Pelosi Says Impeaching Trump "Not Worth It"

wrath
1

Not worth it? Not worth what?

Damn the refusal of powerful Dems to go after criminal Republicans. Damn it to hell.

Too divisive, she says. As if the country isn’t already divided. As if powerful Dems these days could ever get most Trumpkins on their side. :roll_eyes: :rage:

“I’m not for impeachment,” Pelosi, the top US Democrat, said in a Washington Post interview published on Monday.

“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,” she said. “He’s just not worth it.”

20 Likes
2

I don’t think she knows how REALLY divided it already is.

IMPEACH THE MOTHER FUCKER.

18 Likes
3

Pelosi’s disinterest in impeachment has been obvious for years.

The purpose of the Russiagate investigations is (a) to distract from the corruption and incompetence of the Dem establishment, and (b) electoral marketing. They never intended to impeach.

9 Likes
4

Hmmmmm

6 Likes
5

Today’s headline: Pelosi Says Impeaching Trump “Not Worth It”

November’s headline: Californians Say Voting For Pelosi “Not Worth It”

13 Likes
6

Well, I think the Dems will turn on Trump from an impeachment angle a little ahead of the GOP. In the end, I don’t think many people will be standing with his wannabe crime family. But a good number of things will happen over the course of this year before we get there. More indictments – of people whose name happens to be Trump – ought to help the whole thing along. Along with the Mueller report hitting, of course.

But Nancy… Not doing much to improve my impression of you right now!

5 Likes
7

She seems to be signaling due respect for her congressional leader. However, this is buried at the end of that piece; strikes a different note, I think:

“Lindsey Graham said himself that you don’t have to commit a crime to be impeached when he was making the argument for Clinton, you just have to have kind of defiled the office in a way, which hello, so in every way imaginable. So, I think according to the Lindsey Graham standard, that absolutely, does Trump meet that bar? He’s met it multiple times,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

19 Likes
8

LOL I so love this woman!!!

“Which, hello!” :rofl:

8 Likes
9

I’d like you to imagine a divisive society.
Imagine a society where two factions trade power through elections. Sometimes faction one wins the election; sometimes faction alpha wins the election.

And imagine if the winner of each election proceeds to govern as if they are free to commit lawless acts during this period of power.

And the people don’t give a shit about these acts being wrong. Oh sure, if your preferred faction is out of power, you might scream bloody murder about the sons of bitches in Washington burning the women, eating the babies, and raping the livestock. But man oh man are you going to get your revenge come next election.

Whereas, if the factions actually confront political malfeasance, and sometimes remove politicians who cross the line, there’s a shared consensus and a moment of unity-- we may disagree on some things, but goddamit, there are certain lines we won’t cross.

I think that impeachment, ideally, is a means to remove a President who can’t be counteracted through normal means. In the American system, there are a couple of powers which the President can weild unilaterally, without the consent of the other branches. Originally, I suppose, these powers were somewhat limited in scope. For instance-- the pardon power. Others were envisioned with clear checks.

“So what if the President wants to start a war? Congress can simply defund the army!”

Now, of course, the president is a position as “commander in chief” to betray ll the sorts of secrets that stem from that sort of role. And all sorts of legal bullshittery has been written to limit judicial of congressional oversight. So what can Congress actually do about this? Impeachment seems the appropriate choice.

If you think Trump is going to abuse his powers for electoral advantage-- impeachment would preempt this abuse. But the two thirds threshold is much higher than a fair election

2 Likes
10

well, to be fair, Gerald Ford first raised that standard when the House Republicans wanted to impeach Justice Brennan.

11

Based on another article I read, she (and Adam Schiff) believe that an impeachment process will energize Trump’s base and threaten 2020.

Personally, given the extreme polarization and rock steady left/right views re Trump, I really don’t think that the threat of impeachment will change the 60/40-ish split we’d see in 2020 because we’re all screaming for impeachment now and have been for quite awhile. If crying “impeachment” will affect the election, then as much as Pelosi claims it will energize the right, then that cry will just as much energize the left.

5 Likes
13

If for one reason only, I believe that Trump should be impeached as an object lesson. If not, any terrible future presidents (not even as rotten as Trump) will believe they can get off scot free.

7 Likes
14

My vote was not counted in the last election because of a “signature change”.

My senators and congresspersons are doing nothing about Trump.

And the House leader, after years of BOEHNER and LittleBoy now wants to sit on her fucking hands.

Christ on a biscuit I am in a horrible way at the moment.

5 Likes
15

Honestly, I hate saying “I told you so”, but…

impch

3 Likes
16

Reading between the lines, I read it as “focus time and energy on an election we think we can win.” I tend to agree with that. Any impeachment would have to be ground-up. You need people in the right states hounding their senators to support a conviction… otherwise it’s not worth spilling blood over for Pelosi. Impeachment is dead in the cradle without meaningful non-twitter popular support.

Put people in the streets and it happens. Pelosi won’t make it happen. Even following impeachment, you still get Christian Dominionist Pence, Republicans still control the Senate, and judges still get fast-tracked.

But I reiterate my main point: Without the numbers in Congress, impeachment starts down on the ground, not up on the Hill. Fact is that we live in a country where I wouldn’t be surprised by a lukewarm response from everyday liberals to Trump refusing to leave the White House if he loses. In fact, I expect it, and I expect to be disappointed in the response. I have zero faith that Pence won’t play dirty tricks, either. Trump set all kinds of precedents that would help him fly under the radar, too.

I’m not a fan of Pelosi by any means, but frankly I don’t see the point in her trying with so little productive interest on the ground, and the possibility of it backfiring. Deliver the Senators and she might open up.

6 Likes
17

Were people in the streets demanding it when Nixon was impeached? When Clinton was?

She and other Dems would get a lot more support from the many people who are in rage and despair about Trump if they led a serious impeachment effort, instead of waving away the huge groundswell of disgust with him.

Pelosi’s tone-deaf statement will mostly just serve to fuel cynicism about out of touch leaders in Washington who care more about reaching across the aisle and getting along with all the other fat cats than they do about serving the real interests of their own damn voters.

10 Likes
18

Different political makeup of the houses and senates. That’s why I said,

Support in real political terms? You and I care more, but it doesn’t make our votes weigh more. Do you really count on liberals to show up in the crunch? I think it’s easier to grow a broad movement to get the goods than to expect Pelosi to lead anything. But again “the goods” are that Pence becomes president, which is a consideration not worth handwaving either.

2 Likes
19

Without a Senate conviction to make it real, Trump and his supporters will shrug it off, same as always.

1 Like
20

Not even. It’ll need a plausible pathway to actually working. There’s enough control in the house currently to pass articles of impeachment, probably narrowly. As that only takes a simple majority.

But no way in hell is there currently a chance of getting a 2/3 majority to convict in the Senate. No matter how many Democratic voters call Republican senators about it. GOP voters still heavily back Trump, as do GOP politicians. These people ran a damn kangaroo court of a congressional investigation into the subject. And several of them were directly involved in the White House’s messaging (especially Nunez). We have impeachable offenses, and there may be enough support in the house to impeach. But currently there is zero chance of successfully removing Trump that way.

And there’s extreme concern from a lot of people, including Democratic leaders, that impeachment under these conditions doesn’t just fail. It backfires. A party line vote on impeachment with little support in the Senate looks politically motivated and that could just strengthen Trump’s position. As does the implication that an impeachment is preordained regardless of Trump’s conduct.

This is essentially what happened with Bill Clinton, guy came out of the failed impeachment with big public support and finished his term with record approval ratings. Trump himself is already pushing this idea. It was one of his major stumping points during the midterms and it does seem to have moved the needle. If only in the form of galvanizing his control of the party.

To have a plausible pathway to impeachment you need a lot more than we have now. Serious shifts in public opinion, and support from enough Republicans to get to 2/3 in the Senate. And that’s gonna take much clearer evidence of a crime, and more clearly criminal actions.

This isn’t the first time Pelosi, or other DNC leaders have said this. And its sensible. Impeachment is pointless and dangerous until it’s not. So none of them are “for” impeachment while it’s still an implausible pathway. If the situation changes enough to make it possible then I really, really, really doubt you’ll be seeing Nancy Pelosi standing in the way while Republicans scream for Trump’s head.

For the time being there are concerns about what vocal calls for impeachment may do to the next election, it’s basically handing an big, meaty, divisive bone to the Trump campaign. They don’t have to just worry about whether they win the white house or not. They have to worry about what the situation looks like if they don’t. Losing the presidency but picking up enough control to make impeachment possible is a lot better than losing ground across the whole federal government.

So from pretty much minute one DNC congressional leadership have been down playing impeachment and loudly proclaiming that they don’t support it.

6 Likes
21

I’m not without sympathy to your general gist, but what clearer evidence of numerous crimes could there be? Hell, Trump has been helpful enough to basically confess on quite a few occasions.

3 Likes