cost Al Gore the election.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

25 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Are you kidding?  Trump is a walking, talking smoking gun.

That said, you are missing the broader point.  I agree that it's probably too late to get him out of office via Impeachment.   But, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be impeachment hearings. 

Impeachment is as much about perception, as anything else.  I'm tired of the Dems playing nice only to have their teeth kicked in by the GOP.

The vast majority of Americans are not as politically engaged as we are.  The Dems need to shove Trump and Company's in their faces every night on TV and every day in the papers.  Make it almost impossible to ignore how awful Trump has been for the country and our allies and how corrupt he is. If not, all people will remember is that he said he was cleared of all wrong doing and assume he's telling the truth because the Dems would have impeached him if it wasn't true.

His stink needs to hang like a pall over his enablers so that they too are voted out of office.

Not sure how old you are, so I don't mean this in a condescending way, but after the Starr report came out only 30% of the country supported impeachment.  Once the proceedings began and it was blasted on the news 24/7, that number rose to 50%. 

Clinton was not convicted either, but the damage was done.  In the 2000 election, the GOP gained 8 seats in the house and 1 in the Senate...hell, it probably cost Gore election based on his popularity before the impeachment.

 

Your position seems to move all over the place.

First, we should impeach because you just never know and maybe the GOP senators will wake up tomorrow and vote to remove.

Now, you are arguing that impeachment would damage trump politically. That is a valid opinion, but one not shared by Pelosi and the Dem leadership. That is a question of politik. That requires a consideration of timing, status of subpoenas, etc. etc. see my last comment.

Fyi: in 2000, Dems picked up a net 4 seats in the senate. Republicans lost 2 in the house, one going to Dems and one independent.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

55 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Are you kidding?  Trump is a walking, talking smoking gun.

That said, you are missing the broader point.  I agree that it's probably too late to get him out of office via Impeachment.   But, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be impeachment hearings. 

Impeachment is as much about perception, as anything else.  I'm tired of the Dems playing nice only to have their teeth kicked in by the GOP.

The vast majority of Americans are not as politically engaged as we are.  The Dems need to shove Trump and Company's in their faces every night on TV and every day in the papers.  Make it almost impossible to ignore how awful Trump has been for the country and our allies and how corrupt he is. If not, all people will remember is that he said he was cleared of all wrong doing and assume he's telling the truth because the Dems would have impeached him if it wasn't true.

His stink needs to hang like a pall over his enablers so that they too are voted out of office.

Not sure how old you are, so I don't mean this in a condescending way, but after the Starr report came out only 30% of the country supported impeachment.  Once the proceedings began and it was blasted on the news 24/7, that number rose to 50%. 

Clinton was not convicted either, but the damage was done.  In the 2000 election, the GOP gained 8 seats in the house and 1 in the Senate...hell, it probably cost Gore election based on his popularity before the impeachment.

 

Also you only copied half of the clause from my comment. That doesn’t seem to be in good faith. 

[triplehorn 2664]

Dems are getting their ducks in a row for impeachment.  Anyone not seeing that isn't paying attention.  No matter what the House does re impeachment in 2019, GOP can play rope-a-dope re their own complicity with Trump. But the odds of that gamble paying off tank beginning next Spring and Summer.  It will simply not be enough time for the GOP to change the subject and expect the public to move on or forget. 

Pelosi gets this.  House Dems are organized around this and support this approach.