A top aide for Senator Reid said this on MSNBC and it left me stunned.

[shockey80]

When the Republicans blocked Merrick Garland the Democrats were thinking about taking drastic action. He did not say what kind of drastic action. They decided not to for political reasons. Clinton was ahead in the polls and they did not want risk doing something that would hurt her chances.

Final result, Garland was blocked and Clinton lost the election.

The Democrats are in a similar situation now. Pelosi knows more than we do and we all know she is very smart. We all hope what ever she decides to do is the right decision. No one knows.

I am sure of one thing, If you decide not to do something that is right and just and instead do something for political safety, It can really backfire.

I don't care when Pelosi starts the Impeachment process. She must start the process at some point because it is simply the right thing to do. Do what's right and let the chips fall where they may.

[BeyondGeography]

1. People are bored, fighting wakes them up

Democratic caution even when we have the force of what is right on our side is a major problem. I think it's even worse in the era of the social media sugar high.

[rainy]

33. I agree with you and Fox News makes

it more difficult for Democrats to do the right thing. Even other media do not treat both sides the same. Democrats are always “being political “ no matter what according to the media.

[BeyondGeography]

34. Obama was the most divisive President in history, eg

No matter how many times they slapped his outstretched hand.

If you're going to get both-sided to death, why not get some quality swings in? Who knows, it might even pay off politically.

At some point Democrats are going to chuck this outdated playbook. The sooner the better.

[rockfordfile]

72. Not really.

[Beartracks]

48. Republicans are always in fight mode, and their successes are the result.

When only one side is fighting, the other side is losing.

==========

[doubleplusgood]

74. +1000

Yes! Just look at recent history. Democrats started the impeachment process against Nixon, and result was gains in 1974 mid-terms and winning presidency in 1976. Republicans impeached Bill Clinton and gained the presidency in 2000 (yes, with some cheating, too). So, where is the historical downside to impeachment?

[NewJeffCT]

2. What I heard was the idea that

Obama withdraw the Garland nomination, and then submit somebody new with the qualifier that unless the nominee is given an up or down vote within 30 or 60 days (or whatever), Obama will have considered that the Senate has waived their right to advise and consent.

I remember reading a few scholarly articles back in 2016 suggesting the idea.

[Beausoleil]

8. I have always thought this

Except, Obama should have made it clear that he would seat Garland if the Senate refused to act. He should have told McConnell in no uncertain terms he would consider silence from the Senate as consent. The constitution does not say that the Senate has to vote on it.
This would have forced McConnell to put up or shut up.

[former9thward]

57. I have a different copy of the Constitution than you do.

So does President Obama. Ours says the Senate has to consent.

[StarfishSaver]

15. I think one of the reasons that wasn't attempted was that there was no actual way to force a Justice

onto the Supreme Court, even if the president decided the Senate had waived its right to advise and consent. A non-Senate-confirmed Justice showing up on the First Monday in October to start hearing cases would have provoked a constitutional crisis like no other - a month before the presidential election, no less. It would have been one hot mess, and not a good one for the Democrats.

Another problem with that approach is that it would have set a precedent for future Senates (including Democratically controlled ones dealing with a Republican president's nominees) that, unless the Senate actually held a hearing and voted on a nominee, the advise and consent right would be deemed to be waived and the nominee would be sworn and seated. The Senate often kills nominations by not acting on them, thereby resulting in either the president or the nominee withdrawing the nomination - although it had never happened with a Supreme Court nominee.

If that ability is taken away, it removes an important power the Senate has to encourage a president consult with them in advance on nominations or to force a president to withdraw a nominee and submit someone more acceptable to the body.

This was all extremely complicated and although I think the Senate explored every possible option, there was no option that would have guaranteed success (and that wouldn't have been harshly criticized if they had tried it and failed).

[PSPS]

3. "Do what's right and let the chips fall where they may" - Um, no thanks.

In this case, "the chips" consists of trump taking a "total vindication" victory lap before the elections. Just because people are bored and want to see "action" isn't worth that. I'm happy to let Pelosi do her job.

[shockey80]

4. Trump will do the same thing if they do not impeach.

[bigbrother05]

12. Ding, ding, ding, ding ding - This, he'll claim inaction is proof of the witch hunt

Better to lead the fight than be thought the coward.

A bully always escalates until confronted.

[mountain grammy]

30. Exactly!

[shanny]

6. Like he wouldn't do that anyway.

In fact, he is doing it.

Why do we let crazy people and criminals determine our actions?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

26. Exactly. We are basing our decision on what a nut will or won't do

A person who in one short week insults the royal family and the mayor of London before his visit where he drags his family uninvited. All while leaving a tariff threat at home creating market instability and pissing off senators from his own party. And still finds time to vile tweet about a beloved celebrity at home..Bette Midler.

[SCVDem]

73. Let's not forget

Defrauding an innkeeper !

Dumps family walked out on a bar bill in Ireland.

That is a crime in America and I'm sure a crime in the UK.

Lock them up!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

75. Ya...evidently it wasn't that bad, unfortunately. supposedly they carry no cash and the

pub said they would settle up later. pub owner seemed to love them though. Oh, they even "bought" for the whole bar !

[sprinkleeninow]

39. Precisely. eom

[uponit7771]

62. +1, red Don is not sane

[BlueJac]

7. Trump has been doing victory laps since Barr first spoke...

now we are watching Trump drag his family around on our dime and acting like royalty. So when would be a good time to go after him?

[erronis]

42. Shit, the dump takes a victory lap whenever his mug shows up on the T.V.

He doesn't care about getting stuff done, just face time. And the more the press froths, the better.

[shockey80]

10. I can hear Trump now in a debate.

The Mueller report cleared me and the Democrats cleared me because they did not impeach me. Total Witch Hunt.

[StarfishSaver]

18. Mueller cleared me, the Dems came at me again with another Witch Hunt, but I was cleared again

OR, if the Democrats move too soon without getting their ducks in a row:

"Mueller cleared me, but the Democrats came at me again with another Witch Hunt, but couldn't even get enough votes to impeach me and I was cleared again by a bipartisan vote. What a bunch of LOSERS!"

[Delmette2.0]

21. Getting their ducks in a row....

That is when they launch hearings to impeach. If they do the loaded for bear, the public will be educated and supporting impeachment. Hell, they might even convince a few R Senators.

The point is to gather your best arguments for impeachment and let the Senate and possibly the voters do what they will.

We have two opportunities to remove Trump, impeachment and 2020 election. Please make them both beyond a doubt of removing him from office.

[TryLogic]

24. "Um, no thanks" -- Really?

What about do nothing and let the chips fall where they may?

Fight for what is right. But fight smart.

[Gore1FL]

45. Her job is to hold the executive branch accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors.

I'd rather face consequences for doing the right thing, myself.

[uponit7771]

61. Trump will do this even if he was in handcuffs perp walked to jail. He's not sane

[Farmer-Rick]

5. Obama should have ignored the Senate and appointed him anyway

Then let them fight it out in court afterwards.

But Dems follow the law and criminals the RepubliCONS choose don't.

[PoliticAverse]

58. That wasn't a real option. - The Supreme Court wouldn't have seated him. n/t

[Farmer-Rick]

64. Yeah, you're probobly right.

[certainot]

9. unfortunately most of the 'popular sentiment' that media and dem leadership factors into

'political' consequences comes out of the collective ass buzz of limbaugh and a few hundred limbaugh wannabes on 1500 radio stations and the republicans get to turn it into political power because the left ignores it, never exposes it for what it is

the biggest political mistake in history

[Tumbulu]

29. You got it

And they keep making it.

[shanny]

11. Why would anyone think

that fighting a blatantly cynical power grab would be bad for our candidate's chances?

On what planet?

[zaj]

14. On a planet where 50% of the population

Gets lied to and enjoys it, and an election is significantly about not triggering the opposition to be activated

[ego_nation]

17. The opposition is triggered anyway.

Impeachment is as a much about preventing the demoralization of the Democratic voters as it is holding Trump accountable.

[shanny]

25. I call BS.

The crazies are triggered already, and if they aren't sufficiently so shit gets made up. Like Obama's tan suit.

We need to quit playing their game.

[KPN]

31. "significantly about not triggering the opposition to be activated " ... you mean like 2016

when Obama decided to keep intelligence info about Russian interference quiet in the face of McConnell's threat to call it partisan?

Stop the frigging calculations and just do what is right. A significant majority of the public will ultimately respect that. It's called leading with conviction on the basis of virtuous principles.

[Gore1FL]

46. You consider them to be not activated, now? nt

[zaj]

13. It can backfire both ways

You can't govern with dinner basic level of trust with the other side, and right now we are learning in real time him much republicans see fellow Americans of different views as the real enemy.

It's Bettina what I thought was possible and I was a hugely vocal alarmist in the summer of 2016.

Predicting the future is hard.

[Marcuse]

16. Speaker Pelosi as Atticus Finch. Defend the Constitution in the face of certain jury nullification.

[Politicub]

19. Leading our leaders

We weren't on the street demanding Garland's confirmation.

What a missed opportunity. If there was a time for non-violent resistance, it was then. We squandered a generation of liberal gains in the Supreme Court. We could have made life a living hell for republicans.

I was part of the problem. I didn't do anything beyond contacting my representative and senators, which was useless since they were all republicans. I was lulled to sleep believing that Clinton was inevitable. I was wrong.

It is easy to finger point and blame democratic representatives. But I think we need to look in the mirror. We need to prove as a body politic that, yes, impeachment proceedings will mobilize activism. And at the same time, acknowledge the political realities that Pelosi and the other democrats go through every day.

It shouldn't just be on reps. The people have a role to play, too.

In my opinion, I think the democrats in the house are taking the right approach by building a body of evidence for the case. A prosecutor who spends no time preparing for a case will likely lose. This is a complex case. It must be won in the court of public opinion, too.

So what am I going to do to hold their feet to the fire? Complain on DU? How does that help anything? It only demoralizes and creates a pile on mob mentality where we are talking amongst ourselves.

President Obama told us to hold his feet to the fire. He wasn't joking. We would do well to heed his advice. I just don't know where to start.

[BeyondGeography]

20. Obama didn't even mention Garland at the convention

Garland was a smart choice in a different era. Republicans were stiffing a centrist old white guy, not a woman, not a person of color, not anyone whose rejection would have mobilized voters who identified with the nominee personally. Sorry, but people weren’t going to take to the streets without any overt encouragement at all.

Obama didn’t like playing politics. This was one situation where that utterly backfired.

[Politicub]

22. I agree. I wish he would have gone big.

I remember there being a lot of hand wringing about not making the court the focus of campaigns.

Having a nominee that we could have rallied behind and treating the open seat as the linchpin of liberal progress could not have hurt us more than not taking that approach.

But we'll never know. We can only move forward.

Blaming political leaders is lazy. We were lazy. It was on us as much as Obama.

[shanny]

40. Just a thought here:

Maybe if Obama had nominated a progressive firebrand a la RBG we would have. Instead he chose to try to appeal to the mythical better nature of the mythical moderate Republican.

[ehrnst]

43. You think that any other Obama nominee would have been treated differently by McConnell?

[StarfishSaver]

50. McConnell would have done the same thing - and then Obama would have been blamed

for nominating a "progressive firebrand" instead of a nominee who had a better chance of getting confirmed by the Republican Senate.

[shanny]

51. No doubt he would; would we?

[StarfishSaver]

52. I have no doubt "we" would.

[shanny]

56. ???

[Hortensis]

23. Our DEMOCRACY is not a "chip" to let fall where it may.

And Nancy Pelosi is NOT the enemy of doing "what is right." Contemptible message.

How can anyone still not understand the immensity of what is at stake?

To elect himself, Georgia's AG Brian Kemp purged 1.4 million from the voter rolls and held up 53,000 registrations, and that was just part of what we know. This while the whole planet watched and we were unable to stop it. That was only a fraction of the election theft used to seize power by Republicans, and possibly Russia, in many states.

Come 2025, we all could be effectively disenfranchised, living in a sham democracy of pretend choices, if the Republicans are still in power in 2021. The vote is our power, and losing it would just be the beginning. Anyone require a license to work? Ever have to get it renewed? Ever posted on a liberal political forum or have a close family member who was active in the Democratic Party?

Way past time to wake up.

[KPN]

28. Hear hear!

[KPN]

27. I like and admire Nancy Pelosi generally. She has been remarkably effective at shepherding

key legislation through to approval. But there are a couple of times when her position has been 180 from my own. This is one of them ... and perhaps the one with the most far-ranging impacts overall. I believe she is wrong this time as I still believe she was wrong to say impeachment was off the table immediately after Bush-Cheney were re-elected in 2004. I'm not going to delve into the details of why I feel this way about 2004. It's been hashed over many times before. Suffice it to say that I think she is wrong on an immensely critical political calculation once again. The difference may be that this time, if she does not move to formal impeachment proceedings soon, Democrats and our country will incur great harm both in the short as well as the long-term.

She needs to send a stronger signal soon.

[Javaman]

32. to paraphrase President Kennedy...

"We choose to go to start impeachment proceedings and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept"

[Progressive dog]

35. "He did not say what kind of drastic action"

If the action had been likely to succeed, Reid's aide would have said what the action was.
The Constitution's requirement for appointing and confirming the Supreme Court justices is pretty clear. The President is not a dictator.

[Honeycombe8]

36. I don't believe when people say after the fact that they were going to be proactive...

and do something about a prior problem. I think what they're talking about is a couple of them mentioned something in passing over dinner, and that's all. Like it was wishful thinking.

Even if doing something bold would have cost us the election, having a Supreme Court Justice on the bench for CERTAIN would have been worth it. Using polls at that time to guess on a win for the Presidency in 2016 would have been foolhardy. After 8 years of a Democratic administration, the odds were that a Republican would win, anyway. Although we had a good shot at it.

So I don't believe that guy when he says they were going to make a bold move.

[shockey80]

37. He seemed to be telling the truth to me.

If he made that up for some reason someone would have spoken up, Like Reid.

[LiberalLovinLug]

38. They missed a good chance right after Mueller read his last statement.

They have to do it at the right time. Just after a jarring hit to the R's or Trump. They have to know how to use the MSM, who love dramatic dominos to follow....like a reality show. I always wondered why, when Democrats are ripe with Hollywood supporters experience, they are woeful at knowing how to use media, use timing, marketing, to get your message across in the most powerful way. Sometimes the truth is not enough. Its also about how you present the truth.

They missed a perfect window there. Instead of dampening Mueller's comments, by the insinuations that it STILL wasn't enough to start impeachment, they should have...even if they had to pretend to be upset......go on air raving mad..say you have no choice now and are compelled to move forward for the American people. That way you give the MSM an out, hand them a tangent on a platter to delve into, and it would be centered around Mueller. But that chance is now over. If they suddenly came to the mic, say, tomorrow or in a few months, seemingly out of thin air, and informed the press that they are starting impeachment...the 'story' will not be centered around Mueller's revelation, but "Did the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot?...we'll have on a (Republican) expert next to discuss this!"

[WoonTars]

41. The longer she continues to dither the more she makes it look political...

Remember she didn't impeach Bush either and he started a fucking war!!

Nancy needs to do get job or step aside.

[ehrnst]

44. She is doing her job.

Why would we even need a speaker if taking a poll is all that's necessary to run the house?

[Cha]

60. Nancy Pelosi is doing her job.. anyone

paying attention can see that.

[cilla4progress]

47. This is how I try to live my life.

Don't be "too" strategic. Do the right thing even if no one is watching.

I don't always succeed. And these are such frightening unstable times, its easy to be spooked.

I'm naive enough to believe that good always wins out in the end. This philosophy is severely challenged right now.

[spanone]

49. ACTION!!!

[Nuggets]

55. What's right is to get Trump in prison

not impeach immediately because it feels good.

Again they have committees working on this
ALL of them are privy to more info and thus correct timing.

After Harvard Law School, Schiff began working as a prosecutor in the Los Angeles branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office. While an assistant U.S. Attorney, he gained attention by prosecuting a case against Richard Miller, a former FBI agent convicted of "passing secret documents to the Soviet Union in exchange for a promised $65,000 in gold and cash."[5] The first time Miller was tried, it resulted in a hung jury; the second time, it resulted in a conviction overturned on appeal,[6] and the third time he was convicted.[7]

Schiff on impeachment:
“With a Republican-led Senate unlikely to convict Trump, he argued, the only way to “end this nightmare and to send Mr. Trump packing is to vote the bums out of office.”

I think this is too big, too important, too consequential to be driven by the politics of it. Whether it energizes our base or their base or whatever the case may be. I don't know what the answer is, politically. I just know that, for us, it's not the right question. We in Congress need to ask ourselves: What's best for the country? Do we go through that wrenching, divisive experience, particularly if we know what the result is likely to be? And there are powerful arguments that we should, and damn the consequences. I'm not there yet. And I may get there.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-adam-schiff-impeachment-q-and-a-20190606-story.html


So it’s not just Pelosi. It’s Schiff

[jimlup]

59. I fear that if we don't start the impeachment hearings

the political ramifications will be far worse. Political fortune is a moving target and often the best laid calculations don't take this into account.

Time to show a backbone democrats.

[watoos]

63. Well said,

Who controls the narrative is extremely important. If Speaker Pelosi were to call a 9 PM press conference and lay out the reasons for an impeachment inquiry it would be covered world wide, it would change the narrative it would unite Democrats. Nadler said it best, an impeachment inquiry would consolidate everything into one powerful force that has more legal clout than regular hearings.

Control of the narrative cannot be emphasized enough. I remember 2010, Democrats did a terrible job explaining Obamacare, did a terrible job rolling it out, Republicans grabbed control of the narrative. Democrats lost explaining an amazing accomplishment by running away from Obamacare. Pelosi was Speaker of the House, I'm not blaming her, but Republicans flipped 64 House seats and that has to be in the back of Pelosi's mind. She is basing impeachment on a strictly political basis, I pray she is right. I hear the argument for rope a dope and that makes me cringe because Republicans are using brass knuckles.

[jimlup]

69. Exactly!

[Alwaysna]

65. The Democrats had no idea a hostile foreign government would interfere with our election.

They also could not conceive the Republicans would stoop so low as to be complicit in that interference.

[FiveGoodMen]

70. Well, we need some that are smarter than that

[triron]

71. Hillary knew. Why wouldn't other democrats??

Hillary tried to warn us but the media was hung up on her emails and Sanders getting a 'bad deal'.

[oldsoftie]

66. But what were the "drastic actions" that they could have taken?

Any procedural acts would have required 60 votes as far as i know.

[Richard D]

67. I really hope that the right thing is done.

Too many instances of going belly up have backfired. Not pursuing impeachment and leaving trump in office perhaps for another 4 years is disastrous.

[hughee99]

68. If we believe that Trump is a danger to America, and we feel

Like we can make that case in the Senate and to the American people, we have a duty to start impeachment.

Otherwise it’s just a bunch of people accusing the president of a bunch of crimes and saying we shouldn’t “play politics” with accusations this serious... except at this exact moment when we’re deciding how removing a man who some have suggested committed treason, hurts our chances in the next election.