A swamp, if you will.
6 Likes
Agreed. Pelosi is about her career first and her country second. I donât blame her personally, thatâs just politics today.
There have been dozens of end of the line moments for Trump since his campaign began and what happened to any of those? He is also a corporate cheat and knows how to stay just ahead of the law, just like all of the other corporate cheats. How often are any of those people taken down?
2 Likes
When Trmp announces heâll be happy to take information on prospective political opponents from foreign sources, admitting heâd commit a crime, at some point it becomes a dereliction of duty NOT to impeach. Rep Pelosi may just have passed that point and have violated her oath to protect and preserve the Constitution and uphold the laws of the land. Perhaps she should be impeached.
4 Likes
Pelosi could use her some Johnnie Cochran:
To defeat the leech, you must impeach
or
Itâs not a reach, you must impeach.
or maybe
Thereâs a time to teach,
and a time to impeach.
1 Like
And the congress has yet to gain access to any of the evidence backing those assertions. Or too much in the way of neccisary evidence for any of the other avenues of impeachment. So they donât neccisarily have anything actionable. Given the way that particular fight is going they may need to start a formal impeachment inquiry (which is not neccisarily impeachment proceedings) to get there. The report itself is fairly meaningless in legal terms, its all the shit that itâs based on that can be used to impeach.
I find it more likely that theyâre trying to time it after the election. Or at least the passage of articles and trial.
Pelosi and other party leadership are still circumspect about potential impacts on the election. If they shoot for after they side step that. If they lose the presidental they can pursue impeachment, potentially with a cleaner pathway in congress. If they win they can jump right to prosecution.
If you impeach before the election and fail. Then lose the election. You pretty much got 4 more years of unfettered Trump.
I donât neccisarily think thatâs the case though. I think its more that theyâre just trying to do it properly or not at all regardless of how long that may take to avoid embarrassment or backlash. And as a result they are being over cautious. If they were more explicit that impeachment was where this was heading, that obstruction and other crimes have happened, and more agressive (issue the damn subpoenas instead of threatening and negotiating first). Trump would have less space to string it out. And he wants to. Its clear they want this hanging out there as long as possible so they can campaign on preventing it. And at a certain point it looks just as illegitimate if it stalls too long as if it goes off half cocked with little backing.
The only thing that could, and the only thing that ever would from the start. Is a sufficient shift in public opinion against Trump or towards impeachment to potentially put Republican control of the senate at risk. Those guys will not budge till their own seats are endangered by protecting Trump. A fair part of the Democratâs work is finding a way to shift public opinion in that way. And ultimately its a pretty fucking hard thing to accomplish. Keeping investigations and negative revelations spooling as the election plays out could be one way of doing that, and clearly demonstrating to the GOP that theyâre at risk. Its increasingly hard to argue that this is best done without uttering the I-word though.
Theyâre currently fighting, including in court, to get access to the unredacted report, the evidence and documents backing it, public testimony from the principals. As well as Trumpâs financial records, and information relating to the multiple emolument suits and accusations.
This isnât doing nothing. You canât demonstrate to people that the report has firm backing without getting at that backing. Without putting that information in front of the public, it remains a âhe said she saidâ situation between Barr and Mueller. As these actions are unilateral, they arenât going to go off at the pace we might like.
That said the House isnât exactly moving as fast as they could. Part of the frustration here is that they seem more concerned with messaging than pace at this point.
They know how to enforce subpoenas. Its just getting over the bump where Trump can delay them and ensuring that the courts participate. Court enforcement is preferable to the inherent Contempt model where the House Sergeant at arms jails people. For obvious reasons. And the administration is catering to the Courtsâ reticence to enforce on the congressâ behalf as a delay tactic. And more recently explicitly baiting for a quick start to the Impeachment process, their legal arguement boils down to claiming the only legitimate reason for congress to issue subpoenas is an impeachment inquiry.
Less that it would expand their subpoena power than it would obviate the Administrationâs preferred arguement for why they donât have to comply. At risk of validating it.
Essentially Trumpâs lawyers are arguing that congress can only issue subpoenas for âlegitimate legislative purposesâ. And that the only two things that quality are impeachment and crafting new laws they plan to vote on. Theyâre currently focusing more on the former after losing on the latter. Beginning impeachment investigations lets the House skip arguing that one out. So they can move ahead faster. Trump would likely challenge on other grounds on the next subpoena, but theyâd win current arguments on the subject. But the Constitution is explicit that investigation is a congressional duty, including investigation of the executive. In general without tie to legislative actions or requiring impeachment. As is a few hundred years of court precident. Conceding the point by starting on impeachment in response could potentially lead to court decisions undermining congressâs other investigative powers. And at the very least it leaves Trump with the option of using the same legal theory elsewhere.
So thereâs an active interest in fighting that one out, especially since Trump is almost certainly going to lose on that front. Thereâs very little legal backing to the idea, and nothing in the way of previous court decisions to argue it from. Unless it can be demonstrated that congress itself assumes it to be the caseâŚ
People pushing that as a reason to impeach now are downplaying that risk, not acknowledging that it leaves the arguement on the table to delay other things and making big noise about the risks of hyper-partisan judges in certain cases deciding validate Trumpâs arguement anyway (which seems hugely unlikely and probably wouldnât last long if they did). The theory seems unlikely to pass muster either way, but capitulating to it gives said partisan judges more ground to do so. And if you keep winning these subpoena fights by knocking down legal challenges, pretty soon Trump shouldnât able to challenge them. And they should be able to be cleanly enforced. Iâd expect they want to win that particular fight before moving towards impeachment to head off more variations of it.
5 Likes
Right. Put party above nation and thatâs what you get - a legislative body that abdicates oversight responsibilities for political gain.
1 Like
Youâre talking about the Republicans, who are shielding Trump and jamming the functioning of the Senate to prevent legislation that would be good for the country but not for the GOP megadonors and/or Trump from even being considered, right?
Hey, you donât make a leather jacket out of the golden cow when the milk is still flowing freely.
Pelosi is my Representative. Her husband is quite wealthy, and she doesnât need her congressional paycheck to live her lifestyle.
There were a lot of liberal challengers in 2018 open primary, but they split the field so much in the primary that she ended up facing a Republican in the general rather than another Democrat. This is San Francisco⌠any Republican candidates count themselves lucky to get over 15% of the vote. November 6, 2018 Election Results - Summary | Department of Elections
3 Likes
Thatâs not what that means at all. Quite the opposite.
Itâs more like: Rush to impeach, and fail because you rushed, and now youâve lost the country for another 4 years of Trump policies. Four years when theyâll be claimed as a mandate and totally exonerated.
Holding off, winning the current battles, doing the ground work for a better overall outcome instead of bending to the vocal sideline yelling Impeach that donât understand all the implications of giving up some of the ground work. That could all be seen as putting country over party.
In Nancyâs case, is she even running again? Didnât she make some deal for speaker for a limited time? At some point, sheâs going to want to retire.
2 Likes
Yeah, I donât think Pelosi could remain a San Fransisco representative if she actually was the kind of a corporate tool people like to imagine she is.
2 Likes
Iâm talking about our legislative body write large.
@mmascari nice spin. But dragging your feet isnât heroic. Itâs the dems doing what they do best⌠nothing. Start the process. Get the facts out. This narrative that impeachment will fail and we will get more of the same is meaningless because thats also what you get by doing nothing.
2 Likes
In the post you replied to, @Ryuthrowsstuff literally spelled out all the reasons itâs taking longer than many think it should. Plus all the reasons that not winning these current challenges but simply moving directly to impeach instead could cause more harm in the long run.
Itâs a slog not a sprint. And, every part matters. Itâs just not headline flashy.
Would I like to see the sergeant at arms haul off the people dodging supenoes to some cell in congress? Yes, yes I would. It could be highly entertaining, and very satisfying.
Would that ultimately be a bad idea in the long run and probably cause more harm? Probably. Which also means, working through the correct process is probably the better outcome.
The slog is not satisfying though. We all want a sprint and instant gratification. But, the full process is whatâs needed to arrive at an ultimately better destination.
1 Like
Iâd be interested in hearing your justification for why âthrow people who are held in contempt of congress for refusing to respond to lawfully-issued subpoenas into prison and fine them heavilyâ would work out worse for the nation than, say, a few sternly-worded letters and a series of negotiations that take months to execute and end with behind-closed-door briefings that can then be boiled down to more âhe-said/she-saidâ noise by the people actively getting way with committing crimes.
2 Likes
Oh, sir. No, she doesnât need her Congressional Salary. But sheâll take it. Sheâll also take as much donor money as she wants, and from Wall St or Big Pharma or anyone. Iâm not saying she wants to be in Congress for her paycheck; she wants to be in Congress, and head of the House, because that means a virtually endless amount of money for her from big donors. She may not need to be in Congress for some money from her paycheck, but she does need to be in Congress for all the money from her donors
Have you lived in SF recently? Itâs not a liberal utopia. Itâs Brazil with worse coffee and more fleece, where thereâs no middle class â you make a million working for Google, or you make that personâs burrito for minimum wage, with almost nothing in between. San Francisco is the home to Fortune 500 companies beyond number, all of which would prefer you and I keep out of their business with tax and regulations, and Ms. Pelosi is ecstatic to do that. Thatâs how she made $4.6 Million in 2017-2018 (NANCY PELOSI FOR CONGRESS - committee overview | FEC), and why she will sell out an actual resident or constituent to her purseholders and corporate enablers in less time than it takes for you to read this sentence.
If you think Nancy Pelosi is a Liberal, read the news more often, or a dictionary once.
2 Likes
Too early? I was ready to impeach on day one of this administration.
2 Likes
Really? When is Don McGahn scheduled to testify, again?
ETA: You keep referring to Impeachment as if it were just the vote. Itâs not - itâs the whole process in the House, including investigation. Arguably, the House is already in the impeachment investigation stage, but have hindered themselves by not starting proceedings. If anything, the firmest legal ground the administration have is if they argue that the House is performing de facto impeachment proceedings without formally starting impeachment proceedings.
3 Likes
Wow. Thatâs really pushing it. You really donât think they might have an easier time checking this guy and providing oversight by increasing their support and margins in government. The lack of which is largely responsible for stalling things out? You think an impeachment attempt that does insufficient damage to Trump to impact his reelection will leave anyone grounds or ability to rein him in?
Any check on Trump thatâs so ineffective it merely clears the way for more fascist dance party is bad. Not morally bad, or ethically bad, or spiritually bad. But actually, practically bad. Failing to consider the possibility is not âcountry over partyâ, its stupid and dangerous.
Iâm willing to bet you would not be particularly happy if they threw everything into an impeachment attempt starting tomorrow and failed. And then subsequently lost big in the election. Leaving total GOP control of the federal government and a larger number of states.
Meanwhile the election remains critically important whether Trump makes it that far or not. Impeachment or no. because Trump is not the problem, the GOP is the problem. Trump is just the outcome of years of feeding and mainstreaming the fringe. Heâs a result not a cause. And overcoming that isnât as simple as removing or defeating a single politician. Nor is it likely to be the work of a single election.
No more like if you squander your biggest possible check, and he also manages to cobble together another electoral win.
What possible avenues are left for you to push back? Democrats already have a pretty narrow ability to properly fulfil their duty here, and they only have enough control to obstruct rather than drive policy. 4 years of Trump where current avenues are off the table would be a disaster.
Holding back impeachment in case of electoral fail makes sense. And if you win youâve got more power to investigate and prosecute. It may not be the best approach. But its not pointless or abdicating duty.
And that they are not âdoing nothingâ.
@anotherone how exactly do you impeach over the obstruction in the Mueller report if you are not allowed to see the evidence showing that obstruction? How do you even know its appropriate to do so? How do you even investigate if you are currently blocked from the people, organizations, and documents that can provide that evidence? Invoking impeachment does not magically mean that Trump wonât fight subpoenas, that witnesses will suddenly agree to testify, that suddenly state level investigations and law suits will move faster. The DNC has only had sufficient seats to do anything at all in congress for 6 months.
You donât see how a DNC controlled house sending armed officials to detain Republicans might look bad? How it might be easy to spin? Say as part of an organized coup lead by a coalition of Democrats and the Mueller lead deep state? Not that anyone out there has been floating that idea for months and its gained serious traction among the alt-right and other armed conspiracy types. And certainly not at large partisan rallies where that anyone advocates violence against political opponents.
Funny cause thereâs currently a bunch of lawfully issued subpoenas theyâve issued and theyâre actively fighting in court to have them enforced without resorting to sending armed officials to detain their political opponents.
Probably once that subpoena they issued clears Trumpâs attempts to quash it. And those other subpoenas they issued clear the White Houseâs legal challenges in those lawsuits they filed to enforce them through the courts rather than resorting to sending armed congressional officials to detain other government officialsâŚ
Eta: Plus its not like Inherent Contempt will work any faster. It in no way prevents the GOP from challenging subpoenas or using other delay tactics. Weâd likely see the same series of pointless negotiation, challenges, and time spent establishing that these people need to cooperate.
3 Likes
This is what Iâm thinking. Let impeachment and corruption become the #1 topic of the election while shielding the candidates from having to harp on trump 24/7.
2 Likes
