Do people realize if Speaker Pelosi didn't want to impeach, she'd have shut that ish down weeks ago?

[StarfishSaver]

The very fact that support for impeachment is slowly building in the Democratic caucus, with more Members coming out every day to call for it, should tell us something.

If Pelosi was against impeachment and didn't want to move forward with it at all, this probably wouldn't be happening. She likely would have tamped down any discussion of impeachment a long time ago and we wouldn't be seeing this steady growth in impeachment talk.

Think about it ... and stay tuned.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. It's not happening

until it happens. Her not completely shutting it down doesn't necessarily mean anything.

[StarfishSaver]

5. If her not completely shutting it down doesn't mean anything, why do you think her not

coming out with a full-throated charge to move forward immediately means anything?

[cwydro]

2. Lol.

Here we go again.

[demmiblue]

10. No kidding.

DU arguments are for reals, though.

[cwydro]

17. I know I feel fortunate to have the experts we have here.

And that they have the time to devote to edumacating us dumb fucks.

[demmiblue]

20. Well, perhaps it fills some deep-seated need for some folks.

DU therapy, if you will.

[bdamomma]

33. DU therapy

I like it. We all have to unite now, it's more important than ever. I'm just curious about the rapport between Putin and puppet for the G20. It can't get any obvious. Sorry I am off topic.

[qazplm135]

3. yeah no

she's not imbued with Godlike powers. She's Speaker, not Jehovah.

She has a ton of control, but if folks want to speak out her power to stop it is pretty limited unless she wants to go nuclear and strip people of committees and that kind of action would backfire in a hot second.

So no, this would be happening either way. Those who are vocal would be vocal, those who support her path would continue to do so, and those on the fence would hold either way until a critical mass formed one way or the other.

Which is what is happening now.

[StarfishSaver]

4. Funny that

On the one hand, people say she doesn't have the power to tamp down impeachment talks if she doesn't want impeachment. But on the other, people think she has the power to force 170 or so Members to support impeachment just because she says so.

Discouraging public discussion of impeachment is a hell of lot easier than forcing 2/3 of the caucus to support something they're not in favor of.

[qazplm135]

11. yes and no

she has the power to make it EASY for anyone supporting impeachment to start up the process. So IF for e.g. she were holding back judiciary from doing so, then if she says, go ahead, then that opens things up.

But ultimately no she can't FORCE necessarily impeachment if no one in her caucus wants it.

I think she has influence, and she sets a tone and she can impact things sure, but she's not the one with the impeach or not impeach button in her hand either.

[StarfishSaver]

25. She's not holding Judiciary back from doing anything

The Committee needs the approval of the full House to launch an official impeachment inquiry. If a vote were taken today, it would fail miserably. Pelosi knows that - and so does Nadler.

They need to build the support needed to get a majority vote to open an impeachment inquiry and that's what they're doing. But it would help a lot of the constituents who the recalcitrant Members represent and report to would push their Members rather than complain to the Speaker since she's not what's holding it up. She's just drawing the heat off of them while they work their way to yes.

[qazplm135]

41. not really

he can call any investigation he commences anything he wants...preliminary impeachment hearing, or the Russia hearing, just like the "Watergate Hearings" were not at first an official impeachment inquiry.

So yes, she can hold him back from some things or certainly use her influence.

[StarfishSaver]

42. He's already conducting an investigation

And several other committees (including Oversight, Ways and Means, Intelligence, Financial Services) are also conducting numerous hearings and investigations - just like in Watergate.

She's obviously not holding them back from investigating Trump.

[qazplm135]

43. not the same thing

and you know it.

[StarfishSaver]

45. Actually, it's exactly the same thing

[qazplm135]

48. if it were

then no one would be clamoring for an impeachment investigation...if it were then we wouldn't have had the Watergate Hearings which were clear impeachment hearings prior to formal impeachment.

[StarfishSaver]

50. If people better understood the process - or actually listened to those who try to explain it to the

they might not be clamouring so loud or continually make such blatantly erroneous assumptions about it.

For example, just a couple of posts ago, you demanded that Nadler commence an investigation and "call it anything he wants." I told you that Nadler has done just that and your only response was "that's not the same."

Had you bothered to do any research or even just to ask me, you would have learned that Nadler has begun a series of investigatory hearings on the Mueller Report and Trump's wrongdoing that, among other things, are exploring impeachment (which, true to your suggestion that he call them whatever he likes, he described as a "constitutional remedy).

In other words, Nadler is doing exactly what you demanded, whether or not you recognize or choose to acknowledge it.

I also suggest you research the Watergate hearings before trying to instruct others about them. Among other things, you'd learn they weren't impeachment hearings even by stretch of imagination - and not just because they were conducted in the Senate, which has no power of impeachment.

But if you truly believe that any hearing investigating a president's wrongdoing qualifies as an "impeachment hearing," then you should be very happy because, under your definition, impeachment hearings have begun in the House.

[qazplm135]

69. Not remotely true

We know that Nadler and Pelosi have had multiple discussions where he wants to start impeachment investigations and she has said to wait.

It's been widely reported. So what they are playing some games where he secretly has started impeachment investigations but pretends like he's asking Pelosi for them to start?

Or are you going to proclaim that "fake news?"

You are simply declaring something so because you want to believe Pelosi has this master plan to spring impeachment at the perfect moment.

She doesn't. It's very clear she doesn't think impeachment is worthwhile. Heck, she might be right.

And no I didn't say investigating any wrongdoing counts as an impeachment investigation. What I said was that you don't have to label it an impeachment investigation to make it a de facto impeachment investigation and that includes whether it happens in the House or Senate. And no what Nadler is doing is not that. It's certainly not what he WANTS to do.

There's a reason Nadler wants all of the investigations under one committee as opposed to various committees doing various investigations. Just like the Watergate hearings that yes started in the Senate but clearly led to formal impeachment hearings...and if we held the Senate, we could have run that exact same playbook, but we don't so it's going to have to start in the House.

To this point, Pelosi has not gotten on board. In part because there's not enough members of her caucus that want to get on board and in part because it's pretty clear she doesn't see the point if the Senate won't convict. And that's not going to change unless and until a majority of the Dem caucus force Pelosi's hand assuming that happens.

This, it's pretty clear that a series of disparate investigations in various committees does not equate to a single select committee focused solely on presidential misconduct.

There's no eleven dimensional chess going on despite your rather pedantic protestations.

[cwydro]

54. Take notes now...

You’re in class.

[EffieBlack]

56. You can learn a lot from Starfish, so notes aren't a bad idea

You’ll learn even more if you don’t listen to the back benchers who think making snarky comments about how the smart kids are just a bunch know-it-alls will hide the fact that they’re flunking all their classes ...

[ilmare2000]

49. So you believe Pelosi wants to do an impeachment inquiry?

You say, "that's what they're doing". So you believe Pelosi's plan is to get an impeachment inquiry going at some point?

[StarfishSaver]

51. Yes, that's what I believe

[gratuitous]

6. Impeachment is a long shot

But going too soon or too early is a lead pipe cinch to see the effort end in failure. Yes, many of us in the tuned-in political obsessive faction are ready for impeachment to start yesterday. A majority of our fellow citizens are not, and a very large segment of that population doesn't have a clue about why Trump is such a threat to the nation.

I suspect one aspect of Pelosi's methodical approach is to be sure the people of the United States have her back. Considering how mercurial the sentiments of the people are (even here at DU), we need to be forthright and public about our support for impeachment and removal of Donald Trump from the presidency, and be prepared with the reasons why. There's still a lot of preparation and spadework to be done, and that's frustrating for some of us. But I truly think there's no other way, even as we watch the unfolding horror of an unhinged lunatic running our country.

[StarfishSaver]

8. +1000

I'm quite certain if Pelosi and the House leadership were to start impeachment proceedings now and they failed - as people warn they will if begun prematurely - many of the people who are demanding impeachment now no matter what will be the first to blame her for getting it wrong, complete with hindsight lectures about what she shouldacoulda done to make it work.

[JustAnotherGen]

22. Exactly

[wryter2000]

26. What you said

[bdamomma]

34. "running"

and ruining our country too.

[CentralMass]

7. To me anyway it seems as if she is gating it.

[StarfishSaver]

9. What does that mean?

Is "gating" a term of art?

(Not trying to be smartass. Asking for real)

[CentralMass]

31. I mean that imo she is blocking an impeachment.

[forgotmylogin]

52. I think she doesn't fancy being the primary target of rightwing ire.

She can always change her mind from against to for, but it wouldn't work as easily the other way.

[StarfishSaver]

55. I don't think she cares whether she's the target of anyone's ire

As evidenced by, among other things, her willingness to take the heat for the majority of her caucus who don't yet support impeachment.

[GeorgeGist]

12. Or there are independent thinkers.

Last edited Fri Jun 14, 2019, 02:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Think about it.

[StarfishSaver]

18. If they're independent thinkers, why do you expect the Speaker to force them to support impeachment?

Think about that ...

[jberryhill]

13. That "ish"?

Wtf is an “ish”?

[StarfishSaver]

15. This

Scroll down

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ish&utm_source=search-action

[jberryhill]

19. So the subject of impeachment is "shit" to you?

Last edited Fri Jun 14, 2019, 04:30 PM - Edit history (1)

What are you trying to say?

Using English to say it might help, but Nancy Pelosi does not generally control what other people talk about.

[Hekate]

28. "Issue"?

[jberryhill]

46. Gesundheit

[earthshine]

14. "She likely would have tamped down any discussion of impeachment "

She has no ability to do that.

This is public outcry and she is ignoring it.

[StarfishSaver]

16. She has no ability to tamp down the discussion

But she does have the ability to force 170+ Members to change their positions?

[NurseJackie]

21. Your observations are correct.

Your observations are correct.

But she does have the ability to force 170+ Members to change their positions?

Exactly. Thank you!

[StarfishSaver]

23. Logic

[earthshine]

32. I believe it's called whipping the votes.

If she wanted impeachment, most members would follow her lead.

Instead, she chooses not to lead, or rather, to lead from behind.

[StarfishSaver]

38. Your belief is not correct

A Speaker can't and doesn't singlehandedly whip 170+ votes at this stage of the process by simply telling other Members to vote the way she wants.

That's not how it works.

[earthshine]

39. It's called "leadership."

Nadler wants an impeachment inquiry. But Pelosi says "no".

She just doesn't want it. Too messy for her, I guess. By her words, impeachment has been off the table since 2006.

I think all members of congress are confused by her stance, and that's why the caucus is all over the place.

[StarfishSaver]

40. Whatever

At least you stopped saying "it's called whipping the vote.""

That's progress, I guess.

[NewsCenter28]

61. Incorrect

Speaker Pelosi in 2010 single-handedly brought the ACA back to life through nothing but the sheer force of her own will. She also twisted arms so hard that she even had members who knew voting for the ACA was suicidal in their teabagger districts voting yes just because she told them to do so. Remember, even the WH was ready to go small but she even led them to going all in the ACA, again through the sheer force of her enormous power alone.

What is really going on here is she fears another electoral bloodbath, ACA style, if she forces an impeachment vote before the public is ready. I suspect she never would have pushed the ACA so hard in 2010 if she knew it would cause the bloodbath it did. I’m sure that is leading her to run a more centrist house this time.

Passing the ACA was the right thing to do but she probably wonders if doing the right thing again is really worth losing the majority over, especially when the senate will never ever vote to convict even if Putin declares Trump his puppet-in-chief. I’m sure 2010 still haunts and hurts her to this day.

Her reasons are justified but she’s proven before that she can make 218 votes appear just by waving her wand.

That said, if the congressional hearings she has authorized lead to bipartisan calls for impeachment, no one will be more pleased than her to start the process.

[StarfishSaver]

62. I'm glad you mentioned the ACA - it's an excellent example

It took Pelosi more than a year to get the votes for it. She didn't just announce she was for it and her entire caucus just fell in line because she said so. And she used a very soft sell internally, giving Members plenty of time and space to build support district by district. She didn't start twisting arms and kicking asses until it was much closer to the wire and the extra votes were needed to get over the finish line

The ACA wasn't initiated by Pelosi. It was President Obama's initiative and had the White House's full backing.

Not only did Pelosi have the White House's help, she had LOTS of help from the field. Constituents, civil rights organizations, social justice groups and community health activists, etc. coordinated and organized across the country to build support for the bill. There was a massive year-long effort, including town halls and war rooms that coordinated with the White House and the Hill, but operated from the bottom up, not the top down.

So no, Speaker Pelosi hasn't proven "she can make 218 votes appear just by waving her wand" but she probably wishes passing the ACA, getting support for impeachment - and everything else - were as easy as the revisionist view seems to think it was.

[NewsCenter28]

68. https://theintercept.com/2018/11/20/nancy-pelosi-obamacare-democrats/

Fascinating article. Check it out! Barney Frank was ready to give up even of all people! If this were happening now, Nancy would be taking the position that Rahm Emmanuel took in 2010 as opposed to the one she actually took.

Something has scarred her and taken the fight out of her that she used to have. I don’t recognize the Pelosi described in that article today, furthering my hypothesis that her 2010 humiliation has her determined to be a hyper-cautious don’t rock the boat go along to get along Speaker this go round.

[ehrnst]

75. This article trashes Pelosi....

Which is why you didn't post any content from it...

She's not doing what you want her to do, so you think she's weak.

Why would Democrats in congress have made her speaker yet again if she's as "scarred and fearful" as you say?

[NewsCenter28]

70. The approach she took to the ACA

Is not remotely similar to the approach she is taking to President Trump for the reasons elucidated in the article I discussed. She is not interested in investigating the Preaident and would prefer to legislate on health care, immigration, infrastructure, LGBT issues, etc.

[StarfishSaver]

71. The approach she took to the ACA isn't remotely similar to how she's handling impeachment

because the two situations are not remotely similar. But I didn't bring it up - YOU did

But for a Speaker who "is not remotely interested in investigating the president," Pelosi sure has a lot of investigations of the president going on under her watch. That can only mean one of two things: either your mind-reading is way off and she actually IS very interested in investigating the president or her caucus is doing exactly as it pleases against her wishes. If it's the latter, it's laughable for anyone to claim she's somehow singlehandedly stopping caucus members from starting an impeachment inquiry since she obviously doesn't have the influence over them that some people claim.

[asiliveandbreathe]

24. Perhaps tomorrow will get some visibility on this subject of IMPEACHMENT....

visibility -

https://act.moveon.org/event/impeachment-day-of-action-events/search/

Join us on Saturday, June 15, for #ImpeachTrump: Act to Defend Democracy, a national day of local action to demand an inquiry into the impeachment of Donald Trump!

[LiberalLovinLug]

27. "Think about it "

If I think about it, one can look at it the opposite way as well.

Pelosi, along with the more status quo "moderates", may very well not want to impeach, and if she had her way she'd have shut it down weeks ago, like she quickly yanked impeachment off the table on Dubya. That does seem like more her MO.

But one by one members are defying her as they hear from their constituents anger and demands. That is just as plausible. It still might very well reach a critical mass and she will have no choice but to call for impeachment finally as well.

[EleanorR]

29. I do wish people would call their congresspersons 202 224 3121

Ask them to support opening an impeachment inquiry. They need to hear from their constituents.

[StarfishSaver]

30. Yes.

That makes more sense than yelling at and complaining about Pelosi.

[bdamomma]

36. exactly

they really need to hear from us.

Let that drumbeat get louder..........and louder.

[EleanorR]

35. 64 members of the House of Representatives who favor starting an impeachment inquiry

If your congressperson is not on this list, you need to call or email and let them know you want them to support opening an impeachment inquiry! This list was last updated on the 11th.

Democrats:

Alma Adams, N.C.

Nanette Barragán, Calif.

Don Beyer, Va.

Earl Blumenauer, Ore.

Suzanne Bonamici, Ore.

Brendan Boyle, Penn.

G.K. Butterfield, N.C.

Joaquin Castro, Texas

David Cicilline, R.I. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)

Yvette Clarke, N.Y.

Steve Cohen, Tenn. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)

Danny K. Davis, Ill.

Madeleine Dean, Penn. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)

Diana DeGette, Colo.

Val Demings, Fla. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)

Mark DeSaulnier, Calif.

Lloyd Doggett, Texas

Veronica Escobar, Texas (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)

Adriano Espaillat, N.Y.

Dwight Evans, Penn.

Marcia Fudge, Ohio

Jesús García, Ill.

Mary Gay Scanlon, Penn. (Vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee)

Al Green, Texas

Raul Grijalva, Ariz. (Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee)

Jared Huffman, Calif.

Pramila Jayapal, Wash. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)

Robin Kelly, Ill.

Barbara Lee, Calif.

Ted Lieu, Calif. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)

Alan Lowenthal, Calif.

Tom Malinowski, N.J.

Betty McCollum, Minn.

Jim McGovern, Mass. (Chairman of the House Rules Committee)

Gwen Moore, Wis.

Seth Moulton, Mass.

Grace Napolitano, Calif.

Joe Neguse, Colo. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, N.Y.

Ilhan Omar, Minn.

Bill Pascrell, N.J.

Chellie Pingree, Me.

Mark Pocan, Wis.

Ayanna Pressley, Mass.

Mike Quigley, Ill.

Jamie Raskin, Md. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)

Kathleen Rice, N.Y.

Cedric Richmond, La. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)

Bobby Rush, Ill.

Tim Ryan, Ohio

Brad Sherman, Calif.

Jackie Speier, Calif.

Greg Stanton, Arizona (Member of the House Judiciary Committee)

Bennie Thompson, Miss. (Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee)

Rashida Tlaib, Mich.

Paul Tonko, N.Y.

Norma Torres, Calif.

Juan Vargas, Calif.

Filemon Vela, Texas

Maxine Waters, Calif. (Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee)

John Yarmuth, Ky. (Chairman of the House Budget Committee)

Eric Swalwell, Calif. (Member of the House Judiciary Committee, member of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 2020 presidential candidate)

Dan Kildee, Mich. (chief deputy whip of House Democratic caucus)

[bdamomma]

37. the more calls the Reps get

from us, watch that list get longer.

They do take their cues from us.

[greatauntoftriplets]

53. Happy to see my rep on that list.

Danny Davis of IL.

[ecstatic]

58. Looks like my all but useless congressman is

shirking his duty. He never even bothered to respond to my email about impeachment.

[Stinky The Clown]

44. Why think when it's so much easier to bash her

I find it disgusting how many people on this board, supposedly Democrats, are just gleefully, painfully, with angst, with impatience, bashing her. Just stop it.


This is not aimed at the OP in any way shape or form

[StarfishSaver]

47. Makes one wonder, doesn't it?

[MFGsunny]

66. Sometimes feels like spitballs from the cheap seats .... Pelosi deserves better!

[ecstatic]

57. Shut that shit down? Really? She's not a

Dictator or queen. Neither she, nor mcconnell, has a free pass to ignore an out of control president who is consistently violating norms and the law.

[StarfishSaver]

59. Plenty of people seem to think she not only has the desire but the power to singlehandedly

block impeachment or to force 3/4 of her caucus to support it against their will just because she says so.

If either of those are the case, surely she at least has the power to stop members of her caucus from publicly advocating for something she opposes.

[ecstatic]

60. Fair enough. nt

[betsuni]

63. K&R

[stillcool]

64. Unfortunately, Pelosi...

is everyone's favorite dog to kick. I guess it feel good?

[StarfishSaver]

65. Of course, she can handle it

And I think that she doesn't have a problem taking the heat while her caucus can get where it needs to be.

Of course, it would be nice if the people who devoting so much effort to trashing her would turn their attention toward trying to influence the Members who need to actually get on board if impeachment's going to happen.

[Stinky The Clown]

67. THIS- every word of it

[Hortensis]

73. Here, StarfishSaver, I realize too. :) She and her team are

pursuing big strategies with what have to be several hugely important goals and time lines.

I believe that all of them must involve, or at least not hurt, not just getting Trump out of power at some point but taking control of the presidency and senate away from the Republicans in 2020. They're criminals betraying their country and pose a grave threat to our nation. I believe she'd have a bill of impeachment introduced first thing in the morning if that action was most likely to achieve those goals, and she'd have all the support from her caucus that she needed.

As for all this anxious yammering, let's see... The government was shut down through January, not coincidentally delaying the beginning of house actions that month. So, she's been speaker working on this, let's see...February, March, April, May and half of June.

A whole four-and-a-half months. If some uber-anxious heads finally explode over the next one, as seems likely, it's going to get strangely thoughtful and intelligent around here this summer.

[StarfishSaver]

74. Truth

So refreshing!

[fescuerescue]

76. I think that wants she wants to do and what she decides to do are different things

For instance. I really want to take the day off work, but I've decided to work because I really need the money.

I'm quite sure that Pelosi really wants to Impeach Trump just like all of us.


However, what she will do, I'm not so sure and I tend to believe that Trump will NOT be impeached this term.

She has her reasons for not impeaching Trump to date. I hope you are right, but I think that at this point the past is somewhat predictive of the future and time is getting very short.

Personally, I think that she has decided that constant talk of looming impeachment is more powerful than an actual failed impeachment. But that's just my opinion of what her opinion might be.