Here Are Your Representatives On Impeachment

We’ve got a lively discussion going on impeachment already this morning. If you want to know if your representative supports impeachment, you can put your zip code in the blank at this website and find out.

Press your representative hard if they’re a “no.” Send them good words if they’re a “yes.” At Ben Ray Lujan’s town hall a couple of weeks back, he seemed very reluctant about impeachment, even though he has come out in favor of moving forward.

Republicans can and should support impeachment too. Don’t give up just because your rep is a Republican.

80 replies
  1. 1

  2. 2
    JPL says:

    I’m going to call Lucy McBath.

  3. 3
    🇺🇸🌎 Goku (aka Amerikan Baka) 🗳🌷 says:

    Reposting from below:

    I think far too many people see impeachment as this magic bullet that will make Trump disappear in a puff of smoke and the day will have been saved. It doesn’t work that way. The Lewandowski hearing only demonstrates to me that any formal impeachment hearings would go down that way, with R witnesses perhaps refusing to show up. What enforcement mechanism would House Dems have to counter that? The media would both sides the entire thing and Trump would crow about being “exonerated” by the Senate. Even impeachment relies on everyone respecting the rule of law. The GOP clearly do not, or more accurately, they don’t see Dems as legitimate and want to desperately protect themselves. Bottom line, we may screwed no matter what we do.

    I’m not sure how to fix this. I think Trump should be impeached. I’m just not sure if it will actually accomplish anything

  4. 4
    Ohio Mom says:

    I believe all four of Ohio’s Democratic reps are pro-impeachment. Unfortunately, I live in a gerrymandered district represented by a Tea Partier.

    I don’t think he’s scarable. The last election, he lost the Democratic part of the district but the Republican end easily carried him. Which is duh, what you’d expect from a gerrymandered district.

    I’ll still call this week, just so I can say I did. I like to fantasize that one of the seeds of doubt I try to plant in the interns may sprout one day.

  5. 5
    MomSense says:

    What comes after impeachment?

    If trump is impeached in the House and the Senate acquits, we will lose that issue for the election because the framing of the coverage and every question will be favorable to Republicans, especially since the Press seems he’ll bent on normalizing trump. Trump is also very good for their bottom line.

    If trump is impeached and either resigns or by some miracle is convicted by the Senate, Mike Pounce pardons him and everyone else implicated.

    Impeachment should be used for maximum political advantage for Democrats leading up to this election. The future of our democracy is better served by a Democratic sweep in 2020 than it is by a symbolic vote by the House.

  6. 6

    @🇺🇸🌎 Goku (aka Amerikan Baka) 🗳🌷: You can be sure that if you don’t do anything, Trump will continue as he is and probably worse because he will be emboldened.

  7. 7
    Hitlesswonder says:

    @🇺🇸🌎 Goku (aka Amerikan Baka) 🗳🌷: I would agree – the only thing impeachment could accomplish is to generate media coverage of people explaining that Trump has/is violating his oath to the constitution. Preferably that violation could be framed as endangering the rights of American soldiers or some other demographic “independents” care about.

    The reall failure of the Democrats is not to have strategy to get as many people as possible on as much media as possible accusing Trump of wrongdoing.The Republicans did this to Obama and it worked, even in the absence of a scandal.

  8. 8

    @MomSense: President Pelosi?

    I’ll emphasize what I said to Goku.

    As for symbolic votes, this is pretty big: a vote of no confidence in the President by the highest (and, it can be argued, most representative) elected body. And that just might change minds enough for a Democratic sweep.

    ETA: Pelosi has been big on symbolic votes this year – and that’s good. Those bills will be ready to go for the next Democratic Congress, hopefully next year. It’s only this one symbolic vote that she keeps refusing even to consider.

  9. 9
    WereBear says:

    Love that link will share.

  10. 10
    Jay K. says:

    @Ohio Mom:

    Marcy Kaptur is my Rep, and so far is not in favor of impeachment. I call her Cleveland office pretty much every day to ask her to get onboard.

  11. 11
    MomSense says:

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    President Pelosi? I guess I have no faith in our media. A symbolic vote of impeachment along party lines will be covered as more partisan politics. I’m not opposed to a vote for impeachment but it needs to be done at the right time. I don’t want to rush it.

  12. 12
    zhena gogolia says:

    I haven’t received a response to my most recent plea to De Lauro.

    I guess I have to start calling.

  13. 13
    MomSense says:

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    Impeachment is not an ordinary vote. I think this whole line of reasoning about symbolism is nonsense. The stakes are too fucking high for symbolism. We need results.

  14. 14
    Baud says:

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    It’s not the same. With legislation, you pass the bill and you’re done.

    If they impeached Trump tomorrow, they’ll have to keep impeaching him over and over again because he’s not going to stop committing impeachable offenses.

  15. 15
    🇺🇸🌎 Goku (aka Amerikan Baka) 🗳🌷 says:


    With the FTNYT doing coverage? Or even the WaPo? The media is wired for Republicans and whether they’ve been compromised or are total morons who want outrage clicks but play “both sides” to placate readers and advertisers, they generally will not give fair or accurate coverage to Dem impeachment proceedings. The waters will be muddied and the whole affair will be framed in partisan terms

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    You can be sure that if you don’t do anything, Trump will continue as he is and probably worse because he will be emboldened.

    Probably. But a failure to convict in the Senate would surely embolden him, would it not? Trump needs to be removed from office via impeachment, but decades long polarization is, I think, going to prevent that from having any impact, and could very easily backfire on Dems. R’s are consummate ratfuckers

  16. 16
    EthylEster says:

    frontpager wrote:

    Republicans can and should support impeachment too.

    What planet are you posting from?

  17. 17
    MomSense says:


    So the Democrats are not trying to get as many people as possible on as much media as possible?

    I remember participating in a pro ACA rally with about 800 other people, VIP speakers including a prominent Republican and the media gave more time to six tea parties who were the “counter protest”. The media are Republican. Have been for decades.

  18. 18
    Baud says:


    You could say the same thing about progressives and conservatives in place of Democrats and Republicans.

    I think we’ll always be lose as long as we keep “othering” Democrats.

  19. 19
    zhena gogolia says:



  20. 20
    Quinerly says:

    @Baud: @MomSense:
    Well said, by both of you.

  21. 21
    eclare says:

    I’m fortunate my rep is Steve Cohen. Memphis would be great if it weren’t surrounded by Tennessee.

  22. 22
    FlyingToaster says:

    I was just checking, and every rep in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts is in favor of an impeachment inquiry… expect Lynch.

    WTF? Lynch is an old union hand, and he’s always opposed the real estate grifters. I can’t even imagine what he’s thinking. And his district, while gerrymandered, is D+10 and no way in hell going to go Republican. Right now his only primary opponent is Brianna Wu.

  23. 23
    Baud says:


    be lose = lose

  24. 24
    debbie says:

    @Ohio Mom:

    I so cannot wait for redistricting!

  25. 25
    Quinerly says:

    Not normally a Politico fan, but everyone should really take a peek at this piece:

  26. 26
    Jay K. says:

    My de-lurked comment between Comments 9 and 10 is stuck in moderation, please to be releasing.

  27. 27
    debbie says:


    Impeachment should be used for maximum political advantage for Democrats leading up to this election.

    Seconded. Once there are unassailable facts, we should go to town on that fat fuck’s ass.

  28. 28
    debbie says:


    How’s about a vote in October 2020?

  29. 29
    jeffreyw says:


    I’m not opposed to a vote for impeachment but it needs to be done at the right time. I don’t want to rush it.

    If the vote fails it will be seen as a bi-partisan rejection of impeachment. Pelosi is wise to wait for the numbers.

  30. 30
    Lapassionara says:

    @Cheryl Rofer: I recall the Watergate hearings very clearly. They went on for months, and it seemed like there was something on TV or the radio every day during that time. It was riveting. I am not sure why the House Dems are not conducting hearings daily, and they should be issuing contempt citations to those witnesses who do not show up or who show up and refuse to answer questions. They need to make sure to cover all of Trump’s corrupt activities, not just the election interferences. Bring friendly witnesses to explain what a “high crime” is, why getting Trump’s financial information is important to the national interest. Things like that.

  31. 31
    debbie says:


    That would have the added benefit of pointing up the stupidity of the Rethuglican members like Gym Jordan.

  32. 32
    MomSense says:


    Agreed. She’s one of the greatest political tacticians of all time. No, she’s not infallible but she’s the best we’ve got so let’s extend a little trust to her now. I still think some of the anti-Pelosi chatter is ratfucking meant to divide Democrats and cause people to feel disaffected so they won’t vote. I’m frankly surprised at how many people are buying into it.

  33. 33
    RedDirtGirl says:


  34. 34
    MomSense says:


    Part of the problem is that they are being forced to go to court to get every single piece of evidence.

  35. 35
  36. 36
  37. 37
    B.B.A. says:

    I’m team Pelosi here. Any impeachment will lead to acquittal in the Senate, which will then get spun as “NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION, FULL EXONERATION, HILLARY’S AN UGLY C*NT” and the media will continue to dutifully give Trump cover. It’s a trap. Don’t fall into it.

  38. 38
    Kelly says:


    Once there are unassailable facts

    The are no unassailable facts. There will never be unassailable facts. What we have now is solid enough to start. Further investigations will lead to more facts. The Republicans will create a smoke screen out of simple lies and it will be both sided in the media. They’ve done it with every issue for most of my life. We must impeach anyway.

  39. 39
    Kelly says:

    @B.B.A.: So will not impeaching. “If the Libs had anything they’d of impeached! They got nothing!!!!”

  40. 40
    Aleta says:

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    I don’t know much about how timing in Congress is controlled.

    What’s your thinking on whether starting impeachment proceedings could lead to Pence in office before Nov 2020? (For ex, if Trump is offered some new setup that’s desirable enough to him, by people afraid of losing to the Ds otherwise, and he steps aside.)

    Leaving aside T’s rigidity, is there some point in the timing of the proceedings that could prevent Pence moving up? I can imagine Pence doing a hard fake pivot if he campaigns. His moral determination to clean up the ‘mistakes’ (‘no one could have predicted’) and bits of corruption. Chosen to serve at this place and time. Feeling a Christian duty to temper some unpopular policies (making promises as instructed by operatives).

    He hasn’t been tied enough to Trump. Despite Flynn and probably other damaging stories, there’s not time enough to do that imo. Not a great candidate but that can be finessed.

    2–Someone a few nights ago listed Ds in Congress who oppose or haven’t come out for impeachment. Is the thinking re Pelosi’s failure to begin that if she would lead they would follow? Or that voting could be stalled until after election?

  41. 41
    zhena gogolia says:


    Mariotti is great.

  42. 42
    WaterGirl says:

    Cheryl, I clicked your link without thinking it through. And then I had to see the ugly face of Rodney Davis, the crazy right-wing dick who is my representative. Which I already knew, because I have had the Unseat Rodney Davis magnet on my car for two years.

    Ugly, of course, because of what he stands for. I am fairly certain that he would be considered a normal looking creature if one did not know what he stands for, and the progress he stands in the way of.

    I could call his office 100 times a day and they would not care. Disheartening, to say the least.

  43. 43
    Lapassionara says:

    @MomSense: that is why I suggest friendly witnesses for some hearings. I practiced law for more than 20 years, and I did not really grasp what the term “high crime or misdemeanor” meant until I read a memo about it. Some people do not understand the concept of conflict of interest. Why, for example, did Jimmy Carter have to sell his peanut farm before assuming office. Why was Trump permitted to keep his business? How many people have been given security clearances by Trump, when the agency recommended that they not be given clearances? What does the Whistle Blower Statute require, and How and why is it being violated? I could go on, as there is so MUCH malfeasance and corruption.

  44. 44
    WaterGirl says:

    @Immanentize: Something to do with Circles, I presume? Well done.

  45. 45
    Baud says:



    The Republicans will have rhetoric regardless of what we do. Especially if the Senate somehow convicts. It’s not an argument for any position.

  46. 46
    Kelly says:

    @Baud: I’m trying to say Trump should be impeached regardless of Republican rhetoric. In general we need to do all good things regardless of Republican rhetoric.

  47. 47
    Aleta says:

    I agree with the argument for impeachment because it’s our (and Pelosi’s/the House’s) duty to do it w/o judging the politics. That we need to interrupt the damage and crimes happening even as we speak, that the election is being rigged now and we have to act even if we might not stop it. Because there’s a chance of stopping some of it. I just dread Pence and the power of the RR that would be behind him (the reason for Pence joining from the start). What becomes of human rights and the people who are openly out on the line for their lives. The RR believes in war justified in service to their god, international and otherwise.

  48. 48
    Melusine says:

    Here’s a point I’ve seen raised and I think it’s worth considering. Pence talked to the UKR president re the money being held up due to “corruption concerns” after Rudy pressed them on “investigations”. That may put Pence in the middle of it and open him up to impeachment. And god knows what else he’s done.

    God, the IC, and possibly Nancy. What if she isn’t pushing for impeachment because the entire fucking narrative until the election will be “Pelosi is trying to impeach trump/pence to take over the country herself!!!”

    She is 3rd in line after all. Of course they won’t be impeached, even without the threat of President Pelosi, the GOP has made it clear they that they are owned lock, stock, and smoking barrels no matter what crimes Shitler commits. But oh will they hammer that narrative home.

    And how fucking likely is the MSM to question it? They already tried to turn Trump exhorting Ukraine for election interference into the Joe Biden Scandal. Democrats Attempt Coup? will give them a great way to “balance” out all of Dear Leader’s scandals. And people will fucking believe it. It will dominate every news cycle and overshadow every debate.

    I think impeachment won’t change his behavior in the slightest, and I think it’s absolutely necessary as the only legal moral stand they can make, and as a clear sign to voters that they are willing to make that stand. But it may have to wait until closer to the election, when “election interference!” will still be the rallying cry, but “Nancy trying to take over ZOMG!” becomes irrelevant because there’s no time.

    Also, yes, impeachment may technically give them greater investigative and subpoena powers. But which courts are going to enforce them? I keep hearing so-called “progressives” (I’m beginning to wonder how many are useful stooges, #notallprogressives) bitching about how Dems aren’t just subpoening witnesses and forcing them to testify. Is the DOJ under Barr going to enforce them??

    What happens if the House takes up it’s impeachment powers, and the Trump-stacked courts and Barr-led DOJ refuse to back them? What’s the next step? Civil war?

    I was alllllll in on starting official investigations this fall, but now I have to wonder if waiting until close to the election isn’t the least damaging alternative, both for our chances of getting that assclown Correleone out of office, and for the country as a whole.


  49. 49

    @MomSense: And how do you get results from Pelosi’s current do-nothing stand?

  50. 50

    @🇺🇸🌎 Goku (aka Amerikan Baka) 🗳🌷: We know if we don’t do anything, Trump stays emboldened. Serious impeachment hearings can turn public opinion (only 19% were in favor when Nixon impeachment hearings started) toward impeachment.

    According to your reasoning, Dems look weak if they try to impeach and lose. According to my reasoning, not impeaching makes them look weak too. If we lose no matter what (and I don’t think we do), I’d rather go down fighting.

  51. 51
    Rihilism says:

    @Kelly: Exactly. There are no good options for the Democrats. But they have a constitutional duty and a moral obligation to at least try protect the constitution. The IG has said that the whistle blower complaint is urgent and is an issue of national security. This is a dangerous time and the Democrats must use every power they have, including the power of the purse and yes impeachment, to hold Trump accountable. We could spend all day gaming out how the Repubs and MSM might respond to an attempt to impeach but I believe the assumption that not impeaching will prevent or mitigate damage to Democratic party is incorrect. Trump, using illegal/unconstitutional means, along with a complicit MSM has already done damage to the current Democratic front runner. After a relatively weak initial response, Biden has hit back, hard, and if he continues to do so, he may overcome this. Trump will not stop with Biden and IMO the failure to act as a check on the executive may cost the Democrats votes especially in the swing districts where they need them because disaffected/disappointed Democratic voters will stay home.

  52. 52
    Melusine says:

    @Cheryl Rofer: Impeachment only has teeth if it has consequences. So what if Dems censure him? He doesn’t give a shit. The Senate will never convict, his base won’t care, and the media will spin it as an exoneration. It will have absolutely no effect on him at all. The only purpose it can serve is
    a) it’s the right thing to do
    b) to bolster voters
    and then it becomes a question of proper timing.
    But it’s not going to stop the Don in Chief from mob-bing.

  53. 53

    @WaterGirl: Circles, Beatle Goerge’s song, not Beatle Billy.

    Some pressings of “Let It Be” are credited to The Beatles With Billy Preston.

  54. 54
    MomSense says:

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    I don’t buy your do-nothing premise. You may not be satisfied by what they are doing or the pace, but it’s not accurate to say they are doing nothing.

  55. 55
    vertalio says:

    @Cheryl Rofer: And not impeaching tells future presidents they can break the law as much as they want, esp if the AG is in their pocket. It’s about upholding the rule of law. If we let that slip away, the American experiment is o.v.e.r.
    Of course the Senate will not impeach him. And his 35% Trumpanzee base will stick with him, because they’re racist authoritarians and sense a chance to obtain permanent rule over us.

    Flush Trump!

  56. 56
    Melusine says:

    @Immanentize: Nicely done! 😂

    Also, I hope the Immp is doing well.

  57. 57
    debbie says:


    Again, seconded.

  58. 58

    @Aleta: Unlike Nancy Pelosi and some folks here, I do not know exactly what will happen under multiple possible scenarios! I can only guess, and those guesses are inevitably tainted by my own beliefs and desires. I try to sort those things out, but I am an imperfect human.

    Timing is getting short. As Lapassionaria noted, the Watergate hearings took forever. We’ve got sixteen months to the inauguration, thirteen to the election. I see impeachment hearings as
    1) A signal that Democrats disapprove of Donald Trump and want to stop him.
    2) A way to distract him from his depredations and slow down the damage.
    3) An indication that the 2018 Blue Wave meant something.
    4) A way to make Republicans stand up and say “I’m with Trump.” Which can be used against them in the election.
    5) A way to energize the base.
    6) A statement that Constitutional government matters.
    And probably more.

    I think that there’s very little chance that Pence would be in for more than a month or two. And he’s made at least one trip to Ukraine that may well be in the corrupt service of his corrupt master. So impeachment hearings might take him out too.

    In any case, contrary to the belief that succeeding Trump after impeachment would strengthen Pence, the hearings would damage him by association at the very least, and being called into office because his boss went down via the law of the land is not a strong position. Anyone remember the vastly strengthened position of Gerald Ford?

  59. 59
    Rihilism says:

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    I’d rather go down fighting

    Me too.

  60. 60
    StringOnAStick says:

    I wonder if some of the slowness we perceive on our side compared to how it went with Watergate is in our current state, reps have to spend half their time fundraising. Unless they are R’s, the money has to be half your daily work because the various Koch funded groups aren’t backing the dump truck up to your door.

  61. 61

    @Melusine: I think that part of Pelosi’s diffidence is that she doesn’t want to be seen as seeking the presidency through other means than voting. But a strong reaction from the public and her fellow legislators would help to dilute that. Also the fact that at this point, timing suggests that she would be a caretaker through the election if it came to that.

    The ideal on timing would be for the revelations to peak late in October. Maybe Pelosi’s got that timetable figured out.

  62. 62
    MomSense says:


    I’m probably too far out of the loop in that district now but it used to be very pro-union, but conservative on other issues. Lots of only the sports side of the Herald readers there.

  63. 63

    @Melusine: Censure (which some Dems are now talking about) is not impeachment. Impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment, based on evidence.

  64. 64
    MomSense says:


    There’s much less respect for the law in the Senate, and in the Executive and Judicial branches of government. The House Dems are having to fight for evidence, having to fight for access to information they shouldn’t have to fight for and it’s delaying things and a real problem. Look at what a mockery Barr has made of the DOJ.

  65. 65
    mrmoshpotato says:

    @Quinerly: OT – a good late Sunday morning to Poco and the tribe.

  66. 66
    Rihilism says:

    Let me add that I like and support Nancy Pelosi but I believe, given the IG’s conclusion that this is urgent and an issue of national security, she and the house Democrats need to act as quickly as possible to respond to this.

  67. 67
    2liberal says:

    re: pelosi
    The democrats must have impeachment hearings well underway by the time early voting starts for 2020. If they do it now, it will be old news when the actual voting starts

  68. 68
    Melusine says:

    @Cheryl Rofer: “Also the fact that at this point, timing suggests that she would be a caretaker through the election if it came to that.”


    For sane, rational people, yes. As history shows, there is a not insignificant slice of the voting public that does not fall into that category, who vote solely by feelz. All it takes is enough never-Pelosi Dems, independents, and progressives, and a constant onslaught of Pelosi Seizing Control???? stories to affect the election outcome. There are people who can hold “Pelosi wants to be Acting Prez so she can be dictator for life!” in their minds simultaneously with “So don’t elect another Dem to replace her!”. Probably part of the conspiracy anyway. Less than 100,000 votes can do it.

    And no, I don’t think we should pander to crazies, but I don’t blame if she’s holding back because she’s calculated that a later timeline will remove a damaging distraction for the politically uneducated or unengaged when the stakes of the election are so freaking high. I don’t know that that’s the reason, but it makes sense.

    And I DON’T disagree that impeachment has to happen. It is a moral, ethical and legal necessity. It’s just that recent events have compelled me to rethink the timing.

    I do think Dems need to come out with a clear reason as to why they are not pursuing impeachment now, and I think it’s important that voters make their support for it loud and clear. But I don’t think shitting on the leadership (on the phone – fuck, that’s what the interwebz is for) is necessarily helpful. There may be other legitimate reasons for not moving forward right now that that they can’t talk about. But there has to be some kind of answer they can give.

    I think expressing support for impeachment and asking why it isn’t being done now are important.

    Also, I really enjoy your posts. The level of expertise you and Adam bring to the discussions is quite enlightening!

  69. 69
    low-tech cyclist says:

    @🇺🇸🌎 Goku (aka Amerikan Baka) 🗳🌷:

    I think far too many people see impeachment as this magic bullet that will make Trump disappear in a puff of smoke and the day will have been saved. It doesn’t work that way.

    Of course it doesn’t work that way. I’ve believed for over a year that Mitch won’t even let a Senate trial happen, let alone a vote – that way, vulnerable Senators won’t have to vote for or against removal. So removal ain’t happening.

    Why the House should impeach anyway is twofold: (1) It’s the right thing to do. Trump deserves to be impeached and removed from office, far more than Nixon even did. (2) Public opinion. Trump does so much bad stuff that even the 58-60% who don’t approve of what he’s doing can’t possibly sort it all out. Sure, it’s all bad, but it’s pretty much an undifferentiated mess to most people – nothing good, but nobody’s laid down any markers to say, “this isn’t just bad, this is beyond the pale.”

    What impeachment does, if done correctly, is to lay down that marker, to pull out the handful of Trump crimes that are the worst of the worst, and says, “people, let’s focus on these.” And then they have nationally televised hearings to debate and then vote on the articles of impeachment, first in the Judiciary Committee, and then on the House floor.

    Not everybody will tune in, but a hell of a lot more people will pay attention than have so far, because they’ll know we’ve finally cut to the chase.

    The Lewandowski hearing only demonstrates to me that any formal impeachment hearings would go down that way, with R witnesses perhaps refusing to show up.

    I think it would be a mistake to call witnesses. Enough is already known about (1) repeated instances of obstruction of justice, per the Mueller Report, (2) babies in motherfucking cages, per documentary evidence and media coverage, and with (3) with Trump and Rudy’s Ukraine extortion, all that needs doing is to verify what’s already been amply reported.

    Facing just this dilemma, the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 decided to call no witnesses as it built its case for Nixon’s impeachment, but to rely on the facts already known and documented. The House Judiciary Committee of 2019 should do the same.

    What I have never understood is how this becomes a positive thing for Trump’s prospects. You pull out his worst crimes, make an airtight argument that he’s committed them, and that they easily meet the standard for removal, and make them the focus of political discussion for a couple of months. One can argue how much it will hurt his prospects of re-election*, but I’m damned if I can see how this helps him. And if the Senate actually votes, it might well hurt the prospects of some vulnerable Senators.

    * “This might hurt a little, this might hurt a lot, I don’t know, but it’s all I got.” – Moon Taxi, “Morocco”

  70. 70
    Comrade Colette Collaboratrice says:

    Pelosi IS my representative. And I do think that concern about the appearance that she’s trying to move herself toward the presidency affects her actions and timetable.

  71. 71
    Sab says:

    @Jay K.: Thank you for calling. Tim Ryan did change his mind to pro-impeachment, so maybe someday she will too.

  72. 72
    Sab says:

    I am in both the I trust Nancy and the Call your Rep camps. I don’t think that is an inconsistent position.

  73. 73
    prostratedragon says:

    @Quinerly: A-a-a-men! That piece nails not only what is unambiguously and most wrong about this pretender as a President, but makes it clear why action can as well as should be taken as soon as possible. The assertion that intense, long investigations into minute details are needed, as would be the case for a criminal trial is false, because the most impeachable conduct is in the open.

  74. 74
    debbie says:


    I would throw in his backhanded assistance to KSM in ignoring Khashoggi’s murder.

  75. 75
    Jinchi says:

    @MomSense: @MomSense:

    If trump is impeached in the House and the Senate acquits, we will lose that issue for the election

    Losing the issue didn’t help Gerald Ford win the election after Nixon left office.

  76. 76
    EthylEster says:

    @Comrade Colette Collaboratrice wrote:

    And I do think that concern about the appearance that she’s trying to move herself toward the presidency affects her actions and timetable.

    First time I’ve heard that BS.

  77. 77
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @MomSense: I still think some of the anti-Pelosi chatter is ratfucking meant to divide Democrats and cause people to feel disaffected so they won’t vote. I’m frankly surprised at how many people are buying into it.

    I don’t quite get it, but the fantasy of power politics– of LBJ grabbing people by the throat or making them watch him pee or whatever the fuck– is deeply ingrained in the internet left. We saw it, and still see it, with Obama: If he had been louder and angrier, Blanche Lincoln and Joe Lieberman, to say nothing of at least a dozen other Dems and several Republicans, would have voted for X. Now Nancy Pelosi is supposed to burn Kendra Horn’s barn, or blow up Max Rose’s split-level.

  78. 78
    JoeyJoeJoe says:

    Maybe this post is dead, but especially as Barr is obstructing justice in numerous ways, why not open up impeachment hearings on him now? He deserves it for sure, and it’d drive him crazy.

  79. 79
    prostratedragon says:

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    late in October

    Of what year? Planning on another year of this shit might be relying on an underestimate of the stress that our institutions and relationships are undergoing (mis-typed that at first as underdoging).

  80. 80
    Procopius says:

    @MomSense: Even worse, what happens if all the Blue Dogs and New Democrats who are refusing to commit to voting in favor end up voting against impeachment and the bill fails in the House? Pelosi makes me angry; I think she could do more, but there’s no doubt she’s good at counting votes. I checked out my Congressman and am happy to see he’s following in his father’s footsteps. He’s committed to voting in favor.

Comments are closed.