Pelosi to Democrats: If facts support impeaching Trump, 'that's the place we have to go'

[marble falls]

Source: USA Today

Pelosi to Democrats: If facts support impeaching Trump, 'that's the place we have to go'
Eliza Collins, USA TODAY Published 2:14 p.m. ET April 22, 2019 | Updated 6:18 a.m. ET April 23, 2019




WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi left open the possibility Monday of impeachment of Donald Trump during a conference call with Democrats, saying "if that’s the place the facts take us, that’s the place we have to go."

“We have to save our democracy. This isn’t about Democrats or Republicans. It’s about saving our democracy,” Pelosi said in a call with her colleagues, according to a source on the call. But Pelosi also urged Democrats to first focus on following the facts.

<snip>

"There’s real consensus that we need to take this responsibility seriously and people are very sober about the implications about the work that lies ahead and committed to making sure that we hold the president accountable," said Rep. David Cicilline, a member of the Judiciary Committee and the chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, which helps the party with messaging.



The Rhode Island Democrat said "there were a number of people," including himself, who said that the report showed actions by Trump that were impeachable. But he added "no one was saying file articles of impeachment today."



<snip>

Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/22/mueller-report-pelosi-impeachment-democrats-strategy/3538215002/

---

Further in the article it gives the 'roadmap' for impeachment.

[PSPS]

1. Precisely the proper stance.

[llmart]

2. +1

[TwilightZone]

3. Agreed.

[wryter2000]

24. Yup

She's playing it right.

In the meantime, wall-to-wall investigations to educate the American people on what's been going on.

I just watched a clip from The View about the Mueller report. Lots of people who don't hang out on DU are hearing about Trump's crimes.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

30. No way! IF the facts support impeaching Dolt-45?! The facts are in... Mueller's report makes out an

OVERWHELMING case of obstruction of justice. I assume Nancy read the report... so what is she waiting for?!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[orangecrush]

34. I am a Pennsylvania Democrat

and I support Democrats in Pennsylvania and elsewhere via Act Blue.

Yesterday I called all 8 Pennsylvania representatives and asked them to vote for impeachment.

I urge all who believe their own eyes and ears and not Bill Barr or Donald Trump to do the same.

[Cary]

4. Good for her!

She has my support.

[Me.]

5. I Hope People Will Be Able To Understand This Strategy

and stop insisting we do it NOW.

[padah513]

12. I'm with you but we both know that they won't

I don't understand why this is so complicated for some people. You don't put the cart before the horse.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. THAT is what should be the stance

so we don't keep going back and forth with the "off the table" stuff, "well maybe" back to "off the table". The Democratic Party agenda include passing bills dealing with "pocketbook" issues - AND THEY HAVE BEEN DOING THAT. The problem of course is the Senate and Turtle.

So no one should be going around saying that Democrats should focus on <fill in the blank> and making other such bullshit statements because from Day 1, they HAVE.

It's a shame because as a House Speaker, she is expected to do these interviews and press conferences and I expect all kinds of strategizing needs to happen behind the scenes to create backstops if/when they move forward.

I think part of the problem is going back 20-years ago to use the Clinton impeachment as a "precedent" for anything in the future. But there is a HUGE difference between what happened with Clinton and what is happening today with this administration. And nowadays, the "court of public opinion" is very much controlled by the GOP so there needs to be a way to get around that.

[ancianita]

11. I've never seen any "off the table" talk on DU or in media. Everyone knows Pelosi will go with

impeachment now that she's said she would.

[BumRushDaShow]

15. I guess you missed this just yesterday?

House Democratic leaders say no immediate plans to open impeachment proceedings against Trump

By Rachael Bade, Karoun Demirjian and Jacqueline Alemany
April 22 at 8:11 PM

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told lawmakers Monday that there are no plans to immediately open impeachment proceedings against President Trump, rejecting calls from several Democrats to initiate steps to try to oust the president.

In a rare Monday night conference call, the California Democrat stressed that the near-term strategy in the wake of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report is to focus on investigating the president and seeing where the inquiries lead. Members of Pelosi’s leadership team reaffirmed her cautious approach, according to four officials on the call who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-says-democrats-can-hold-trump-accountable-without-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/22/68fce0c8-6514-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html?utm_term=.6542c7d23910

This was posted in LBN yesterday and was subsequently locked 3 hours later for not using the actual headline.

This is why the clarification articles today.

[ancianita]

21. Cool. Didn't see it. Not concern trolling, either. Civics and impeachment in mind at all times.

[BumRushDaShow]

28. Civics

knowledge would then require you to note that timing during the impeachment of Bill Clinton. The timeline here - https://www.theguardian.com/world/1998/nov/18/clinton.usa

September 9, 1998
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr releases his report to Congress. It has 11 possible grounds for impeachment. The House votes to make the 445-page report public.

September 11, 1998
Congress makes the report public.

***ONE "SLOW" MONTH LATER***

October 5, 1998
The House Judiciary Committee votes to launch a congressional impeachment inquiry against President Clinton.

October 8, 1998
The House of Representatives vote for impeachment proceedings to begin against Clinton. The House judiciary committee will be given wide powers to draw up detailed charges against Mr Clinton, based on 11 allegations by the independent counsel Kenneth Starr in his report on the Monica Lewinsky affair.

***TWO MORE "SLOW MONTHS" LATER*** with hearings and delays, votes occur for articles to be voted out of committee and sent to the full House for final debate and a vote.

Right now, Democrats are at the very beginning, with what is basically "incomplete" (highly redacted) information based on how they received the Mueller Report (vs what happened almost 21 years ago), and the Mueller report was only given to Congress last Thursday (5 days ago).

[ancianita]

37. That's not a lesson in civics as much as a model of painstaking Republican salaciousness about a

moral issue -- a sex act. It's as laughable now as it was then.

You even admit Clinton's impeachment was "slow." It was hella slow.

As Graham said then, in so many words: "... If this body determines that your conduct as a public official is out of bounds in your role. Because impeachment is ... about cleansing, restoring the honor and dignity of the office."

His words do ring true today.

But. Nowhere does all that wasted taxpayer money and time support our wasting the public's time and money -- with trying, stalling, going to court, holding press conferences to clear up questions and confusions -- in order to get ten times the amount of criminal evidence Star had.

AND. We don't have the time for playing media games that claim we're keeping Trump guessing. That it's "strategy." Impeachment is too important for that and should be handled accordingly.

I KNOW we're at the beginning. We were at the beginning a week ago. Already Pelosi has to explain to the public about how slow this acquiring of "the facts" will be. Even TV commenters and anchors say this is headed toward playing out too slowly.

But. Congress' constitutional duty boils down to impeachment proceedings.

I see no better time than now to get past the idea of doing impeachment the hard way.

My stance is that, in short order -- not necessarily NOW -- they don't have to "get on with it!" --

But soon -- just by way of example -- say, two stalled subpoenas, or stalled tax documents -- the House will really need to do its constitutional duty, as the public will see it, to *really* begin formal impeachment proceedings.

Not take the hard way. There's *always* the disgusting Star model for THAT.

I'm surprised you'd even use that impeachment example, almost as if you wanted to show Republican impeachment history as dogma.

Come ON.

EDIT: Let's put this on pause. Gotta watch Ari.

[BumRushDaShow]

40. Bringing up the content of the process is irrelevent when "pace" is being argued

I.e., there are steps that Congress has to go through to reach what most of us desire and it ain't gonna be speeded up and done half-assed.

And AGAIN, there have only been THREE impeachments in the entire history of the U.S. since the Constitution was ratified. Two of them happened during the 20th century, and one of those two never made it to the Senate.

THAT is history AND civics, regardless of who it was done against.

And the "get on with it" demand is exactly what is happening right now with the subpoenas and scheduling to bring Mueller in to testify and getting other testimony scheduled to get enough info in order to begin to draft articles.

Remember that several Democrats, notably Al Green, have introduced Articles of Impeachments and they were shot down because the resolutions were done before any reports were received or other LEGAL info had been obtained to support the articles.

I recall almost 11 years ago, sitting there for 4 hours watching Dennis Kucinich read 25 articles of impeachment into the record against Shrub and those went nowhere too - because the resolution really hadn't gone through the proper channels - the Judiciary Committee.

And as a note - those teevee "analysts" are paid to talk. And talk they will and say all kinds of things, so don't always take everything they say as "gospel".

[ancianita]

41. I gave you the Pace Argument on another thread. Here it is again.

The Pace Argument. The pace of impeachment proceedings INHERENTLY respects the process.

Impeachment Proceedings get ALL the content in a timely way. The hard way would take until Nov, 2020 to get -- even if they ignored Trump's game to stall them, the public wouldn't ignore him or the time Democrats have taken to slog through to get that content. In the public eye,

Impeachment Proceedings immediately help the public to easily see ALL the evidence, testimony, AND uncovered crimes as accounted for. Impeachment Proceedings' faster pace brings to light -- due to the very jurisdictional power inherent in impeachment proceedings -- CONTENT that in no way compromises the public's understanding of the *case building* that gets done before their eyes.

The pace of Impeachment Proceedings -- instead of what it looks like we're headed for -- would be gratifying for *both* parties' voters to see, and would show the good governance that Democratic leadership wants to be known for.

Again, proceeding the hard way, would make viewer/voters turn off such proceedings the way they do CSPAN. And likely cause them to doubt that Democrats can't govern the way they've led the public to believe they can.

It's about time,
the use of taxpayer dollars,
timely results that justice can be done, fairly, accurately and well.

I predict that voters will appreciate how Impeachment Proceedings will help them make more informed, less confused, better presidential voting decisions. The hard way, outside of Impeachment Proceedings, won't.

Polling during the Impeachment Proceedings process -- if begun fairly soon -- will bear this out.

If I'm wrong I'll buy you dinner, anywhere, time and place. No matter where you live. And you won't even have to put up with my presence.

(All this while I'm watching Ari? thank you very much)

[BumRushDaShow]

42. I posted this OP in LBN not long ago

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142306726

And specifically it mentions this -

McGahn was mentioned more than 150 times in Mueller's report and provided damaging accounts to investigators about how the president pressured him to oust the special counsel and then pushed him to publicly deny the episode. McGahn's lawyer, William Burck, began discussions with the House Judiciary Committee about his potential testimony after the panel issued a subpoena Monday, according to people familiar with the matter. Securing McGahn's testimony would be a boon for the Judiciary Committee, which hopes to focus on potential obstruction of justice by Trump in a series of public hearings this spring while exploring other "abuses of power," Democratic aides said.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-plans-to-fight-house-subpoena-of-former-counsel-donald-mcgahn-for-testimony-on-mueller-report/2019/04/23/2d48732a-65f1-11e9-83df-04f4d124151f_story.html

Meaning that the hearings are pretty much imminent. Getting McGahn to testify would be the meat of "obstruction of justice" which would be a significant part of impeachment.

So again - they have already started laying the groundwork for the hearings that will be going on from now until whenever. But I wouldn't hang my hat on attempting to hold hearings without witnesses and then performing blabby theatrics for hours like the Issas and Gowdys and Jordans of the GOP. You want legal substance to nail someone to the wall without a doubt.

[ancianita]

43. Fine. If McGahn says soon, I'm good. I'd hang my hat on witness testimony. How you'd even

THINK that the quality of our proceedings would be "like" those Republican dumb fucks is bizarre.

Our questions are pointed, emphatic and take no deflection. McGahn will be above and beyond in handling all that.

There will be no theatrics, even from committee Republicans. They'll be shut down as complicit in obstruction, badgering. For the record.

Don't worry about "legal substance" or nailing someone to the wall. The evidence will do all that even if they don't appear.

(Pause for dinner)

[BumRushDaShow]

44. Your insisting on speeding up "the pace"

would make them look like what the GOP loons do.

Again - that is why this needs to be a deliberate process so that they DID get "every bang for the buck" and not bringing nonsense people in. And I disagree that there won't be any "theatrics" from the GOP. We already saw their theatrics during the Cohen hearings.

And the idea of "don't worry about 'legal substance'" is about the most ridiculous thing I have read on DU in a long time. "Evidence" = "legal substance".

[ancianita]

45. Okay, now you're just ignoring me. Making stuff up that I didn't say or mean. I've made my case.

Take it or leave it, but don't call my judgment about legal substance, evidence, pace, or even theatrics ridiculous.

I've explained each and every one from my best knowledge of the voting public.

I know the Republicans as well as you. Hell, I live in a red state and hear their thinking all the time. Don't think I don't drive by their news sites.

I know how they'll pounce on every little Democratic statement, how they'll call any Democratic effort weak, offer absolutely nothing, make baseless emo charges, niggle with barely contained contempt and arrogant stupidity.

The public can read all that. I trust the public.

I'm done here. You're getting personal. Do not "negatively call-out, ascribe ugly ulterior motives to, or make baseless claims about any member of this community. Do not post in a manner that is hostile, abusive, or aggressive toward any member of this community."

We'll see how the committee roll out their work. I'm sure they'll do the best they can, no matter the pace. I trust them, too.

All the best.

[BumRushDaShow]

46. My posts stand as what I wrote

We can agree to disagree on aspects and that's fine. I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening!

[wryter2000]

25. "Off the table" goes back to Bush

No one's saying impeachment should be off the table except for a few Republicans who are trying to tell the Democrats how they should approach Trump's crimes.

[ancianita]

31. Right. No one has said that except Republicans.

[California_Republic]

7. Investigate, subpoena , build the case

[lagomorph777]

9. +1 I'm glad she's moderating her tone.

[3Hotdogs]

29. Is the "moderation" to appease pro-impeachers or does she really believe it.

I believe she is just throwing a bone.

[NYMinute]

8. Finally someone mentioned "facts"

I adore and respect Nancy Pelosi.

She will do the right thing.

[bluestarone]

10. AGREE

See how the subpoenas work out!! ( will be interesting for sure!)

[johnnyfins]

13. drip, drip, drip

Public, televised, hearings. Watch Orangina lose it...

[Mr.Bill]

14. "If"? Really?

The facts have supported impeaching Trump since the day he was sworn in.

[SunSeeker]

16. Totally agree. nt

[RussBLib]

17. gather all the facts, be sure the American people are aware

and then impeach the hell outta that jackass

[Honeycombe8]

18. Whatever the Democratic leaders decide to do, I'm behind them.

(within reason...I mean, if they throw Trump a birthday party to say "we forgive you for everything, you big lug, you!"...I would not support that.)

[orangecrush]

35. ....

[SunSeeker]

19. Wrong: "Whether it's articles of impeachment or investigations, it's the same obtaining of facts."

Regular oversight hearings do not give authority to Congress to obtain Mueller's grand jury info. Only formal impeachment proceedings can do that.

Per the Washington Post:

Significantly, the appeals court decision several days ago reaffirmed that exception. All three judges agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the “exception for judicial proceedings” and “coheres” with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html  

Trump welcomed a Russian attack on our country in order to gain office, then obstructed our Justice Department, sacking an AG and an FBI Director, in order to stop the investigation into that attack. This is horrifically worse than Watergate. We must expose this behavior in the context of a formal impeachment investigation because only that properly treats this misconduct with the seriousness it deserves.

You do an oversight hearing on a cabinet secretary spending $40k of taxpayer money on a dining set for his office. You do an impeachment investigation hearing on a President who a Special Counsel found welcomed a Russian attack hacking our democracy, them tried to repeatedly to stop the investigation of that attack.

We must be on record as impeaching a president who commited these grave, treasonous crimes. 

We already have the preliminary investigation done by Mueller. If you've read the report, you know he all but begs Congress to start impeachment proceedings, reppeatedly stating that is where a decision on whether Trump obstructed justice must be made. He gave us a roadmap to 10 categories of obstruction Trump committed. We need the grand jury evidence supporting these 10 categories. That is why these need to be formal impeachment investigation hearings, not regular oversight hearings.

THEN, we draw up articles of impeachment. People seem to misunderstand the process. The House must first have impeachment investigation hearings, then draw up articles of impeachment, and vote on them. If the majority votes to approve the articles of impeachment, Trump is then officially impeached and the Senate conducts a "trial" on those charges.

[orangecrush]

36. THANK YOU!

For cutting through the bullshit.

[BigmanPigman]

38. They can get his TAXES that way too!

If they choose to get his taxes via impeachment hearings the process would be fairly quick and easy, as opposed to a regular Congressional investigation which will stall and delay for a year.

[bluecollar2]

20. I want him impeached

But I want it done right and I agree with Speaker Pelosi's approach....

Even though i want instant gratification...

[NurseJackie]

22. I trust Nancy Pelosi's judgement on this. She knows what she's doing.

She's rational and reasonable. She's got the right tone and the right attitude.

[marble falls]

47. Me too. We really do want to 'stream-line' process like the GOP seems to want to do. We aren't them.

[truthisfreedom]

23. That's fine, but let's focus on getting his finances exposed.

Taxes and dealings, all out in the open.

[wryter2000]

27. Yeah

And money laundering for the Russians.

[TryLogic]

26. People need to stop saying "impeachable". The key words should be responsibility and necessity.

"Impeachable" sounds like persons looking for an excuse which would be political.

[watoos]

33. Not impeaching is a political decision.

[BigmanPigman]

39. Agree 100%!

[watoos]

32. Donald Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator.

That is an impeachable offense. Trump told McGahn to fire Mueller, that is an impeachable offense.
What are we waiting for, the election?