General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNancy Pelosi, in a letter to House Democrats:
@kylegriffin1
Nancy Pelosi, in a letter to House Democrats: "Whether currently indictable or not, it is clear that the President has, at a minimum, engaged in highly unethical and unscrupulous behavior which does not bring honor to the office he holds."
2:05 PM · Apr 22, 2019 · Twitter for iPhone
Link to tweet
global1
(25,253 posts)maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)No official statements endorsing Impeachment, but not standing in the way of any committees heading that way.
It's very frustrating, but it's how they're going to play it. Feign reluctance, then accede to demands of the rank & file.
This is how McConnell plays it, too. "It's out of my hands, I'm just the Majority Leader!"
artislife
(9,497 posts)Why people don't trust authority. Because they love to tell us what to do and what is right, but don't apply it to themselves.
If nothing happens from the Dems on this, I would not be surprised if the outcome of how many voters actually vote in 2020 falls.
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)get out in front of popular opinion instead of letting it build?
if he's impeached in the end, IDGAF how Dem leadership finesses it.
artislife
(9,497 posts)She doesn't even sound like she is bothered.
mahina
(17,669 posts)What would you have her say)
artislife
(9,497 posts)impeaching the president. We have our constitutional lawyers going over the Mueller report and finding every last item that is an impeachable offense. It is our duty to our country, to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice to honor them by following through with our obligations to them, to country to the people of the United States.
There it is.
mahina
(17,669 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)mahina
(17,669 posts)I don't know of any other meaning.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I read that as....."Here it is, to those of you who may be hesitant to vote for impeachment...even with all the evidence we know of, taken in the most favorable light to Trump, he is guilty of unscrupulous behavior that brings dishonor to the office of the President." (a reason for impeachment)
She's getting the ducks in a row. Also called "politicking." She's one of the best party leaders in history on lining up and counting votes. Can't argue with success.
As I've said before, we have one shot at it. The stars have to be aligned for everything to go perfectly. The ducks, the evidence, the timing, the congressional testimony under oath.....
It would feel better if she or Schiff would appear on horses with swords raised, shouting, "Onward to impeachment!!!!" But it would be foolish. They haven't even seen the unredacted report yet, or considered all the strategies available...including timing.
Mueller is scheduled for a hearing in May.
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)I'm speaking of her (and Dem Leadership's) overall approach to this issue. Obama "led from behind" on Gay Marriage, and it got done. It's how DC works.
So that's "where on Earth" I got it.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I didn't understand what you were saying.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I can tell you what I won't be doing.
I won't be trashing or second guessing Democrats. You know why? Because I don't cut off my nose to spite my face.
kentuck
(111,103 posts)They should never take it off the table with this guy.
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)Dem leadership is pouring cold water on it in public, but they're NOT saying they won't do it.
DontBooVote
(901 posts)...the fear of actual action in his crust of a heart.
True Blue American
(17,986 posts)Has to burn Trump. People are calling him a liar,unethical, corrupt right out in the open now.
SWBTATTReg
(22,143 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)DVRacer
(707 posts)The next step is to get Becky from the neighborhood to ask to speak to the manager.
The HJC should be in session now drawing up articles of impeachment!
DontBooVote
(901 posts)n/t
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)Sure, that sounds like a great idea.
Here's a better one. Continue the investigations, continue issuing subpoenas, hold public hearings, interview Mueller and everyone else with relevant information, gather evidence, build a case, and then determine what should be covered by the articles of impeachment.
We have one shot at this. Jumping into it with incomplete information and little preparation is a horrible idea.
elleng
(130,974 posts)Gets me the extent to which people don't understand and/or ignore: tactics are the actual means used to gain an objective, while strategy is the overall campaign plan, which may involve complex operational patterns, activity, and decision-making that govern tactical execution.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)They are the only way to get Mueller's grand jury info.
From the Washington Post:
In the face of Barrs decision not to disclose any of the Mueller report to the public or even to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- N.Y.) until Barr and his team have scrubbed the report of grand jury information (and other material), Nadler and committee Democrats have authorized a subpoena for the full report, setting the stage for a court fight over the committees right to see grand jury information. Although the public need underlying the request for disclosure in McKeever was much less pressing, the decision in that case undermines the position of Nadlers committee, because the controlling federal rule contains no exception allowing congressional oversight committees to demand access to otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.
One of the exceptions to grand jury secrecy is disclosure preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding. To authorize disclosure of the Watergate grand jury information, the special prosecutors office argued that the House had authorized its Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and that such an inquiry could be fairly analogized to a grand jury investigation and thus a judicial proceeding. Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed, and the Judiciary Committee obtained both the report and the underlying evidence.
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
watoos
(7,142 posts)The juicy stuff on Trump and his crime family, the stuff that will lead to his impeachment is in Mueller's grand jury documents. Barr will not hand over the grand jury information if it is subpoenaed, he will fight a subpoena to the SC.
Barr stated that he would hand over grand jury information for an impeachment hearing.
Having Mueller testify won't mean shit if he can't talk about grand jury information.
People, the elections are fast approaching we need to start the impeachment now.
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)"But in making his decision, Barr is bound by federal laws that limit how certain material from federal investigations can be shared. In particular, one section of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure known in legal circles by its number, 6e prohibits, with few exceptions, the public release of information obtained through grand jury testimony. The rule is intended to keep information classified in federal criminal investigations, and protect the privacy of an individual or entity that has not been charged with a crime.
Barr doesnt have the power to say, Were turning grand jury information over [to the House of Representatives] for the purposes of an impeachment or anything else, said Stephen Bates, a legal expert at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who worked on the independent counsel investigation into former President Bill Clinton."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/could-congress-force-the-mueller-report-to-be-made-public
Barr may say that he would, but I trust nothing he says. He's already lied repeatedly.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)It is discussed in the WaPo link I gave you.
watoos
(7,142 posts)A Republican who investigated the impeachment of Bill Clinton. He's not good enough for me. No one said the grand jury info would be made public. Barr stated that he would turn over the grand jury information for a House impeachment investigation.
I guarantee you that Democrats are not going to get that grand jury information unless they impeach. Barr will fight a subpoena right to the SC.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)There's a twist. What could be his intent? You can be sure he's not saying that without some forethought.
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)An investigation by the House Judiciary Committee would seem to fit the description of a judicial proceeding, by its very definition.
Nadler wouldn't have made his statement and subpoenaed the documents if he didn't think the current House investigation already fit the terms of a "judicial proceeding" and that they had a right to the documents, as such.
I know that people want to believe that impeachment is some magic wand that will force the Trump admin to turn over everything they're requesting, but there is no solid proof that it's required for pre-impeachment investigations and subpoenas. Nadler certainly doesn't think so.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)There is case law on point discussed in the article at the link I gave you.
Please don't insult folks calling for impeachment investigation hearings as believing in magic wands. I am not engaging in magical thinking. I am following the law.
Nadler is trying to see if the subpoena will do the trick, before he has to take it to the next level. But I think we don't have time for this approach. November 2020 is only 18 months away.
DontBooVote
(901 posts)TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)You disagree? Mueller referred more than a dozen matters to other jurisdictions. You think maybe those could be relevant?
Or should we just write up articles of impeachment immediately with what we have and hope it's enough? That's what the person I responded to is suggesting. Hence, my response.
watoos
(7,142 posts)Mueller's grand jury information and that is where all of the juicy stuff is.
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)It's not a magic wand.
"But in making his decision, Barr is bound by federal laws that limit how certain material from federal investigations can be shared. In particular, one section of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure known in legal circles by its number, 6e prohibits, with few exceptions, the public release of information obtained through grand jury testimony. The rule is intended to keep information classified in federal criminal investigations, and protect the privacy of an individual or entity that has not been charged with a crime.
Barr doesnt have the power to say, Were turning grand jury information over [to the House of Representatives] for the purposes of an impeachment or anything else, said Stephen Bates, a legal expert at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who worked on the independent counsel investigation into former President Bill Clinton."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/could-congress-force-the-mueller-report-to-be-made-public
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)As I said above, Bates is wrong. He made that comment in March. It was wrong then and it is even more clearly wrong now. An April federal Court of Appeals decision explicitly stated that impeachment proceedings are an exception to grand jury secrecy.
From the Washington Post:
In the face of Barrs decision not to disclose any of the Mueller report to the public or even to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- N.Y.) until Barr and his team have scrubbed the report of grand jury information (and other material), Nadler and committee Democrats have authorized a subpoena for the full report, setting the stage for a court fight over the committees right to see grand jury information. Although the public need underlying the request for disclosure in McKeever was much less pressing, the decision in that case undermines the position of Nadlers committee, because the controlling federal rule contains no exception allowing congressional oversight committees to demand access to otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.
One of the exceptions to grand jury secrecy is disclosure preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding. To authorize disclosure of the Watergate grand jury information, the special prosecutors office argued that the House had authorized its Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and that such an inquiry could be fairly analogized to a grand jury investigation and thus a judicial proceeding. Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed, and the Judiciary Committee obtained both the report and the underlying evidence.
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
mahina
(17,669 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)and they may pull out a taser.
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)Pelosi: He does not bring honor to the office he holds.
Lacks a certain oomph, IMO.
DontBooVote
(901 posts)out of spanky?
Pfffft! You just hide and watch him shake in his Italian leather shoes.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)Brother Buzz
(36,444 posts)it to be at a given moment in history - Congressman Gerald Ford, 1970
Response to Miles Archer (Original post)
Post removed
DontBooVote
(901 posts)She actually said that?
I guess I better withhold my tongue on what that looks like to me.
Wow. SMH.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Smh
I am not feeling the love for Nancy. nope.
dubyadiprecession
(5,714 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)Just messing around.
gotta laugh or else I would cry.
watoos
(7,142 posts)The excuse was used that voter turn out was low and that's why AOC won. The fact of the matter is that it is a strategy that incumbents use to stay in power, they try to suppress voter turnout. AOC won despite the efforts of "some" to suppress turnout.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Gothmog
(145,321 posts)From the Washington Post 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=.a1716c3e28d8
The California Democrat, who is slated to address her caucus on a conference call Monday evening, vowed that Democratic investigators will scrupulously assert Congresss constitutional duty to honor our oath of office to support and defend the Constitution and our democracy by investigating the president.
Whether currently indictable or not, it is clear that the president has, at a minimum, engaged in highly unethical and unscrupulous behavior which does not bring honor to the office he holds, Pelosi wrote.
DontBooVote
(901 posts)dubyadiprecession
(5,714 posts)And Nancy knows that. Dumpsterfires approval is at 37% and he is doomed to lose. So we need to vote him out next year and let the southern district of New York take care of him.
DontBooVote
(901 posts)...she would not be the president as the rest of us watching became physically ill.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)watoos
(7,142 posts)I heard Barr say that he is going to investigate the FBI and Democrats who carried out a witch hunt against Donald Trump. One of those Democrats will be Hillary Clinton. Barr/Trump are going to put Hillary on the 2020 ballot and that is what the narrative is going to be in the M$M.
If Democrats decided to impeach we would control the narrative.
If Democrats refuse to impeach and Trump wins reelection the Democratic party is doomed.
If Trump is reelected some of those indictments will expire.
DontBooVote
(901 posts)defacto7
(13,485 posts)And I can't possibly know the answer myself. My opinion isn't worth much but I like to have a idea where we need to go. With this? What do I know?
triron
(22,007 posts)WTF?
defacto7
(13,485 posts)cliché we have already heard.
orangecrush
(19,572 posts)You will have our loving support.
California_Republic
(1,826 posts)tymorial
(3,433 posts)bluescribbler
(2,117 posts)We all knew that years ago.
The Liberal Lion
(1,414 posts)what does this mean? I've seen more stern statements from Speaker Pelosi on Aunti Maxine (condemnation) to Omar (severe rebuke) to AOC (sharp criticism). Now we have treason committed by an illegal interloper and we get this, a light scold at best.
Please Speaker Pelosi tell me you have some kind of plan here.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)And overlooked what she doesn't really care about.
doompatrol39
(428 posts)A letter?!?!?! To the House Democrats?!?!?!?! Fuck. I'm sure Trump is drafting his resignation letter right now.
It's a good thing he's not someone who has signed on to the Green New Deal, then she'd REALLY be pissed!!!
AlexSFCA
(6,139 posts)you can do better Nancy, stop being PC and weaponize dems against trump and GOP. This letter only adds to the weak democrats image. Dems will be blamed forever for not initiating impeachement. You will never get any GOP in the senate on board UNTIL youve impeached. This is because of impeachement hearing and findings. All of it would be made public and broadcasted live 24/7. The hearings will subpoena trump to testify under oath for the first time and will get him into perjury trap.
jalan48
(13,870 posts)Thekaspervote
(32,778 posts)BlueWI
(1,736 posts)Today's statement from the Speaker didn't pass muster with many of us as DU posters and contributors to the Democratic party. There's too much at stake to be silent.
Respect is important, but dissent is equally important when it is warranted. Several current and future leaders of the party, like Warren and AOC, are speaking out too. We have many leaders in this party, not just one. And there are definitely disagreements on how to handle this corrupt and compromised presidency.