Democrats expected to unveil articles of impeachment against Trump Tuesday, focusing on abuse of pow

[elleng]

Last edited Tue Dec 10, 2019, 12:28 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: wp

Democrats are expected to unveil two articles of impeachment against President Trump on Tuesday that will focus on abuse of power and obstructing Congress and would be voted on by the full House next week, according to three officials familiar with the matter.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) met with Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and other committee chairmen Monday night after a nine-hour hearing in which a Democratic counsel laid out the party’s case against Trump. The three officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks, cautioned that the plan had not been finalized.

Leaving a meeting with Pelosi, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.) told reporters that he and the chairmen of other House committees would announce specific articles at a news conference at 9 a.m. Tuesday.

At an event hosted by the Wall Street Journal Monday night, Pelosi said no final decision had been made.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/calling-trump-a-risk-to-the-country-democrats-outline-case-for-multiple-articles-of-impeachment/2019/12/09/b38a8270-1a91-11ea-b4c1-fd0d91b60d9e_story.html

---

Keep in mind, folks, final decision(s) not made at this writing, maybe not til the morning, so many possibilities, and some features we/some are interested in may be included in the 2 articles referenced here; depends on how they are written.

[Hoyt]

1. I'm for cramming it down GOPers' throats as quickly as possible, at this time.

Abuse of Power includes just about anything. They'll be able to expand that to 10 or more categories.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. Disappointing; should have been at least four articles

Including bribery and Obstruction of Justice.

[meadowlander]

7. They can always add more later.

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. I don't think Pelosi will allow a second round nt

[MFGsunny]

3. We might have wanted more like 3 or 4 Articles of Impeachment.

OTOH, these two Articles are PRECISELY all abot how MF45 literally IMPEACHED HIMSELF.

Perhaps, in this case too, "Brevity is the soul of wit." And Rep. Swalwell's own brevity as to why we did not have to ask the legendary Howard Baker questions will prove a winning solution against any Repuke who will vote against conviction.

C'mon karma. C'mon justice for all.

[BigmanPigman]

4. Can the Emoluments issue be considered part of

"Abuse of Power" if it comes down to the two articles?

[iluvtennis]

5. Bravo!! In my opinion,one more charge -- "Witness Intimidation" would have been nice. nt

[Lady_Chat]

18. Also violating election law and the violation of human rights (NATO) act.

Didn't his pay off to Stormy Daniels violate election law? Isn't what he did to those immigrant children separating them from their parents and caging them violation of human rights (NATO) act? I really wish we could stand up more for these children, what was done to them is inhuman.

[FailureToCommunicate]

6. Disappointed that endangering national security may not be one of the articles.

More articles could have given **some** in Congress cover to vote no on some and yes on the remaining ones.

[BlueWI]

8. Impeachment coming to a vote very soon.

Good. While I too think there were multiple offenses that were impeachable, the evidence is stacked underneath the two likely charges.

The Democratic House leadership deserves deep appreciation for taking these steps, and the duty of the moment is to make sure there are no more than a few votes against the articles in the Democratic caucus.

[cstanleytech]

9. The Democrats would be wise to use the Republicans votes against them in the next election via

an example of their total moral and ethical corruption.
It wont take all the Republicans out but it might weaken enough of them so that we gain even more seats.

[LudwigPastorius]

10. I believe the House needs to hear from McGhan, Bolton, et al

Last edited Wed Dec 11, 2019, 03:07 AM - Edit history (1)

...and, it needs to get all of the documents it has subpoenaed from the White House, including the actual recording of Trump's call, because you know it's much worse than that bullshit *transcript* he released. If it takes a lengthy wade through the court system to get it, so be it.

People understand criminal mendacity better when they hear it with their own ears (see the Nixon tapes). Nothing would boost public sentiment for Trump's removal, and erode his GOP support, more than that smoking gun.

There's no need to hurry this thing, Madame Speaker. Let Trump twist in the wind.

[elleng]

11. They/we may never get such docs, and 'hear' from those.

There's only so much patience we have, and damage we can tolerate.

[LudwigPastorius]

14. I guess it all depends on what your goal is.

Are you trying to actually remove Trump, or are you making a symbolic stand against him that will play well with voters come next November?

...because right now, there is almost no chance that Trump will be convicted in a Senate trial, but everything would be wrapped in a tidy bow, with every member of Congress' vote on the record, for the 2020 election.

But, you get the Supreme Court to compel the release of Trump's own voice committing extortion, and you get John Q. Public's attention, and ire.

[Lock him up.]

19. His demented brainwashed cultists will never turn against him.

He could assassinate someone on 5th Avenue and they would find a spin to justify it.

Register a ton of new ''never-voters-yet'' who can be motivated to vote DEMs from top to bottom the ballot and pray the machines won't nullify their votes or switch them to Rushablicans...

There are more of us than there are of them. The Blue Wave must keep going!

GOTV!

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. Waiting until February would increase the likelihood of getting that evidence and testimony nt

[LudwigPastorius]

15. I totally concur.

I get the feeling many Democratic House members want to limit the scope of the articles and rush them through, fearing a backlash, and hoping that a quick conclusion would shield them from that.

The Speaker seems to be one of those members.

[ffr]

16. We are so proud to be democrats tonight on impeachment eve.

If it's what you say it is, we love it!

[ffr]

17. Rachel Maddow on the subject

Link to tweet

[duforsure]

20. They should consider waiting a few more weeks

And look into aid being intentionally delayed to Puerto Rico, and his intentionally hurting Bezo by making sure he doesn't get a 10 billion dollar contract for political reasons , and to hurt him with it. Just like his demanding his opponents get criminalized, he'll do it to business owners who won't do as he demands, payments to his campaign, and if they won't no contract for you. Soon he'll be openly threatening them to do as he demands , or else.

[brooklynite]

21. UPDATE: Judiciary Committee vote on Thursday, House Floor vote next week