Pelosi: Trump’s not worth impeaching

WaPo Mag just published an interview with Speaker Pelosi. Here’s one snippet that is sure to get a lot of attention:

There have been increasing calls, including from some of your members, for impeachment of the president.

I’m not for impeachment. This is news. I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.

IIRC, Pelosi had said before that it didn’t make sense to talk about impeachment until the Mueller report comes out. What changed, if anything? Does she know something about the Mueller report, such as that it is going to be withheld from the public or that it doesn’t contain enough clear-cut evidence of the Trump campaign’s conspiracy with Russia to make a convincing case for impeachment?

Is she just facing the political reality that the GOP will carry Trump’s water no matter what the report says? Are the obstructions of justice that have taken place in public just not worth the hassle since the Republicans will never put country before party?

Many Democrats who know that to be true still believe that impeachment proceedings are valuable because the hearings would dominate news coverage and ensure that even folks who don’t follow politics hear the allegations of misconduct and evidence that supports it. There’s some merit to that argument, but taking impeachment off the table (with the caveats Pelosi expressed) doesn’t put a halt to Congressional investigations in any case.

Pelosi is an incredibly skilled politician. Maybe this is how she preempts Republican talking points about “overturning an election” and the metastasizing media narrative about “Democratic overreach” — all without actually changing anything. The hearings will continue, Trump’s corruption and obstruction will be exposed (albeit in a less blockbuster setting), but Trump and his enablers’ whining about impeachment will sound like, well, whining since the Speaker said Trump isn’t worth impeaching.

FWIW, Mayor Pete Buttigieg had a similar take on impeaching Trump during yesterday’s CNN town hall. Here’s the YouTube of the whole thing, which is well worth watching in its entirety — he’s an incredibly impressive candidate, IMO. His comments on impeaching Trump are at about the 33:00 mark.

Buttigieg says, “I would like to see this president and the style of politics he represents sent off through the electoral process — decisively defeated at the ballot box.”

I get that. But losing an election, even in a landslide (which likely won’t happen due to polarization) isn’t enough of a rebuke considering the gravity of Trump’s conduct. He’ll have lowered the bar permanently. What say you?

208 replies
  1. 1
    VeniceRiley says:

    I agree with you. We cannot afford to normalize this behavior. There must be severe consequences.

  2. 2
    jeffreyw says:

    Beat him at the polls and then put him on trial.

  3. 3
    Jeffro says:

    I think Democrats in Congress are completely abdicating their duties/oaths if they find evidence that the president* committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

    I get that they do not want to help Trumpov rally the troops, but come on. They have a duty to their constituents and country here. Let the election take care of itself. Follow the facts…and the Constitution..,without fear, favor, or how the ‘BothSides’ media will spin it.

  4. 4

    One of the things I would argue Democrats SHOULD be campaigning on is not the impeachment of trump but his repudiation. not just defeating him in 2020 but also securing majority control in Congress both House and Senate… and then passing legislation enforcing stricter ethics laws against every illegal thing trump has done – from violating Emoluments clause to his constant lying – with the kind of teeth that would automatically punish any SOB who tries to govern like trump or any Republican again. Better still, try to get full control of 38 states and force a Constitutional convention to pass amendments that no future Republican Congress or Supreme Court can overturn. It’s harder to achieve but doable… and as of today it’s a goddamn moral imperative.

    IMHO all impeachment will do is embolden Republicans into attacking the next Democratic President with the same BS they did with Clinton and Obama, and then when they regain control of the White House to commit the same crimes as Dubya and trump again. We’ve got to make sure that future never happens

  5. 5
    brantl says:

    Nobody has lowered the bar more than Richard M. Nixon, who, according to Gerald R. Ford ( the R stands for ratfvkr), “suffered enough”, so that he shouldn’t go to jail. Thats where all this bullshyt started. If that SOB had gotten jail time, we might live in a very different country.

  6. 6
    JPL says:

    HE’S NOT WORTH IT.. because he’s scum.

  7. 7
    Johnny Gentle (famous crooner) says:

    I’m fully aware of all the practical reasons impeachment would never happen and why it could be counterproductive to start casually throwing it around. But really, how hard would’ve been to just say they’ll wait and see what the Mueller report says?

    When would impeaching the president of the United States ever NOT be divisive? Hell, Trump could be caught red-handed molesting little boys and 40% of the country would just insist the fake-news media and deep state hired crisis actors to fabricate videos. That’s just what this country is now. It doesn’t mean the rule of law has been suspended.

    Also, I agree that Buttigieg has been really impressive so far.

  8. 8
    MJS says:

    Impeach if evidence supports anything that represents “high crimes and misdemeanors”, and we already know that to be the case. So, impeach. To do otherwise implies that the actions are legal. I’m not sure what Nancy’s thinking, and that’s probably because she’s significantly smarter than me, but I don’t want that fucker to be able to say on the campaign trail, “I wasn’t impeached, so all the investigations and hearings were just to embarrass and harass me.”

  9. 9
    VeniceRiley says:

    All the republicans: “it’s not our fault. Even Nancy wouldn’t impeach!”

  10. 10
    Aleta says:

    Purely speculative:

    Does she know/believe there’s evidence to indict him before he’s out of office, or soon after, so why go through impeachment?

    Does she believe a fight over impeachment might weaken Democratic strength in 2020 races? Divert energy that’s needed to focus on retaking the Senate? Take up time that some Dems in Congress need to retain their seats?

  11. 11
    narya says:

    Is it possible that she’s saying this to defuse a talking point now–and then if there is a ton of evidence and a popular call for it, she can say, well, the people are speaking? Because that would be politically adept.

  12. 12
    Aleta says:

    @narya: That’s a good point.

  13. 13

    @jeffreyw: Yes. Exactly. Vote him out and then prosecute the hell out of him when he has fewer protections. Also, let’s see what happens with the various investigations. Things can change.

    OT: I blogged about whether YA writers should be sending their readers a “good message.” My answer? Don’t make me puke.

  14. 14
    trollhattan says:

    Of two thoughts:
    -Knows there is no chance of sending an impeachment to the Senate without then watching it just die (even if the Senate happens to be in Reno).
    -Awaiting a MuellerBomb that not even the Senate can brush aside.

    Our Nancy is smart. I trust our Nancy.

  15. 15
    Baud says:

    @narya: That’s my thought. It doesn’t help impeachment if it looks like we are prejudging the facts.

  16. 16
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Johnny Gentle (famous crooner): Buttigieg is Obama-level impressive, IMO, and I don’t say that lightly; Obama was the first primary candidate I ever supported who won the Democratic Party nomination. I doubt very much Buttigieg will win the nomination this time around, but he’s definitely one to watch.

  17. 17
    Baud says:

    @Dorothy A. Winsor: Yes, I prefer indictment to impeachment if we have to choose.

  18. 18
    ruemara says:

    Some people like to react to words and not understand the strategy. Do you really expect her to say yes, getting him is our #1 priority? If you do, I have some land to sell you.

  19. 19
    mrmoshpotato says:

    @trollhattan:

    Our Nancy is smart. I trust our Nancy.

    She knows when to SMASH and when not to SMASH.

  20. 20
    Cameron Ramey says:

    If Trump is “not worth impeaching” we may as well just toss out the constitution now.

  21. 21
    Martin says:

    Cohen is what’s changed. We’ve heard countless reports that many in the GOP want the courts to strike down his emergency declaration because they don’t have the courage to do it. They’re signaling how weak they are.

    Nancy has their nuts in a vice, and she knows it. The GOP want the Dems to impeach because it gives them something to campaign on. Take that off the table, and they have to own Trumps actions, or they have to stand up to them. Nancy wins either way.

    Cohen was incredibly damaging. Not only has he thrown a pile of things into public view, we’ve got insiders now scrambling to protect their own reputation. It’s just going to continue to unwind around Trump. The GOP has to demand impeachment – particularly GOP Senators. Dems won’t do it for them, nor does it seem they need to. The only thing they really can’t stop are court appointments, but the house investigations look like they will work sufficiently well to substitute for an impeachment trial.

  22. 22
    cokane says:

    Impeachment isnt a case you’re going to win, so I’m not sure how starting the process with what we know right now adds up to a “rebuke” of Trump. If anything, when the Senate fails to convict him (needs a 2/3 majority) the headlines will read as the opposite of a rebuke. If you know of a way to get 20 or Republican Senators to vote yes, then by all means, let us know. Until then, I’d trust Pelosi’s instincts.

    Moreover, the House has plenty of means of investigating Trump in the meantime. That’s only just started with the Cohen testimony last week. Have some faith in that.

  23. 23
    Eolirin says:

    Yeah, Pelosi can count. She’s basically saying, I’m not going to start that process unless I’m sure we can actually remove him from office. Given that they can, and are, and will continue, to hold hearings, this is smart enough. Trying to Impeach and failing to convict isn’t going to achieve much, and everything will get out there regardless.

  24. 24
    laura says:

    I wish her statement would have been a lot more full throated – and called out McConnell for the glaring reality of impeachment – the failure/refusal of the Senate to remove the President if impeached. Then wed have what we currently have – a criminal con artist media spectacle serial grifter sex pest traitorous foreign asset imbecile who’d use the impeachment w/o removal as the basis for a reelection campaign.
    I’m going to give the Speaker the benefit of the doubt that she’s done the political calculus and believes that unless the investigations result in bipartisan horror and disgust, it would come at a cost so high and risk losing the 2020 election.
    I agree that he and his adult children should be investigated and prosecuted for every skeezy crime they can be charged with.
    The infotainment industry may continue to provide favorable or bothsiderist coverage but I have to hope that multiple writers will cover every angle of this great American tragedy.

  25. 25
    NotMax says:

    This is very different – and carefully worded – phrasing, moving a sizeable step away from “impeachment is off the table.”

  26. 26
    Litlebritdifrnt says:

    @trollhattan: She is smart. Once Twitler sees and digests this he is going to be Tweeting “I am too worth impeaching, I demand that the democrats impeach me”. Count on it.

  27. 27
    dm says:

    Having the House vote to impeach then having the Senate acquit Trump would probably be worse than just making him un-electable through investigation and normal politics.

    If investigations make him so politically toxic that the Senate is likely to convict him, then Pelosi is perfectly capable of reading the tea-leaves and changing her mind.

  28. 28
    David 🎅🎄Merry Christmas🎄🎅 Koch says:

    Jiu Jitsu

    Now that Nancy is against impeachment, the wingnut sheeple will automatically support impeachment.

    Cleek’s Law

  29. 29
    Emerald says:

    @brantl:

    If that SOB had gotten jail time, we might live in a very different country.

    Agree completely. At the time I agreed with the pardon, and so, eventually, did the Kennedy Center–they gave Ford their Profile in Courage award for it.

    We were wrong. If Nixon had gone to jail most of this wouldn’t be happening now. I doubt that Reagan would have tried half the crap he got away with, or Bush/Cheney. Iran-Contra either wouldn’t have happened or it would have resulted in the end of his presidency. Would there have been an Iraq war at all?

    That’s another reason the handslap Manafort got last week is crucially important. Because of that, bastards the future will think they can get away with shit, and they’ll probably be right.

  30. 30

    I sincerely hope Nancy is playing rope-a-dope, and I understand the strategic reasons for doing so.

    But it’s still disheartening to hear the words when Trump continues to actively hurt people — such as kicking trans people out of the military (which cleared the last court challenge on Friday).

  31. 31

    The man should be indicted and spend his last days behind bars. Impeachment is just firing him from a job he hates anyway. Fire him in 2020 at the polls, then jail his ass.

  32. 32
    Eolirin says:

    @dm: She’s already telegraphing that she’s in favor of impeachment if it can get through the Senate. She wouldn’t even be changing her position. At all.

  33. 33
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Betty Cracker: I do hope he goes on to higher office. Sounds like he’s one of the good ones.

  34. 34
    WaterGirl says:

    @jeffreyw: If we shorten that just a tiny bit, it could fit on a bumper sticker:

    Beat him at the polls & put him on trial.

  35. 35

    Accountability (like it or not) is over. The real reason Trump “isn’t worth impeaching”(*) is the Nixon pardon.

    (*) Your take, and a very interesting one, but not, I think, what the Speaker said.

  36. 36
    zhena gogolia says:

    @ruemara:

    That was my reaction.

  37. 37
    LongHairedWeirdo says:

    “Let’s not be divisive” is dumb, dumb, dumb, *unless* it’s over a crime with no good soundbite.

    You *MUST* be divisive on big, important issues. There are times when you can’t – “Partial Birth Abortion” was a cunning ploy because it was such an easy sound bite, and it was important to fight against it, but you *couldn’t* sound bite it in today’s politics.

    If Trump clearly obstructed justice, and clearly colluded with the Russians, and clearly self-enriched himself, and the Republicans still want to carry his water, that is the time you *must* be divisive. You have to take a stand, otherwise, Republicans will know they can literally get away with *ANYTHING*.

    George W. showed they can lie us into war, and torture, and assassinate, and they’ll get away with it cleanly.
    If Trump shows the Democrats are still spineless, with clearly provable crimes, why would the Republicans care, ever again, about what horrors they rain upon the nation with their next doPresident.)

  38. 38
    Aleta says:

    If impeached, Pence is in, and off and running for 2020. Imo there has not been near enough scrutiny of (attacks on and links to) Pence.

    Although yesterday in the Guardian:

    Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg said on Sunday night he and Vice-President Mike Pence have different views of their Christian faith and he does not understand Pence’s loyalty to Donald Trump.

    The mayor of South Bend, Indiana, said his feeling “is that the scripture is about protecting the stranger, the prisoner, the poor person, and that idea of welcome. That’s what I get in the Gospel when I’m in church.”

    He said Pence’s view “has a lot more to do with sexuality, a certain view of rectitude”.

    Buttigieg said he was puzzled by such strong support for the president from Pence, a former governor of his state.

    “How could Pence allow himself to become the cheerleader of the porn star presidency?” and added, “Is it that he stopped believing in scripture, when he started believing in Donald Trump? I don’t know. I don’t know.”

    Buttigieg, who is gay, made the comments at a CNN town hall in Austin, Texas. The remark was greeted with applause.

  39. 39
  40. 40

    I trust Nancy Pelosi’s political skills and judgment.

  41. 41
    sdhays says:

    … unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan…

    This is the money quote. I think there’s probably a lot going on here. I think she doesn’t want to relieve pressure on the DOJ to indict the ASSet just because they assume the Democrats are going to impeach him and they can let it be Congress’ problem. I also think she wants to deflate accusations that Democrats have predetermined the outcomes of their investigations. The endgame isn’t impeachment, but she’s not taking impeachment off the table. Better to be dragged into it by the public evidence.

    She’s taking the wind out of the sails of Trump’s defenders saying that the Democrats are out to impeach him because they hate him. She wants the hearings to continue with the assumption that Democrats aren’t looking to

  42. 42
    Martin says:

    @Sister Golden Bear: Remember, the House finds him guilty, but the Senate sentences. Only the Senate can remove him from office. If you are disappointed that Trump is still in office, channel that directly at McConnell.

  43. 43
    WaterGirl says:

    @Betty Cracker: I have heard Pete Buttigieg twice now, once on Preet’s podcast and once on Pod Save America. Impressive both times.

    Last night I heard Corey Booker on one of the late night shows and I was seriously unimpressed. You just never know until you actually listen to someone. It all sounded like bullshit to me.

  44. 44
    CarolDuhart2 says:

    Also, I think a failed impeachment would end the investigations altogether. It would be hard to continue anything after the inevitable Senate acquittal. Even those cases that don’t involve Trump directly would be considered “tainted” by the publicity surrounding the acquittal. So simply continue the oversight, investigations, and let the states also do their work.

    Remember the “immunity” is only involving Trump as long as he’s President. Everybody else is just a citizen. Keep it going and investigate and indict the rest of the crew, and continue unearthing the Trump crime family.

  45. 45

    @Aleta: Also, Pence could pardon Trump, whereas an elected D president wouldn’t do that. At least, I hope not.

  46. 46
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Litlebritdifrnt:

    She is smart. Once Twitler sees and digests this he is going to be Tweeting “I am too worth impeaching, I demand that the democrats impeach me”. Count on it.

    OK, you made me laugh for the first time today. May it be so!

  47. 47
    NotMax says:

    @Frank Wilhoit

    Pardon is not available in cases of impeachment. The articles of impeachment drawn up against Nixon passed in committee but were never voted on in the full House, he resigned before being impeached (thus remained eligible for a pardon).

  48. 48
    MattF says:

    If there was even a remote chance that impeachment would lead to conviction, I’d be for it. But there isn’t. So, I’m ‘undecided’ at best.

  49. 49
    Anonymous At Work says:

    Nancy just said that Trump’s too small to be worth the time. View this in context of all the other areas in which she is dealing with Trump and where a negative comment about his penis size will get under his skin. Getting him to throw a hissy-fit AND TAKE CREDIT FOR THE CONSEQUENCES over next year’s budget would both destroy non-MAGA’s ability to trust Trump and fracture Congressional Republicans (whose districts, on average, receive far more from the government than they pay).

  50. 50
    Mary G says:

    I trust Nancy, Adam Schiff, Elijah Cummings, Jerry Nadler, and Pete Buddigieg. Twitler earns more votes for Democrats every day and has thrown himself full body-length onto the third rail with his budget released today. She’s playing for red state Senate seats. Then shit wil get done.

  51. 51
    Doc Sardonic says:

    Think Madame Speaker just tossed out the first “one really should not drink bleach” psa’s.

  52. 52
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @Martin:

    Cohen was incredibly damaging. Not only has he thrown a pile of things into public view, we’ve got insiders now scrambling to protect their own reputation.

    It’s going to take some time to sort through all that.

    There’s also the revelations of the last few days about the chain of Florida “massage parlours/day spas” patronised by some of Trump’s business buddies and founded by a woman with ties to both the Xi and Trump administrations. She and her husband now sell access to Trump and his family. I suspect there’s much, much more to this story, but even at this point there’s human trafficking, highly compromised national security, access peddling, and yet more emoluments violations — not to mention the sleaze factor.

    We’re living in a movie with a screenplay written by Shakespeare, Le Carré, Mario Puzo, Mickey Spillane, and Krafft-Ebing.

  53. 53
    ruemara says:

    I’m gonna be blunt. All these reporters and pundits focused on the Dems conducting impeachment hearings are dense. Impeachment would not lead to criminal prosecutions. It would not pass the Republican senate. These questions are to make the impeachment process seem like a partisan tool to punish someone they don’t like. Even if he was impeached and convicted, that doesn’t lead to criminal prosecution. I have no idea why people that can be this hung up on a process don’t accept that the process itself wouldn’t lead to your desired result. I’d much rather that if he was impeached, it was an impeachment with a set of criminal charges waiting for him at the federal level. Media is creating this hangup because it’s spreading something just for clicks.

  54. 54
    zhena gogolia says:

    @Miss Bianca:

    I’m thinking of you!

  55. 55
    jeffreyw says:

    @Martin:

    Remember, the House finds him guilty, but the Senate sentences.

    I don’t think this is quite right, the house investigates and offers articles of impeachment – an indictment. House managers conduct the trial in the Senate, senators are the jury.

  56. 56
    SFAW says:

    @Martin:

    Remember, the House finds him guilty, but the Senate sentences.

    No, the House charges him, and the Senate convicts (or not).

  57. 57
    zhena gogolia says:

    @WaterGirl:

    I tried to watch a clip of Cory Booker’s appearance on Colbert, and I couldn’t stand him. He started by interrupting the first question Colbert was trying to ask him, so that he could do a canned speech about Manafort’s sentence. And even though I agreed with everything he said, he just came off as phony.

    Still for Harris.

  58. 58
    Leto says:

    @jeffreyw: @TaMara (HFG): This and this. Have him spend his “billions” on attorney fees, bleed him dry. Then send him to jail for the rest of his shelf life.

  59. 59
    cokane says:

    @NotMax: impeachment isn’t a criminal sentence that can be pardoned or commuted. it’s just removal from office. the most likely way Trump will pay a real price for crimes committed is losing the election and then being vulnerable to actual criminal prosecution, with a Democratic president so that there’s no chance of pardon/commutation.

  60. 60
    Aleta says:

    About Pence, from Chicago Trib Sept. 2018

    Pence’s former schoolmates at Hanover College recall hearing him say that God planned to make him president. At the time — the late 1970s — Pence was getting to know John Gable, a senior preparing for a lifelong career as an evangelical minister. Gable helped move Pence away from the quiet Catholicism of his family and into a conservative Protestant belief system.

    The key to understanding Pence’s version of religion lies in his favorite bit of scripture, from Jeremiah, which reads, “For I know the plans I have for you, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” This verse is now on display in the vice president’s residence. It is especially popular among Calvinists who believe that God directly orchestrates everything that happens on Earth.

    Pence believes that God has a plan for him, and if that plan requires him to temporarily abandon his principles as well as his dignity, so be it.

    Despite their vast numbers and power, many modern conservative Christians consider themselves to be oppressed like the ancient Jews. … Pence is regarded by some as a modern version of Old Testament figure, Daniel, who safeguarded his fellow Jews while functioning as counselor to another pagan ruler, Nebuchadnezzar.

    Daniel aided the Israelites by appearing to abandon his Jewishness in Nebuchadnezzar’s court. Pence, the argument goes, sets aside his moral standards to retain access to Trump. From his insider perch, he can do more good for religious conservatives than from the outside. And if he were to take that final step to the Oval Office, then the ends would justify the means.

    Certainly no one should doubt the vice president’s ambition. He has reinforced his position by seeding the administration with personal allies and building a national campaign organization. Pence, who was a champion fundraiser when he served in Congress, established his Great American political action committee five months after taking office. He was the first vice president ever to establish an independent PAC.

    By Michael D’Antonio and Peter Eisner, authors of “The Shadow President: The Truth About Mike Pence.”

  61. 61
    Miss Bianca says:

    @zhena gogolia: thank you! And all my jackal friends. You have helped me more than you can know.

  62. 62
    Ohio Mom says:

    It’s amazing how much rope we have to give Trump before he hangs himself, isn’t it? You’d think by now…but as Pelosi has just indicated, nope, not yet.

    I’m with the “vote him out first, then try him” group — as long as that is legally doable. For example, can we try him for violating the emoluments clause after he is no longer in office?

  63. 63
    rikyrah says:

    I disagree. He should be impeached. Period.
    I can’t concern myself with his loyalty cult. Phuck them.
    You impeach to lay bare all of what they have done.

  64. 64
    NotMax says:

    @NotMax

    Should add that is a reason to, once the evidence is unassailable, impeach. Should impeachment pass in the full House, Pence cannot exercise the pardon power for those counts/crimes.

    Constitution, Article II, Section 2:

    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

  65. 65
    comrade scotts agenda of rage says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    Buttigieg is Obama-level impressive, IMO, and I don’t say that lightly; Obama was the first primary candidate I ever supported who won the Democratic Party nomination. I doubt very much Buttigieg will win the nomination this time around, but he’s definitely one to watch.

    He’s damned impressive. I’m glad to see he’s getting a little more exposure of late.

  66. 66
    satby says:

    @Betty Cracker: Not a native South Bender, but he’s very, very popular here. All around decent, nice guy.

    As to your question, Pelosi is simultaneously derailing a Republican talking point while holding her options open depending on what develops with all the investigations. She’s absolutely correct to keep the focus on the election so that when he’s out of office he can get indicted, and hopefully spend the rest of his days in prison. Once that happens, the bar raises again.

  67. 67
    hells littlest angel says:

    I generally defer to the wisdom of Nancy Smash, but in this case it ain’t easy.

  68. 68
    rikyrah says:

    Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) Tweeted:
    According to reports, Trump will double down on his “economic nationalism” as basis for reelection.

    But Trump’s economic nationalist agenda has been unmasked as *both* an abject failure on multiple fronts *and* as fraudulent to its core.

    My new piece: https://t.co/d48W9UdWju https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1105112718527422465?s=17

  69. 69
    Aleta says:

    @Miss Bianca:
    ❤️ ☔️ 💚

  70. 70
    Annie says:

    What if he’s impeached and the (majority Republican) Senate acquits him? Then Trump gets to claim he was cleared. It would be a disaster.

  71. 71
    hueyplong says:

    My initial reaction is the same as narya’s. Pelosi definitely left the door open a little bit to go nuts depending on what Mueller’s final report actually says.

    And anything with any level of nuance is likely to confuse Trump, which is ok.

  72. 72

    @David 🎅🎄Merry Christmas🎄🎅 Koch: You beat me to it.
    I can hear the Foxbots screaming now: “Whattaya MEAN Trump’s not worth impeaching? Lousy Libs! Impeach him NOW11!1!1!!1”

  73. 73
    satby says:

    @comrade scotts agenda of rage: I sent him a donation just to help him meet the threshold to be at the Democratic debates. He’s worth hearing there.

  74. 74
    WaterGirl says:

    @zhena gogolia: That’s what I thought, too. Phony, with no there there. Ugh. He won’t get my vote unless he’s the nominee.

  75. 75
    Martin says:

    @SFAW: Thanks for the correction, but essentially the same difference. The point is that a successful impeachment by the House does nothing to change the situation on the ground for the people being harmed. All remedy is rendered by the Senate.

    I don’t see a problem with the House moving even if the Senate won’t because I think the investigation itself has merit and can change the political calculus a lot all by itself. But if Nancy feels that she can accomplish that through other oversight activities, then yeah, take the less politically charged route.

    Either way her message here is ‘if Republicans don’t object to this, then we must assume they condone it.’

  76. 76
    kindness says:

    Nancy is saying Mitch & Senate Republicans will cover Trump and make it ugly. Uglier to Democrats than an actual impeachment trial makes Republicans. I can see that but don’t like it. I agree Republicans will never vote to impeach a Republican. It won’t ever happen. The whole Clinton thing was a fluke because Democrats played ‘nice’ too long. Democrats aren’t playing ‘nice’ anymore thankfully.

    Can we at least throw Jared & Ivanka in prison pretty please?

  77. 77
    FlipYrWhig says:

    I don’t care for the “divisive” part. That’s too pundit-y. Like Betty and others, I prefer the Buttigieg take”: if impeachment will be covered, and treated, as a dirty trick (on LGM I recently evoked the botched Scott Walker recall as a precedent for what some *Democrats* think about using mechanisms other than outvoting your opponent in a fair fight), why not just avoid that whole stupidity [this is probably what Pelosi actually means by “divisive” but the word itself is contentless] and concentrate on landsliding his corrupt stanky ass out of office at the next election.

  78. 78
    Martin says:

    @rikyrah:

    You impeach to lay bare all of what they have done.

    But is that the only way to accomplish that? Put another way – if the only way to lay bare is to impeach, then we’re just as badly fucked.

  79. 79
    Bob Collins says:

    For all those who think the Democrats have an obligation to impeach Trump – they must do so – the only such reason is to remove Trump from office. What if impeachment (and no conviction considering the cowards in the Senate) leads to a second term? That is not at all far-fetched.

  80. 80
    lynno says:

    To Beat Trump in 2020, you got to make the GOP own him. The speaker is setting up the GOP to defend the worst of the worst from now until 11/20. That should destroy the GOP.

  81. 81
    JGabriel says:

    Nancy Pelosi via Anne Laurie @ Top:

    I’m not for impeachment. … Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.

    This is probably the right answer for the time being. It sets up an alternative narrative that if Democrats pursue impeachment, it’ll be because Trump’s crimes were so bad it forced their hand – as opposed to the Republican narrative that Democrats will impeach Trump out of vindictiveness, just because they hate him.

  82. 82
    Leto says:

    @Ohio Mom: If you’ve seen the length of his ties, you know that it’ll take quite a bit of rope. :)

  83. 83
    mrmoshpotato says:

    @CarolDuhart2: Failed impeachment or failed removal by the Senate?

  84. 84
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Miss Bianca: Just catching up with earlier threads, I see that the outcome with Luna was bad. I’m sorry for your loss. Others have said it and will say it better than I, but those animals leave a big hole in our hearts.

  85. 85
    satby says:

    @JGabriel:

    Republican narrative that Democrats will impeach Trump out of vindictiveness, just because they hate him.

    Republicans believe that because that’s why they impeached Clinton. Not because of any of the stated reasons, since most of the lead Republicans were exposed as adulterous liars themselves while they were going after Bill. Because he was popular and stood in the way of their agenda. It was an attempted coup.

  86. 86
    The Golux says:

    @Miss Bianca:

    She is smart. Once Twitler sees and digests this he is going to be Tweeting “I am too worth impeaching, I demand that the democrats impeach me”. Count on it.

    OK, you made me laugh for the first time today. May it be so!

    I’m almost certain that “not worth impeaching” was deliberate shade, and Trumplethinskin will take umbrage.

    By the way, I’ve been wondering for some time: when (praise FSM) Trump loses in 2020, what are the odds he refuses to leave office? I’d say upwards of 50%. He’ll claim the vote was rigged, launch the hashtag #OccupyWhiteHouse, and tweet defiantly from his perch on the Presidential toilet.

  87. 87
    Wapiti says:

    @Martin: Oversight investigations are merited, knowing what we know already. They lay bare his crimes just as an impeachment would, but with no timetable or end date.

  88. 88
    Gravenstone says:

    @jeffreyw: I expect there are a plethora of indictments awaiting Trump, to be served the microsecond he leaves office. By whatever means that comes about.

  89. 89
    Brachiator says:

    I’m not for impeachment. This is news. I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan

    Maybe Pelosi wants to give Trump the impression that he can relax. But if overwhelming evidence comes up, she suggests that she will follow where it leads. Impeachment City.

  90. 90
    Gin & Tonic says:

    As to the topic of the post, I’ll just have to trust Pelosi’s political acumen. Mine ain’t worth a bucket of warm shit – I still recall when I was in Europe in the summer of 2016, I was confidently telling my non-USian friends – don’t worry, there’s no way he can beat Hilary. Show how wicked smaht I am. But this is quite a cut – we can’t be bothered with you. I’m sure he’s seething.

  91. 91

    @kindness:

    Can we at least throw Jared & Ivanka in prison pretty please?

    Be still my heart.

  92. 92
    Wapiti says:

    @The Golux:

    I’ve been wondering for some time: when (praise FSM) Trump loses in 2020, what are the odds he refuses to leave office? I’d say upwards of 50%.

    I expect that when it is clear that he lost the election, the inauguration goes forward and Trump leaves the White House. He might be carried kicking and screaming, or might have to be tazed or sedated, but I have no doubt the Secret Service takes its oaths to the Constitution very seriously.

  93. 93
    cokane says:

    @satby: Republicans also impeached Clinton because they thought it would help them electorally. That it didn’t even though Clinton was literally guilty of both bad behaviors and perhaps even a technical crime (perjury), should be a lesson about its usage here.

  94. 94
    scav says:

    What I’m also liking (along with what @narya: said, it looks better to be slightly dragged to impeachment by the evidence) is this doesn’t get in the way of all the Republicans so avidly and full-throatedly binding themselves ever more tightly to an outright racist, mysogynistic and xenophopic ethos condoning all behaviors of the wealthy. That stink will cling longer-term to the entire party: Trump isn’t an aberation.

  95. 95
    Patricia Kayden says:

    I disagree with Pelosi but she knows what she’s doing. I assume she may sing a different tune if Mueller’s investigation reveals impeachable offenses which even Republicans can’t ignore. Of course, I’m naive enough to believe that there are a few Republicans who will do the right thing even though there hasn’t been much evidence of that in the last two years. Sigh.

  96. 96
    JaySinWA says:

    My hot take is this is pretty much the right thing for her to be saying right now. The mood is shifting, but not far enough yet to start impeachment. It should also grate on Trump that he isn’t worth it. Trolling, if you will.
    The ground will shift under the Republicans’ feet sharply and swiftly and then we may have an impeachment that doesn’t render the country unstable. Hopefully with a better outcome than Nixon or B. Clinton. Neither of those gave a clean and clear result. Both damaged the country. A Trump impeachment without conviction would be a disaster. A failure to get rid of his enablers will be yet another.

  97. 97
  98. 98
    MomSense says:

    We don’t have the Mueller report yet. We don’t have the votes in the Senate to convict. We haven’t had sufficient oversight hearings to bring all the dirty deeds into public awareness.

    It also seems like she is is setting up the “I really didn’t want to impeach BUT message firbwhen we finally get the results of the Mueller investigation.

    Patience.

  99. 99
    Dog Mom says:

    @Miss Bianca: I am sorry if I missed any news, but have you had any more sightings of your pup?

  100. 100
    MomSense says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    Oh no. I’m afraid to ask.

  101. 101
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @Brachiator:

    Maybe Pelosi wants to give Trump the impression that he can relax.

    I was thinking along the same lines. When Trump gets complacent he gets cocky.

  102. 102
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @MomSense: I suspect you know.

  103. 103
    MomSense says:

    @zhena gogolia:

    Team Harris all the way!

  104. 104
    debbie says:

    What changed, if anything? Does she know something about the Mueller report, such as that it is going to be withheld from the public or that it doesn’t contain enough clear-cut evidence of the Trump campaign’s conspiracy with Russia to make a convincing case for impeachment?

    She saw the Rethuglicans accidentally showing their hand: Campaign Issue Number One!

    Listen to her, people!

  105. 105
    MomSense says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    Damn. I was holding out hope for good news.

  106. 106
    raven says:

    @Dog Mom: Luna didn’t make it.

  107. 107
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Dog Mom: She is dead. I’ll probably have more to say on the topic later – this is the pets and politics blog, after all – but…right now, that’s all the news from Mt. Woebegon.

  108. 108

    I guess the bar for Impeachment is getting a BJ from an intern, anything else is OK.

  109. 109
    rikyrah says:

    These muthaphuckas 😠

    Jiggy Athilingam (@jiggy_ca) Tweeted:
    The Arizona legislature is trying to make it a crime to register voters as part of your job unless you work for a political party.

    ARIZONANS- call your state Senator and ask them to vote NO on HB 2616! Call them now!

    https://t.co/DDUYzSClr6 https://twitter.com/jiggy_ca/status/1105229501263314944?s=17

  110. 110
    Mary G says:

    Nancy tells this guy she’s giving him some news. Part of her strategy with this is to push the “Dems in disarray” stories the WaPo is so fond of putting on the front page out of the limelight for a news cycle or so.

  111. 111
    ola azul says:

    Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.

    Pelosi’s statement seems discouraging if you favor impeachment (as I do), but her qualifier is carrying Atlas-level weight.

    Expect it’s the politically astute thing to say. Quells the *only* campaign issue Republican shitheels have at the moment (“Trump is being railroaded by wild-eyed partisans! Eek!”), apart from “ripping babies from a mother’s womb!” hysterical lying, and her statement leaves the door open to impeachment should the political ground shift. Which it might.

    And tho it’s unlikely to happen, I ain’t of the opinion that a Republican Senate would *never* impeach Trump. If the Mueller Report and the House hearings/investigations are widely viewed as fair-minded and build to a revelatory critical mass of impeachable offenses, I can envision a moment in which Senate Republicans make a brutal (and long-overdue) calculation: i.e. Trump is so toxic that Republicans must get shed of him rather than continue to try to defend the indefensible. Yes, it will be a selfish and cowardly calculation, but we are talking about Republicans.

    What Pelosi is doing, imo, is putting Republicans on notice: This stupid traitorous fool is yours, all yours, you own him. If defending Twitler is how you wanna spend the ’20 campaign, that’s up to you. If you wanna put country over party for a change, we’re right here waiting.

    (Course, if it were to happen, we’ll have to listen to the likes of Bryan Williams jerking off to how Republicans are the heroes of the republic, just as they were during the Watergate era; as opposed to, you know, the last unreconstructed dead-enders to wake the fuck up or give the fuck up.)

  112. 112
    MomSense says:

    @Miss Bianca:

    ((((((((Miss Bianca))))))))

  113. 113
    Josie says:

    @WaterGirl:

    How about “Vote him out and indict him.”

  114. 114

    @Martin: No, the House indicts, the Senate tries.

  115. 115
    hilts says:

    There’s also the revelations of the last few days about the chain of Florida “massage parlours/day spas” patronised by some of Trump’s business buddies and founded by a woman with ties to both the Xi and Trump administrations. She and her husband now sell access to Trump and his family. I suspect there’s much, much more to this story, but even at this point there’s human trafficking, highly compromised national security, access peddling, and yet more emoluments violations — not to mention the sleaze factor.

    We’re living in a movie with a screenplay written by Shakespeare, Le Carré, Mario Puzo, Mickey Spillane, and Krafft-Ebing.

    @SiubhanDuinne:

    I used to like Kasie Hunt, but after last night’s Kasie DC, she’s completely shit for brains to me. On her 2 hour program, she didn’t devote a single minute to the Florida massage parlour story. Instead she opened her show with Trump’s statement to RNC donors that the Democratic Party hates Jews. How the fuck is the latest idiotic statement by Trump the lead story? She also devoted a segment to the 1st negative ad against Beto O’Rourke who hasn’t even entered the 2020 race. Kasie is a worthless fucking tool

    To your list of authors, I’d add William Gaddis, Thomas Pynchon, and Don DeLillo,

    I accept Pelosi’s position regarding impeachment. As much as I’d enjoy the humiliation of Trump being convicted by the Senate (which won’t happen), I’ll settle for the humiliation of Trump being defeated in 2020.

  116. 116
    cckids says:

    @narya:

    Is it possible that she’s saying this to defuse a talking point now–and then if there is a ton of evidence and a popular call for it, she can say, well, the people are speaking? Because that would be politically adept.

    Also, it’s hard to imagine a quote getting under DT’s skin more than the dismissive wave off of “He’s not worth it”.

  117. 117
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @Wapiti:

    I expect that when it is clear that he lost the election, the inauguration goes forward and Trump leaves the White House. He might be carried kicking and screaming, or might have to be tazed or sedated, but I have no doubt the Secret Service takes its oaths to the Constitution very seriously.

    I am remembering how fucked up the transition was when the Trumpies were coming in and everyone from the Obama admin (both political and civil service) were doing everything they could to make it as seamless and comprehensive as possible under the circumstances, just as the Bushes had done eight years earlier for the Obamas, and back pretty much through modern history. But Trump & Crew turned it into every kind of dog’s breakfast. Now imagine the level of fuckery in play* when Trumpworld does the handoff to Harris or Buttigieg or Warren or whomever.

    *(Deliberate malfeasance as well as sheer ineptitude)

  118. 118
    gene108 says:

    I don’t expect the Federal government to directly rebuke the Trump Crime Family, primarily for political reasons.

    I think it will be up to primarily NYS to take the screws to the Trump family, as that’s where he committed most of his crimes. Plus, if any of the women suing him for sexual assault or to get out of NDA’s refuse to settle and force him to be deposed and/or testify under oath, I think a lot will be revealed and maybe slip into criminal territory.

  119. 119
  120. 120
    Alternative Fax, a hip hop artist from Idaho says:

    @Miss Bianca: They leave such big paw prints on our hearts.

    My heart goes out to you. Harry doesn’t much want to eat today, and is very sulky though healthy as a horse, so I believe his does as well.

  121. 121
    C Stars says:

    @Litlebritdifrnt: Yes, and in fact, the Dems starting impeachment proceedings would be a dream for DT. I would guess he’s HOPING for it. It’d be another personality-centered circus/reality show for him to “win,” and would take the focus off his abysmal leadership, the precarious state of our economy, and his many foreign policy failures. It certainly wouldn’t win any Trump supporters over to the Dem side, and would take Dem focus away from exercising rational and informed oversight/governance about issues that are actually affecting people in real time (and also revealing themselves to anyone with a brain to be the only adults in the room on a day by day basis).

    And if Mueller comes out with damning and specific enough information that impeachment is impossible to avoid (I would bet the chances are 50/50), the GOP looks that much worse for protecting the guy for so long. A decisive electoral defeat is a thousand times more valuable than a one-sided impeachment proceeding. My preferred chronology would be 1. An incriminating and well-timed Mueller report 2. Decisive election victory for Dems 3. Indictment of Individual 1 and family members

  122. 122
    Dog Mom says:

    @Miss Bianca: Oh, so, so sorry for you. I know the helplessness and heartbreak of a lost pup. Wishing you strength and peace to get through the grief. Hoping that the time comes soon where a smile from her memory comes to you quicker than the tear to your eyes.

  123. 123

    @The Golux: He will be removed from the White House by force if necessary.

  124. 124
    rikyrah says:

    Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) Tweeted:
    Every single day Republicans wake up with a laser focus on cutting Medicare and Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for their wealthy friends.

    Today is just the only day you get to see it in one document. #TrumpBudget

    https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1105169331586035712?s=17

  125. 125
    BR says:

    I’m surprised at all the praise for Mayor Pete. Don’t get me wrong, for a mayor he’s impressive in that he speaks in complete sentences better than most national politicians, but that’s not a high bar. Maybe he has too much of a homespun (real or fake I’ll never know) Indiana affect for my taste, and I could do without the constant references to religion in contexts where they aren’t needed.

  126. 126
    JaySinWA says:

    @Litlebritdifrnt: The appropriate troll response to that demand is “You can’t make me” Trump would be furious.

  127. 127
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    The headline at Yahoo on this was “Pelosi says Trump is just not worth it” me suspects the good Speaker of the House is doing some press assisted trolling of the Comb-over in Chief and I am impressed.

  128. 128
    rikyrah says:

    Jamie Lovegrove (@jslovegrove) Tweeted:
    .@Bakari_Sellers on #SC06 plans: “With Jennifer Reed making the moves that she’s making, I think it would be political malpractice for me not to be getting prepared to run for office and run for the 6th Congressional District.”
    https://t.co/1g74ohBaEG https://twitter.com/jslovegrove/status/1105202710079512576?s=17

  129. 129
    sukabi says:

    @MJS: as he’s proven about all evidence and allegations so far impeachment or the lack of it won’t keep him from declaring his innocence. Drumpfs going to dump his delusions all over anyway.

    As for impeachment, it’s a constitutional remedy for an unfit president. If the congress won’t use the remedies prescribed by our founding document, they’ve pretty much declared it null and void.

  130. 130
    WaterGirl says:

    @Josie: Definitely shorter than “Let’s vote him out and put the fucker in jail.”

  131. 131
    rikyrah says:

    Hmmmm 🤔🤔

    Lawrence O’Donnell (@Lawrence) Tweeted:
    Important question just raised by former Fox reporter’s lawyer with @AriMelber: did Rupert Murdoch make an illegal contribution to Trump campaign by killing @StormyDaniels story at Fox before election? https://twitter.com/Lawrence/status/1105235790827868160?s=17

  132. 132
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @rikyrah:

    That was lovely. Glad for a happy ending.

    It reminded me of this.

  133. 133
    debbie says:

    @hilts:

    In terms of the level of absurd, I would add Vonnegut.

  134. 134
  135. 135
    BobS says:

    I don’t think the US I see when I look around me would elect an openly gay president in 2020 (particularly a gay guy with a husband). Also, despite his impressive CV, I don’t think mayor of South Bend has enough cache. However, Buttigieg is pretty young- barely old enough to meet the legal requirement to run for president, in fact. He’d be an excellent choice as the vp for any of the other better known candidates (like Warren or Harris- please, no Joe Biden), and by 2028 (when I think/hope the US has become more accepting) he’d still only be 45.

  136. 136
    NeenerNeener says:

    @Miss Bianca: I’m so sorry.

  137. 137
    cwmoss says:

    @SFAW: And these terms, impeachment by the House, conviction by the Senate, are part of a process whose constitutional purpose is removal from office before the end of the term. It is not a process for imposing criminal liability.

  138. 138
    Miss Bianca says:

    @rikyrah: awww…that was sweet.

  139. 139
    debbie says:

    @rikyrah:

    He didn’t want to say goodbye!

  140. 140
    Mary G says:

    @Miss Bianca: RIP Luna. {{{Miss Bianca}}}.

  141. 141
    No One of Consequence says:

    Reading this from Speaker Pelosi raises my blood pressure. What-in-the-ever-loving-FUCK does it take to get some check on Presidential Abuses and Misuses of the law, the Constitution, etc. ?

    Looking forward normalizes the behavior. We need collective pain as a nation to heal. Pain for the Pubs who realize they have no moral compass, anchor or vessel anymore. Pain for the Dems who realize that Purity Police leads to Republican control.

    I just cannot fucking believe that this is a thing. That this came out of Pelosi’s mouth. That she and Obama should not have pursued Truth and Reconcilliation of W and Darth Cheney and their cast of Merry Murderers.

    What’s it gonna take NancySmash?! Fine, you in the big-girl pants can rule over the ashes. If we don’t self-correct, someone else is going to do it for us, and we won’t like the circumstances.

    When right, to be kept right. And When wrong, to be PUT right.

    Meaning Right in the honorable sense, not Right in the political sense.

    Fuck sake dems. These fuckers are stealing everything that isn’t nailed down. They stole a fucking SUPREME COURT SEAT FROM US!!!!! No, no Nancy, I’m sure they straighten up and play nice any day now…

    NAIL THEIR FUCKING HIDES TO THE WALL. SALT THEIR CARCASSES. MAKE EXAMPLES SO THAT OTHER SHIFTY FUCKERS WILL THINK TWICE OR THRICE.

    Sick to death of looking forward. Payback. Vengence. Pounds of flesh.

    Contrition will not be sufficient. Remorse will not be sufficient. Amends will not be sufficient.

    Pain.

    Only enduring PAIN will change the requisite minds. I could give a flying fuck about their hearts. May God have Mercy on their Souls (whatever is left of them)…

    So pissed,

    NOoC

  142. 142
    hueyplong says:

    @Miss Bianca: Very sorry to hear the sad news about your pet.

  143. 143
    janesays says:

    I look at it from a pragmatic standpoint… the odds of Trump being actually removed from office via an impeachment process are about the same as the odds of any of us winning the lottery – next to nil. I cannot imagine there will ever be enough compelling evidence to convince 20 Republican U.S. senators to vote for his removal, which is the bare minimum that would be required (assuming every Democrat including Manchin votes guilty). So any talk of impeaching Mr. Trump has to be tempered by the political reality that at the end of the process, he is almost certainly going to still be the president.

    Therefore, the bar for when it is the right time to impeach the MFer is whenever the political cost to Republicans for exonerating him in a senate trial exceeds the political cost to Democrats for overseeing an extremely divisive process that ultimately results in his exoneration. I don’t think we’re at the point where Republicans will be hurt more than Democrats by such an outcome yet. If the Democrats began impeachment today, the best case scenario is the House voting for impeachment on almost unanimous party lines, and the Senate voting for exoneration with every Republican voting “not guilty” and possibly one or two Democrats as well. Trump declares victory, the American public gets annoyed at Democrats for wasting everyone’s time, and Trump’s re-election suddenly becomes a lot more likely.

  144. 144
    mrmoshpotato says:

    @rikyrah: Wow. I guess the label field was too short for something even more misogynistic and degrading.

  145. 145
    ruemara says:

    @rikyrah: I’m blocked – no idea why – can you tell us what’s the issue?

    @No One of Consequence: Impeachment won’t cause pain, will fail in the Senate and then give the GOP the ability to say he was tried and acquitted, this proves the Democrats have no case and perverted powers of government for partisan reasons. Just saying.

  146. 146
    Captain C says:

    @satby: I also suspect that most of the impeachment-crazy Rethugs thought that they should be the ones getting their nobs polished by an intern in the Oval Office, not a Democratic usurper (by definition all Dems are usurpers to such creeps).

  147. 147
    janesays says:

    @Aleta: Trump won’t be removed by the Senate, so it’s a moot point. If he’s impeached right now in the House, he’ll just be exonerated in the Senate, declare victory, and the Democrats will get accused of wasting everyone’s time.

  148. 148
    janesays says:

    @The Golux: And then he will be forcibly removed from the Executive Residence at 12pm on January 20, 2021 by the Secret Service.

  149. 149
    NotMax says:

    @ruemara

    Six of one, half dozen of the other. Not exploring impeachment will also be spun as “the Democrats have no case.”

  150. 150
  151. 151
    mike in dc says:

    I like the idea of beating him decisively in 2020, then letting the indictments flow like a mighty stream in 2021. BUT if Mueller proves or shows full conspiracy with Russia, fuck it, we go in guns blazing and impeach the muthaphucka. Let Mitch go into his reelection campaign defending treason every damn day.

  152. 152

    @janesays:

    I cannot imagine there will ever be enough compelling evidence to convince 20 Republican U.S. senators to vote for his removal

    To paraphrase LBJ, “Make them own it”. If conduct by a President arises to the level of impeachable offences, the House has a duty to impeach. They should not base the odds of a Senate conviction dictate their actions, they’re co-equal to the Senate.

  153. 153
    ruemara says:

    @NotMax: Nah. Sorry, very much disagree.

    @mrmoshpotato: Ah, saw that. whelp.

  154. 154
    BobS says:

    @No One of Consequence: The Democrats can impeach, but there’s no way this Senate is going to convict, despite my own feeling the guy belongs in Guantanamo. It has the risk of making Trump a sympathetic figure to some (or just convince them it’s more business as usual), and also of putting his base in a combative mode. On the other hand, the death of a thousand cuts that investigations represent leading into November 2020 will serve as a constant irritant to him, a constant reminder to the dumb-fuck “undecideds” that he’s a criminal, and, hopefully, something of a demoralizer to his base.

  155. 155
    SenyorDave says:

    I can understand why it might not make sense to impeach Trump unless you have something incredibly damning. What I don’t understand is why that had to be said in an interview.

  156. 156
    janesays says:

    @Martin: That’s not quite accurate… the House finds that there is enough evidence available to warrant a trial, and the Senate decides if the evidence is substantial enough to prove his guilt.

    It’s akin to criminal proceedings in this way. Think of the House as being roughly equivalent to a Grand Jury – they are presented with a bunch of evidence and must decide if the evidence warrants an indictment. In this case, an impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment. It’s not a definitive declaration of guilt, but rather a conclusion that there is enough evidence available to suggest that the subject of the indictment/impeachment may be guilty of the crimes for which they are being accused.

    The Senate is therefore roughly equivalent to a Petit Jury. An actual trial is held in which the prosecution (Democratic House members) present their case, and the impeached (indicted) party is allowed to present a defense. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the hearings, and the 100 U.S. senators act as jurors, and 2/3 of them (67) must agree that the impeached party is guilty of at least one of the crimes for which they have been accused in order for them to be removed from office.

  157. 157
  158. 158
    Doug R says:

    @narya:

    Is it possible that she’s saying this to defuse a talking point now–and then if there is a ton of evidence and a popular call for it, she can say, well, the people are speaking? Because that would be politically adept.

    Yup. We’ve got 64% think trump committed crimes BEFORE he was elected, so something has soaked in. But only 40% or so support impeachment RIGHT NOW.
    So we run investigations with open and closed testimony and let the evidence pile up and eventually the will will be there or we’ll be at 2020 already and we can trample the trump humpers at the ballot box, just like 2018.

  159. 159
    Sally says:

    @No One of Consequence:
    I agree with this post. It is very frustrating to read that the Dems do not want to pursue impeachment. I mean, the reason Trump is under investigation in the first place is because he and his campaign are suspected of “colluding” to win the election. Which if proven, would make him illegitimate. So what am I missing?

  160. 160
    GxB says:

    @No One of Consequence: You sir/madam are my own personal Luther the anger translator. I do not disagree with a single point you make. I believe that drastic action had to be taken years ago, and our procrastination only radicalizes the steps we *will* have to take when it all unarguably hits the fan.

    I’m also old, and know how this shit works. I hope Pelosi is actively grooming several YOUNG leaders (the younger the better) to take up the mantle of leadership and very soon. We are however in a very precarious place right now, and I’d rather have an old salt at the helm, not that we have much choice.

    Alternately look up TBogg’s “Your ‘Free Mumia!’ shirt won’t get you into Heaven” essay. I’m not belittling you, I just think about it every time I feel my composure slipping over this trash fire that is our country and its politics.

  161. 161
    No One of Consequence says:

    My apologies Juicers, I was apoplectic about that same damn line seemingly being fed us again, look forward bullshit.

    Nancy may very well be playing the OrangeTurd. Hope so. I still want pain. But allow me to clarify:

    Impeachment is not feasible with our current knowledge of the totality of the situation, i.e. the Full Monty Report from Mueller. It is also not possible with our current understanding of the state of the Republican Party and the Senate. Impeachment is not possible without a significant number of Republican Senators remembering and honoring their oath to the Constitution. Some might eventually, if they get shamed into it. The Turtle will attempt to shepherd the lizards, but maybe some will break free. If not, burn the whole thing down around their heads.

    McConnell and Ryan had knowledge of what was afoot, if not incriminating knowledge or a hand in the handling of said knowledge.

    HOWEVER: Pain is still *very* much possible in discovery. Pain is still very much possible in the SDNY. Pain is still very much possible in all of the oversight that can be done in the House. Pain is most decidedly possible post-OrangePhuck’s-occupation.

    What I do NOT WANT: a pass. Soft, hard, semi, demi, or otherwise.

    I want:
    Full accounting.
    Full accountability.
    Full measure of history.
    Full measure of consequences.
    Consequences to be shared from the Rancid Potato on down to EVERY SWINE WHO WAS COMPLICIT IN THIS WHOLE thing.

    Tangentally.

    Remotely.

    Everyone.

    – NOoC

  162. 162
    NotoriousJRT says:

    impeach verb
    im·​peach | \ im-ˈpēch \
    impeached; impeaching; impeaches
    Definition of impeach (Entry 1 of 2)
    transitive verb
    1a : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor
    specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
    b : to remove from office especially for misconduct
    c : to bring an accusation against
    2 : to cast doubt on
    especially : to challenge the credibility or validity of
    impeach the testimony of a witness

    I think Nancy is looking to definition #2 and committee hearings to see if definition #1 can be made politically feasible. GOP butt hurt over the Nixon resignation has been exceptionally long-lived. You go for the king to take him down, not to send a message. I sincerely hope that voters in 2020 bury Trump, Trumpists, and all his peripheral enablers. An electoral thrashing is the best way to end this, IMO – even though I think Trump’s actions rise to the high crimes level.

  163. 163
  164. 164
    janesays says:

    @No One of Consequence: OK, so let’s say you get your wish, Pelosi leads an impeachment proceeding right now, he gets impeached in the House and then he gets exonerated in the Senate.

    He declares victory after his exoneration, Democrats are painted as vindictive partisans who just wasted the country’s time, and he coasts to re-election in 2020.

    How is that a better outcome?

  165. 165
    Chris Johnson says:

    @mike in dc: If we find total conspiracy with Russia on the behalf of all the Republicans and Trump and Manafort and Cohen and Pence and McConnell and everyfuckingbody else, Pelosi will be right.

    Because all our norms and expectations are shit and ashes at that stage (and I think we’re at that stage) and there’s no going back through the looking glass. It’s like trying to unpickle a pickle. It’s too late. It’s been too late for a long time now. It is USELESS and meaningless to remove Trump when the Republicans and half the country are compromised. Just take a moment to consider that Pence is the Russian puppet who is NOT such a complete garbage person that we’ve exposed everything about him. He’s a different kind of garbage person and has maintained the appearance of innocence, and the dude is completely owned. We don’t want him to be President. He would have slightly more cooperation from other parts of government that he doesn’t in the least deserve, and he would be able to play innocent and cause some of the shitstorm to subside.

    There is NOTHING LEFT of the world we once thought we had. No sense doing things that will give the appearance of a return to normalcy. There’s no going back from what happened.

  166. 166
    janesays says:

    @🐾BillinGlendaleCA: Sure, but “making them own it” AT THIS POINT will not hurt them as much politically as it will hurt Democrats. Trump is a wildly unpopular president, but public support for impeachment is still not yet at a majority. If more than half the country doesn’t think he should be impeached at this point, but the Democrats do it anyway and it ends with his exoneration in the Senate, which party do you think is going to suffer more in the court of public opinion at the end of it?

    Impeachment won’t be a good idea until the evidence is so overwhelming that a solid majority of the country supports it and Republicans will have to suffer actual political consequences for his exoneration by “making them own it”. We ain’t at that point yet. We may very well get there eventually – especially after the Mueller Report is released (assuming it is released) – but we ain’t there yet.

  167. 167
    Johnny Gentle (famous crooner) says:

    @Betty Cracker: Betty, Buttigieg’s problem is similar to Beto’s. If he doesn’t win the nomination or get appointed to some other federal position, he has little room to grow within his own state.

    It’s highly unlikely Indiana would ever lean blue enough to elect him to a statewide office of major prominence like Governor or Senator. Maybe with a wave at his back he could knock off Jackie Walorski in Indiana’s 2nd district, home of South Bend. But that would make him just another representative among a sea of promising up-and-comers. So what does he do next?

  168. 168
    janesays says:

    @Sally: I don’t think it’s true that the Democrats don’t want to pursue impeachment – I think that Nancy Pelosi has wisely calculated that pursuing impeachment RIGHT NOW will almost certainly backfire in a way that benefits Trump.

    I don’t think impeachment is off the table. It’s just been put to the side for the time being until there is enough political capital available to make it a worthwhile pursuit (ie one that will either result in his conviction in the Senate or massive political blowback to the Republicans for failing to convict him in the Senate).

  169. 169
    janesays says:

    @Johnny Gentle (famous crooner): I don’t think that’s entirely true, because unlike Indiana, I think Texas is trending purple. That’s a state that may well be in play in presidential elections in another few cycles.

  170. 170
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Johnny Gentle (famous crooner): Great question — wish I knew the answer! Indiana did vote for Obama in 2008, so maybe Mayor Pete could be elected governor if conditions were exactly right. Or maybe the 2020 Dem nominee picks him for VP or a cabinet position. I don’t know. He’s a rare talent, though, so I hope he has a high-profile future in the party.

  171. 171
    brantl says:

    @NotMax: the pardon wasn’t about impeachment, He would have been impeached for the intention to commit, and complicity in, felonies. The pardons were for the crimes themselves. it was about FELONIES.

  172. 172
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @janesays:

    Impeachment won’t be a good idea until the evidence is so overwhelming that a solid majority of the country supports it and Republicans will have to suffer actual political consequences for his exoneration by “making them own it”. We ain’t at that point yet. We may very well get there eventually – especially after the Mueller Report is released (assuming it is released) – but we ain’t there yet.

    Except there is a version of the Uncertainty Principle at work. By pooh pooing impeachment as not worth it, Pelosi ensures those numbers stay low. Would it have been that hard just to keep her fucking mouth shut? She volunteered this statement gratuitously.

  173. 173
    NotMax says:

    @brantl

    You’re missing the point, which is that the crimes would have become exempt from pardon had he been impeached.

  174. 174
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @SenyorDave: this. A thousand times this.

  175. 175
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    on LGM I recently evoked the botched Scott Walker recall as a precedent for what some *Democrats* think about using mechanisms other than outvoting your opponent in a fair fight

    I’ve talked about that here on B-J, Activists burned themselves out and burned through cash that would have been better spent on the following year’s election.

    Not impeaching does not mean letting Trump get away with everything. Beat his ass at the polls and then indict, convict, and imprison the fucker.

  176. 176
    Jinchi says:

    Donald Trump pretty clearly conspired with a foreign enemy to attack this country’s political system. Since he’s been in office he has worked as a foreign agent to destroy the State Department, the Justice Department our intelligence agencies and our international alliances, all while taking bribes from anyone would could smuggle the money through 3rd party money launderers.

    That is not a political problem. It’s as close to the definition of treason as would have been recognized by anyone, in any nation, since nation-states were first formed.

    The solution to that isn’t “defeat him soundly at the ballot box”, that’s what we do against a normal opponent. The nation should have entrenched safeguards defending it against his conduct.

    The Justice Department has shrugged off it’s responsibility with the nonsense about not indicting a sitting president, claiming that this is a political problem. The Republican majority abandoned oversight, capitulated to every whim and rubber stamped every nominee. Now Pelosi decides “He’s not worth it”. WTF does that even mean?

    I understand that she doesn’t have the votes in the Senate to successfully remove him from office and would rather spend her time focusing on things that can be accomplished. I’d have been fine with her stating that simple fact. But her comment, together with the actions of Justice and the Republicans, have underlined clearly that the President can violate the law on a whim and get away with it, because no-one will attempt to stop him.

  177. 177
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @NotMax:

    You’re missing the point, which is that the crimes would have become exempt from pardon had he been impeached.

    I think you have it backwards.

    1. In the ordinary state of affairs, presidents are immune from prosecution, under DOJ policy and the prevailing view on constitutional law of almost everyone before Trump was elected, excepting Ken Starr (and that was transparently litigation-driven and not an argument made in good faith). [Edited for clarity]
    2. Impeachment AND REMOVAL removes immunity, making the former president prosecutable. No one seriously disputes this, though the Federalist Society lawyers may concoct something in the event Trump is removed. (Some would argue impeachment is unnecessary and a president can always be prosecuted. There is no controlling authority directly on point, but I think that argument is weak.)
    3. There is a school of thought that a former president can be impeached and tried by the Senate for high crimes and misdemeanors committed while in office, allowing a subsequent criminal prosecution for those crimes, but that without impeachment, immunity continues to attach to those actions. There is no clear answer under the law. The actual answer will come when the issue comes to the SCOTUS, based on the political biases of a majority of justices at that time.
    4. The whole point of pardoning Nixon was to eliminate any risk of prosecution, with or without impeachment.
    5. Even if Nixon had been impeached and removed from office, there’s nothing in the Constitution that would have prevented his successor from issuing a pardon. The only constitutional check on the pardon power is the removal of the successor president through an election (as in 1976) or an impeachment of the successor. DOJ policy on pardons is another story and subject to limitations, but again, there’s nothing in the Constitution requiring the president to limit pardons to those recommended through the formal DOJ process.
    6. The purpose of impeachment is to maintain checks and balances and not to punish. Punishment is the province of the ordinary criminal justice system.

    On the other hand, Jones v. Clinton (decided in the civil context) suggests a president could be prosecuted for crimes committed prior to taking office. And Trump definitely committed crimes both prior to and after becoming president.

  178. 178
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @JGabriel:

    unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan

    This is the part that really pisses me off. She’s saying flat out that what we know now ISN’T compelling and overwhelming, and that is just bullshit.

  179. 179
    Jinchi says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Walker was an ass, not a criminal.

  180. 180
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @janesays: Texas is kind of purple like I’m kind of cool. Georgia will go purple before Texas, and Georgia ain’t going purple in the next ten years.

    Arizona maybe, but not Texas.

  181. 181
    NotMax says:

    @

    re: your #5, see #64 above. Note that the Constitution specifies impeachment as the criterion, not conviction.

    There is no question whatsoever that impeachment or impeachment plus convictions leaves the recipient still open to both civil and criminal justice. In the case of a president, the DOJ guidance points to that occurring post time in office, but there is no hard and fast rule applying any such limitation.

  182. 182
    Doctortecate says:

    @Cameron Ramey: I dont understand the comments here. Good political strategy to protect the dem brand feels too close to Republicans staying in power at all costs. Do the right thing. If evidence to justify impeachment is there, do it.

  183. 183
    Uncle Cosmo says:

    @Patricia Kayden:

    Of course, I’m naive enough to believe that there are a few Republicans who will do the right thing even though there hasn’t been much evidence of that in the last two years.

    A few, conceivably – barely conceivably. The problem is that it takes 2/3 of the Senate members present to remove him.

    If everyone shows up for the vote (& there are no vacancies in the meantime due to death or resignation), that’s 67 votes. Currently there are 45 Democrats and two Independents (who normally caucus with the Dems) in the Senate. Therefore if all Senators show up, 20 GOP members would need to vote for conviction/removal for that to happen.

    Suppose you could wave a magic wand & cause some number of Republican Senators opposed to removal to be absent** for the vote, & all D/I Senators (plus some number of Republicans in favor) were present & voting to remove,

    If 3 GOP Senators flipped, you would need at least (53 – (47+3)/2) = 28 GOP naysayers to be absent. For every additional 2 GOP Senators voting to remove, you would reduce the required absentees by one. So with 9 GOP flips, you’d need (53 – (47+9)/2) = 25 GOP naysayers to be absent.

    And if no GOP Senators are willing to vote for removal, you’d need 30 GOP naysayers to be absent.

    Good luck finding 20 Republican Senators in the current Congress who’d be willing to vote to remove Cheetoh Benito under any circumstances, knowing they’d be crucified by their knuckledragging-mouthbreathing base. Good luck finding any of them willing to be away for the vote, since the same thing would happen to them.

    ———
    ** NB: They’d really have to be absent: Article I Section 3 specifies “the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present“. So IIUC the GOP wouldn’t even have to vote against removal, only to vote “present” – for whatever good that might do them.

  184. 184
    Jinchi says:

    @Bobby Thomson: Georgia almost went blue in 2018.

  185. 185
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Jinchi: That doesn’t make me wrong.

  186. 186
    Jinchi says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    (Sorry responding to the wrong comment.)

  187. 187
    Uncle Cosmo says:

    @No One of Consequence: You sound like someone in dire need of deep sedation. For the next 18 months or so. For your own good.

  188. 188
    janesays says:

    @Bobby Thomson: Clinton v. Jones established that a sitting president is not immune from civil litigation for acts done before taking office. It did not establish that a sitting president could be prosecuted in criminal proceedings for crimes committed before taking office.

    FWIW, I think that a sitting president can be prosecuted, but I don’t think Clinton v. Jones has any relevance to that position.

  189. 189
    janesays says:

    @Bobby Thomson: No, she’s saying that what we have right now isn’t compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan. What we have now may meet the first two criteria, but it does not yet meet the third.

  190. 190
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Doctortecate: Impeachment is a political process. It needs to be approached that way.

  191. 191
    janesays says:

    @Uncle Cosmo: There is absolutely no reason to believe that a single GOP senator would be absent for that vote, barring serious illness or death. There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of several GOP senators being absent.

  192. 192
    J R in WV says:

    I think that if Mr Trump loses the 202 election, moments after the next president takes the oath of office, he will be taken into custody as a result of multiple indictments in multiple jurisdictions.

    Whether he admits he lost the election or not will be irrelevant, as the judicial arm of government will be executing its duties as prescribed by the Constitution and the law, both federal and in the several states where Trump will be alleged to have committed crimes. US Marshals doing their job.

    At least so I hope.

  193. 193
    GxB says:

    @Bobby Thomson:

    This is the part that really pisses me off. She’s saying flat out that what we know now ISN’T compelling and overwhelming, and that is just bullshit.

    Certainly a possible interpretation, or Nancy is being coy and really acknowledging the lack of the “bipartisan” part. Honestly, I can’t see impeachment until there is regular rioting in the streets. The rub’n’tuglicians are playing chicken with the entire American electorate, and I really don’t know if we’ll get pissed off enough to force their hand.

  194. 194
    janesays says:

    @Bobby Thomson: Agreed that Texas is further away from turning purple than Arizona or Georgia, but I don’t think it’s as far away as you think. Trump won Georgia by only 5 points in 2016. Go back to 2004, and Republicans consistently won it by 10+ points for three straight cycles. The possibility of that state flipping blue by the 2028 election is hardly inconceivable.

  195. 195
    janesays says:

    @J R in WV: I hope so too, but I wouldn’t wager a penny on that outcome happening.

    He’s not going to be taken into custody on January 20, 2021. I’ll honestly be surprised is he’s ever taken into custody, to be honest. This country has never prosecuted a former president, and I don’t think that’s going to change in my lifetime.

    I desperately hope my cynical position is proven wrong.

  196. 196
    Jinchi says:

    @janesays:

    I think that a sitting president can be prosecuted

    I agree. The president once bragged that he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it. I don’t believe he was joking, because I don’t believe he jokes about anything.

    Pelosi and Justice and the rest of the establishment should answer the hypothetical: What if a president actually did that on the day of his inauguration? That’s not a political crime and, at this point, it’s not obvious that a corrupted party would remove him from office if he did.

    Is the solution really to wait 4 years until the next election?

    I think it’s pretty clear he’s been committing crimes since day one. Which crimes reach the level of prosecutable?

  197. 197
    Bill Arnold says:

    @Enhanced Voting Techniques:

    The good Speaker of the House is doing some press assisted trolling of the Comb-over in Chief and I am impressed.

    Yeah, nice to see (particularly the press-assisted part). Obvious enough for him and/or his staff to notice, but that may be intentional.
    I have a co-worker who appears to be crypto-alt-right or alt-right-curious (have not drilled; he’s a nice guy) and he once mentioned her talent for trolling DJT, and a quick search shows that this has been a thing for a while, e.g. Nancy Pelosi trolled Trump with this offer to the Golden State Warriors (Sam Laird 2017-06-14)

    That might seem random at first blush, but it was actually a way for Pelosi to indirectly engage in one of her favorite pastimes: trolling President Donald Trump.

  198. 198
    Ruckus says:

    @jeffreyw:
    This.
    Impeachment is a great concept. It’s crappy policy. Because it’s entirely political. It leaves out the third segment of the government. It’s obvious that half our political structure will not go along with impeachment. It will fail and that will empower the half of our political class that thinks there should be no effective government. Which is what they want and is why Trump is never going to be impeached. It will not be a successful endeavor, given our current political climate.
    Nancy and Pete are right, even if it were a possible solution, and it isn’t, it isn’t going to happen. We have to defeat them at the ballot box and then we are free to beat them at the legal side of it.

  199. 199
    smintheus says:

    @rikyrah: Agreed. We just saw evidence that Trump instructed the DOJ to start a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton. First article of impeachment right there.

    Pelosi is not playing some kind of 14 dimensional chess here. She wants to make it clear that impeachment is all but taken off the table. She talks about “something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan”. Evidence of crimes can be compelling and overwhelming, but it is not bipartisan. What Pelosi means by using that term is she is against impeachment no matter the evidence (never mind public opinion) unless there is bipartisan support for removing Trump in the Senate.

    As the impeachment move against Nixon showed, the way to get bipartisan support is by holding impeachment hearings that create an overwhelming groundswell of public support that Republicans cannot continue to ignore. Pelosi does not want to hold impeachment hearings; that’s what her statement is intended to convey. Impeachment hearings might or might not create bipartisan consensus, but they will almost certainly create a public groundswell. If Democrats refuse to impeach despite public support because Pelosi doesn’t think she has the votes in the Senate, that makes the Democrats look feckless or craven.

    So effectively Pelosi is signaling that impeachment is off the table until somebody finds a dead and very naked intern in one of Trump’s golf carts.

  200. 200
    Uncle Cosmo says:

    @Bobby Thomson: Go fuck yourself with a rusty chainsaw soaked in Clostridium perfringens. Nancy Pelosi has more political sense in her pinky fingernail than you have in your five-pounds-of-shit-in-a-3-pound-bag head.

  201. 201
    Ruckus says:

    @Sally:
    No one, including Nancy said Dems were no interested in seeing impeachment. She said it would not sail right now which is correct. It would be a bad political move, at the moment, “It’s just not worth it.”
    Would a successful impeachment be good? Absofuckinglutely. Would impeachment be successful? No. It’s a political answer to a legal question and as our political system is currently situated, impeachment is a non entity. “It’s just not worth it.” The cost in political terms is far worse than any other path. And it’s not off the table entirely, it’s off the table now, because republicans are 100% backing Trump. If that changes it’s a possible solution. It’s not the only solution, it’s the only solution to get a sitting president out of office. Unseat him by election and go after him with the legal system.
    Until we have a better political system than a two party system that is nearly 50% dysfunctional, political answers to political issues are going to be answered by voting. Not by political infighting.

  202. 202
    smintheus says:

    @Ruckus: This is what she actually said:

    And he’s just not worth it.

    She says Trump is not worth impeaching because that would be divisive. Impeachment is by nature divisive, especially with a win-at-all-costs Republican Party, so this is a bizarre assertion. Is Pelosi removing impeachment per se from the Constitution because it’s divisive per se, or is she saying that Republican presidents get a free pass because they’re such bitter partisans, or is it just Trump personally is not “worth” the divisiveness? Any which way, it’s not a sentiment I can share. Impeaching a criminal president is always worth it because he’s a criminal.

  203. 203
    gVOR08 says:

    The best available outcome is to leave Trump in office, harassed by investigations, his minions and family indicted, his business investigated and fined, his taxes examined, and generally enough of a stink cloud to demotivate his base and motivate Ds to vote him AND PENCE out. Possibly facing charges.

    An impeachment without conviction by the Senate is a waste of time and the base would see it as vindication. If a smoking gun shows up and he’s impeached and convicted, we get Pence, able to pretend to be a dignified, moderate Prez for whatever is left of the term. Leave him in office, harried on every side.

  204. 204
    scav says:

    Found another thing to like or at least be amused by. All those newspapers that usually feature nada but hold-out Trump supporters, suddenly they found their rolodoxes of Democrats-in-the-street for interviews about how much they really-really dislike Trump for the various two-bit reasons he is despicable. Notice being taken of outside the beltway support for impeachment and discussions of same being fostered? That’ll frost a few peoples cupcakes.

  205. 205
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @gVOR08:

    If a smoking gun shows up and he’s impeached and convicted, we get Pence, able to pretend to be a dignified, moderate Prez for whatever is left of the term.

    You kids. Jerry Ford had Nixon stench all over him and he was brought in at the last minute after Agnew went down. “Mike Dense” is not some mastermind and he’s been part of this administration from the beginning – and the campaign.

  206. 206
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @Jinchi: exactly. “Almost” under ideal conditions.

  207. 207
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @janesays: that’s why I said “in the civil context” and “suggests,” not “demonstrates conclusively.” But it’s the best light we have.

  208. 208
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @janesays: if all she meant was it’s not bipartisan, that would have been a much better thing to say. And more accurate.

    ETYA: I mean, why the HELL include those words if they are meaningless in the statement? She included those words because she meant to.

Comments are closed.