It is being reported Pelosi wants to vote Trump out and then convict him.

[shockey80]

If that's true the chances of impeachment are very low. If that's what she wants to do it will be interesting to see how she handles the call for impeachment over the next year or so. The call for impeachment is going to grow louder and louder. The pressure will grow and grow.

Whatever happens it's going to be one hell of a ride.

[MineralMan]

1. Won't work. If Trump loses, he will simply resign

before inauguration day and Pence will pardon him for any crimes he may have committed.

It's so simple, really. Of course, he could be tried for state crimes, but I don't think anything like that has ever occurred.

[Wellstone ruled]

4. This could very well happen.

[dixiegrrrrl]

8. FWIW, Manafort has now been charged with state crimes

and moved to NY Riker's Island while waiting for those charges to move thru the system.

Trump can pardon the fed crimes if he wants to, but not state crimes.

The exact procedure can happen for trump. Once out of office, New York state can thaw put the indictment they surely have and nab him.

I suspect Pelosi is doing a careful dance with procedures, and all the while taking the temperature of the electorate.

and I doubt she is letting much info. leak that can benefit trump.

[Flaleftist]

12. Do pardons work like that?

Can Pence issue a pardon of a crime he hasn't been charged of yet? And for what crime? Can it be a blanket pardon for anything he might have done while in office, or even before he was inaugurated?

Of course, there are always state crimes and his kids' criminal activity.

[MineralMan]

23. Yes. That's what Nixon got from Ford.

President Gerald Ford pardoned his disgraced predecessor Richard M. Nixon for any crimes he may have committed or participated in while in office.

The power of the pardon pretty much is unlimited, actually, except as specifically stated in the Constitution.

[Nuggets]

29. Then why hasn't Trump simply pardoned

himself?


Can a president overturn a pardon?

[MineralMan]

31. I don't think he can do that. Nobody ever has.

Same for your second question. A pardon is final. It's not something a President can overturn or withdraw, as far as I know.

The power of the pardon is clearly defined in the Constitution. Straying from that definition is not likely to succeed. Same with the crime of Treason. It's clearly defined and no law can override that definition.

[Nuggets]

33. Thanks. Nt

[grantcart]

27. That scenario will not work

1) while the pardon power is very broad no power is absolute and any action that is intended to further a crime cannot be legal ( obstructing a criminal investigation). More over Trump is already cited in a specific indictment as individual number 1 and shown to have specific legal liability in a post Presidency by the Mueller Report.

2) I doubt that Pence would agree because it would open significant legal liability for him because he would be advancing obstruction of justice and open up bribery charges if he agreed to the action prior to taking office thereby establishing a clear "quid for quo" as required by law.

3) In the Nixon/Ford case there was no agreement by Ford prior to assuming office and no "quid" as Nixon wss going to be removed from office by the Senate. Nixon's resignation only sped up the inevitable.

[Eyeball_Kid]

32. This sounds right.

Pardons aren't legal if they are made in the commission of a crime. Trumpy's obstruction of justice continues. Pence, by pardoning, would implicate himself in a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

[MineralMan]

36. There is nothing about that in the Constitution, which is the only

document that has anything to do with presidential pardons.

[grantcart]

57. It is bed rock common law that anything that contributes to the furtherance of a crime is inherently

illegal.

A contract that commits either party to an illegal action is not valid and cannot be enforced.

For example if a President hired someone to kill his wife and then pardoned him, that would not be a legal use of the pardon and the pardon would not be respected by the legal system.

Even the synchophat Barr agreed that there were limits to the pardon power if it was applied to further an illegal act.

The Constitution isn't an almanac that includes every possible hypothetical situation but a broad articulation of basic power. The First Amendment is the clearest and most nearly absolute power in the constitution but it also is not absolute. You cannot yell "Fire" in a theater and speech that is intended to further an illegal act, "Kill John Smith", is not protected and "not in the constitution".


Edited to add:

Here is an article that discusses it in depth. The issues of the limits to Presidential Pardons are well established and not particularly controversial.

https://www.justsecurity.org/62174/pardon-furthers-conspiracy-limits-pardon-power/

While concerns about the lengths to which Trump will go to protect himself and his inner circle from accountability are well-founded, there are important limits to the pardon power. The president’s pardon power cannot be used to: (1) pardon state crimes, (2) remove federal civil liability, (3) pardon impeachment, or (4) pardon crimes that have not already occurred.

. . .

“the law is clear that a pardon cannot be prospective… It is implicit in the definition of a ‘pardon’ as opposed to a suspension of the law.” To allow pardons for ongoing or future crimes would mean the president could suspend any and all laws for any person or group of persons, making a mockery of our legal system.

. . .

Because conspiracy is an ongoing crime, an obstructive pardon for actions related to a conspiracy involving the president would not eliminate legal liability. Either the pardon would be a continuation of the crime, and thus the pardon itself would be an invalid attempt to pardon actions that were ongoing, or the pardon would be a new conspiracy and thus a new crime—in either case, Trump and his accomplice or accomplices would still be subject to legal liability for conspiracy.

. . .

This is not the only legal liability Trump and any associate would face if he used the pardon power to obstruct an investigation. They could be opening themselves up to charges of bribery and obstruction of justice. (My note: This is why Pence won't pardon Trump in your scenario, he would then be legally open to bribery charges and if a conspiracy is proven then he would be responsible for ALL of the previous crimes committed by the conspiracy).

. . .

All of this should give Trump associates and would-be co-conspirators real pause. Not only are presidential pardons unable to protect against state criminal charges and federal civil suits, but they also cannot protect against federal criminal liability if they are in furtherance of a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

There is a simple inviolate principle of our Judicial System that is at work here; anything that advances or continues an illegal act cannot be considered a legal act.

[MineralMan]

59. The thing is that there is no court with jurisdiction over presidential pardons.

The Constitution doesn't offer any path to overturning one, not even a pardon for someone hired to murder the President's wife. Without constitutional means spelled out, I don't see any route for overturning any pardon other than one involving an impeached person, who the President is forbidden to pardon. That is spelled out, but there are no other exceptions to the pardon power.

It might get taken up by the SCOTUS, which might be seen as having original jurisdiction, but I wouldn't bet on them overturning a VP pardoning a resigned President.

It didn't happen with Nixon, and I think the court would check the Constitution and not even take the case under consideration, if Pence pardoned Trump after assuming the office on Trump's resignation.

It's something that hasn't been tested. I believe that Trump could resign if he lost the election and be pardoned by Pence, and nothing more would come of it. There might be state charges, of course, but even those might fall by the wayside after a former President was pardoned by the new President who was the VP.

That's my take on that possibility, anyhow. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. The Constitution clearly spells out the power to pardon, includes an exception to that power, and stops right there. It's sort of like the crime of Treason, which is the only crime mentioned in the Constitution. It's very clearly defined, with precise requirements for a conviction. We have no other laws regarding Treason because of its inclusion in the Constitution.

Common law does play a role in our jurisprudence, but generally when there is a conflict in the law. The Constitution is what it is, and is pretty tough or impossible to override.

[StarfishSaver]

61. A pardon can't be overturned, but a pardon for an illegal purpose can be an impeachable offense

and could also be the basis of a criminal charge.

For example, if it's clear that a president issued a pardon in return for a million dollar bribe, the pardon would stand, but the president could be impeached or prosecuted for bribery.

The same would apply to other broad presidential powers, such as nominations. The president has virtually unlimited power to nominate anyone he wishes for any federal appointment. But if he nominates a Supreme Court justice in return for the nominee's promise to lie for him in a deposition, he could be impeached or prosecuted for obstruction of justice.

Also, to clarify - a president can pardon an impeached person's federal crimes, but can't pardon them to prevent them from being impeached.

[grantcart]

64. Of course the courts have jurisdiction to rule on the validity of pardons, they

have jurisdiction to rule on everything in the Constitution.

In the article above, which you may have missed as I added it on edit it includes case law in which the Supreme Court ruled on limitations of Presidential Pardons

A similar understanding is reflected in United States v. Wilson, in which the Court notes that: “A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power intrusted [sic] with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed, from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.” (Emphasis added).

In the recent case of Trump's pardon of Arpaio it was challenged in court. The court decided that the pardon was valid but no one made the case that the court did not have jurisdiction.

There is no parallel with Nixon because there was no continuation of an obstruction of Justice (all the evidence had eventually been presented and Nixon was no longer in a position to hide anything) and no issue of a quid pro quo bribery, Ford was going to become President whether Nixon resigned or not and no evidence that Ford discussed a pardon as part of a "deal".

Ford's pardon may have been unpopular but there is no suggestion that he was advancing or continuing any illegal action by issuing it.

Again, the Supreme Court has already ruled that there are legal limitations to Presidential Pardons. For those exact reasons, already enshrined in established case law, your scenario would not prevent Trump from being prosecuted for both State and Federal crimes and in the case of Pence would open him up for legal liability that he currently doesn't have.

[StarfishSaver]

67. The district court's ruling dealt with the scope of the president's pardon power, not the substance

of the pardon itself.

The pardon was challenged because it pardoned a criminal contempt of court conviction, which the plaintiffs (two dozen Members of Congress) argued (among other things) encroached on the separation of powers because it interfered with the judicial branch's enforcement authority (as compared with a chief executive vacating an executive branch prosecution) and, thus was an "encroachment on the independence of the judiciary." The District Court didn't rule on this argument, but did rule that criminal contempt is among a list of pardonable offenses, as recognized by the Supreme Court and, therefore, this pardon was a valid use of presidential power.

[MineralMan]

34. Actually, I think it could work OK. If Trump loses the election, Pence's term would end

on inauguration day. If he gave Trump a blanket pardon, I doubt it would be taken up and challenged by anyone after the new President and Congress were seated. Of course a Presidential pardon only applies to federal laws and courts. So, a state charge could still be brought against either Trump or Pence or both.

The constitutional language regarding pardons is sparse and very limited in its scope. It prohibits pardons in cases of impeachment, but sets no other limits on that power. A narrow reading would permit Pence to pardon Trump after Trump's resignation and during his very short term as President. It would be protested, but not overturned, I think.

[StarfishSaver]

39. Unfortunately, I think you're correct

(not that I have a problem with you being correct - you usually are - just bummed about what you're being correct about ...)

[ooky]

42. Doesn't seem to me that there is much in doing that for Pence.

Yes, he would be an extremely short term and lame duck president no. 46, with an asterisk in the history books. But in allowing himself to be used that way I'm not sure how that would help him in any other way. It seems to me that the implications of doing that would be harmful for Pence.

[MineralMan]

44. I do not pretend to have any idea what Pence thinks about.

So, I have no idea why he would do or not do anything at all.

[ooky]

48. Not saying you do.

I'm just thinking about it critically. Its an interesting thought, because Trump is in a lot of legal trouble if he doesn't win in 2020, and it appears to me that we are on a trajectory toward this actually happening.

Wouldn't it be fun if Trump thought that, and resigned, and then Pence didn't pardon him? But I think Trump is too paranoid to take any chances, and I am almost expecting him to be the first President to pardon himself on the way out the door.

[pnwmom]

60. Nobody like Trump has ever occurred, so the fact that no President has ever been tried

for state crimes isn't really significant.

Tisha James had state crimes all ready to be charged in the Manafort case. I bet she will for Trump, too.

[StarfishSaver]

62. Precisely!

[MineralMan]

63. Hmm...perhaps. On the other hand, once Trump is gone from

the White House, it's very likely that no further legal action will be taken against him. Why? Because he was President, and we've never done that before.

Nixon got a similar kind of pardon from Ford, and no serious call was made to prosecute him. Others around him were prosecuted, which might also happen with Trump, but getting him out of office is the primary goal, it seems to me. Once he's gone, I hope never to hear from him or about him ever again. Truly.

If anything, state charges are the most likely. Did New York pass that law making it possible to charge a pardoned person for crimes related to their federal pardon? I can't remember how that turned out.

Now, if Trump gets charged for things that had nothing to do with his Presidency, that might work out better. I'd be all for that, and I'm sure there are plenty of such charges that could be brought.

I just don't see any federal charges being brought if he resigns and is pardoned. Too complicated a situation and I think everyone would punt on that, rather than take on the complexities of attempting to reverse a presidential pardon.

[pnwmom]

65. Yes, NY DID pass that law. It makes an exception to its double jeopardy laws

so they don't apply in the case of pardons.

NY state has banking laws that are similar to Federal law, and could be charged even if Pence pardons him.

Trump is basically a mobster, and he's probably guilty of a host of money laundering and tax violations. We've never had a President like him before -- Nixon is barely on the same scale. So the fact that we let Nixon quietly slink away doesn't mean we'll let Trump.

For one thing, Trump wouldn't just slink away. If he's not in prison, he'll probably attempt to set up a continuing power center to dispute everything the federal government does, and perhaps to eventually install one of his children in govt. Do we want him free to wreak such havoc?

[MineralMan]

72. I'd love to see Trump in prison.

However, I doubt he will end up there. There are many possibilities, of course, but I'm betting he skates if he resigns and is pardoned by Pence. It's less a matter of law than a matter of wanting to avoid the spectacle of trying a former President. Putting myself in a prosecutor's position, I'm not sure I'd opt to do that, unless something was absolutely sure of a conviction and extremely heinous.

If he is not pardoned or removed after impeachment, that's another issue, and I can see a Democratic President's AG filing charges in that case. I think a pardon, however, would make prosecution quite difficult and an iffy proposition, jury-wise.

[cwydro]

78. Yup.

This is true.

[no_hypocrisy]

101. Unless Trump is going to pay CASH to Pence, what's in it for him to

pardon Trump? He'll be president for 2+ months and then have to step away until the next election in 4 years. Plus, during that 2+ months, Pence would be a lame duck -- unless he started a war or something for the incoming democratic president.

[Meadowoak]

2. If it looks like he won't be reelected, he will resign just before November

With a full pardon.

[exboyfil]

51. After the election

Which will be a nail biter. The GOP has already demonstrated they are willing to do anything to retain power, and they have a compliant Supreme Court.

I think the only way Trump loses is if the economy goes really bad.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

54. I can't imagine Trump resigning because that would be an admission of defeat.

He does not accept defeat; his ego won't allow it. He is incapable of imagining that he won't be reelected. In the delusions of his walnut-sized brain, everyone loves him; his rallies are proof of that. To him, the only "real" Americans are the MAGAts that come and cheer for him, and they must be everyone in America except for a few losers who believe the Fake News. He would not even accept losing the election and he would claim it was rigged and/or that millions of criminal immigrants crossed the border illegally to vote for his opponent. It will be interesting to see whether he even agrees to leave the White House on Jan. 20 or whether federal marshals will have to haul him out of there, since he would have become just a private citizen who is trespassing on government property.

Also, he can't be pardoned for state crimes, and the Manhattan DA is waiting in the wings.

[tymorial]

77. This is gambling with the country and I don't particularly care for it

[onecaliberal]

81. He was t elected to begin with. It could happen again.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

86. Absolutely!

[Honeycombe8]

103. Never. Anyone who thinks Trump resigns from anything hasn't been paying attention.

Watch a few documentaries about Trump, about his mentor Roy Cohn, and you'll understand. Trump...doesn't...resign. Ever.

What he would do is stay and shout "the election was rigged!" on his way out the door. And he would be petty to the incoming President and his staff. He wouldn't work with the new administration for a transition.

He would spend the rest of his life claiming the election was rigged.

Trump...never....resigns. Never quits.

If people want him to "resign," they'll have to force him out. In other words, he would be ousted but ALLOWED to make it look like he's resigning. And that won't happen.

[berni_mccoy]

3. That is her way of saying she's not going to impeach.

Funny thing about impeachment, it's the one thing pardon's can't cover.

[ehrnst]

6. Can you read minds?

Last edited Fri Jun 7, 2019, 10:21 AM - Edit history (1)

If one needs rationalization for one's dislike of someone, one sees them everywhere, even where they aren't.

[Hortensis]

16. NO, it is not. Speculation that Nancy might be protecting Trump

from impeachment so he could be pardoned and walk away from his crimes is scurrilous nonsense also. A "funny thing" in your own words.

Nancy would/will impeach this dangerous creep in a heartbeat if it leads to removal and doesn't instead help reelect Trump and Republican majorities. If she believed today that would be successful, she'd probably have a bill of impeachment introduced Monday or advance one already on her desk.

[Eyeball_Kid]

37. Pelosi has a history of avoiding impeachment.

She took an impeachment inquiry "off the table" during the Bush 43 administration while war criminals were backslapping themselves for promoting torture and defending their lies that provided the justification for an invasion of Iraq. Pelosi tried to play the long game and became way too circumspect.

Now, Pelosi again is playing the long game without focusing on the real and felonious behavior of a whole network of criminals. There are risks to playing the long game without attending to immediate offenses. That's what happened in the Bush 43 era, and that's what, IMO, strengthened the GOP's current domination of US politics.

[Hortensis]

45. But how can she and why would she?

What peculiar blindness keeps some from understanding the enormous powers on the right? You speak of a network of criminals, but that network isn't in the WH cringing for fear we might find the guts to embarrass them, distant but worst case remove them.

Empowered more every decade by the giant buildup of wealth over the past 40 years, most of it accruing to them, we have a giant "network of criminals," all right, but they're so powerful that most are currently effectively beyond the reach of the law. Like the Kochs, known thieves and killers and proud of it.

Call them plutocrats or kleptocrats since Trump's election, but they now control most of our federal and state government. They control most of the mass media, and with it most of the thoughts and actions of our nation. Since the Reagan era began, they've managed to embed their corruption in our courts and governments at every level. Today's exploitative meanness of industry that replaced the attitudes of relative respect and responsibility of the New Deal era is their product. The idea of a living wage for full-time work as antique and quaint as Ozzie and Harriet reruns. They literally own most of our nation and control most of what they don't own outright.

And this was all accomplished with the active and often enthusiastic help of electoral majorities, "the people." And of course we need to give the passive assistance of nonvoters their enormous due. Are you old enough to remember the "we have to get off the backs of business" mantra conservatives chanted loyally for over a decade? That only stopped when the pain from deregulation, disappearing rights, and falling incomes grew unmistakably to hit them. They went silent on that and eventually started their series of bizarre, failing rebellions, including Trump. So well trained as attack dogs against the Democrats that, even in rebellion, they remain suicidally loyal to those betraying them and sacking their nation.

Bush 43 was already Trump Lite, serving the same overlords with growing authoritarian-for-the-people/libertarian-for-wealthy ideology. Democracy not only no longer serves them, it's both an insult and existential threat to them. We have to win this, and we do have weapons, our constitution -- though that's gravely endangered.

Did I mention the religious right and Trump/Repubs and the courts as their means of achieving their Christian Nation goal? Whatever. Only several tens of millions of our 200,000,000 registered voters are theirs. The rest still could vote to leash or destroy the ultrawealthy anyway outright, especially as things finally become so dangerously bad that "the people" are starting to become aware.

But we're still far from that and wars aren't won by little tactics but giant strategies. And "Chuck and Nancy" aren't going to fix this by, as some imagine, just growing a pair and putting on a show of action for them.

[sprinkleeninow]

58. I've always received enlightenment on DU. Thank you.

This what you outline I have read before. It's depressing and chilling at once.

Those you speak of have been slowly and steadily sneaking in their plan incrementally.

Good God.

We must overcome.

[Hortensis]

68. :) As you say, good god! The midterms have helped

me sleep a lot better, though.

And the fact that THEY are at a very dangerous point where their own successes, many of them very predatory, hurtful and destructive -- and all inimical to the wellbeing of 200 million people -- have finally outed them even if many still can't believe it.

[sprinkleeninow]

75. I know. At the least we got the House.

My prayer-filled belief is "let it not be all for naught".

💙🇺🇸💪🗽

[pbmus]

79. 🍢🍡🦴🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝

You have what others lack, Common Sense

Thank you for being a DU member

[Turin_C3PO]

84. This should be an OP.

Well done.

[Empowerer]

90. Well said

[Fullduplexxx]

5. Well looks like she's taking impeachment off the table again

[ehrnst]

7. When has she taken impeaching Trump "off the table?"

Link, please.

Do share.

[cwydro]

9. It seems pretty obvious at this point.

I’m so tired of the charade.

[ehrnst]

14. So you don't have any evidence that she has ever taken it off the table for Trump.

Do you read minds as well?

[cwydro]

15. In her own words, "I don't want to impeach him."

She strikes me as a woman of her word.

[ehrnst]

17. That's like the GOP cherry picking "you didn't build that."

Can you post a link to where she said that, because I think you are leaving out a whole lot of context.

"NBC News confirmed that Pelosi said, "I don't want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison."

Politico did not characterize the full context or tone of Pelosi's comment, but a congressional aide who was in the room told NBC News that her remark was "consistent with her position that Trump needs to be removed electorally in 2020."

The Washington Post also said two sources told the paper that the meeting was not particularly contentious and that they described Pelosi's comments as offhand."

[cwydro]

24. So...she did say that.

When things change, I’ll believe differently.

[ehrnst]

25. If you read further at the link...

The Washington Post also said two sources told the paper that the meeting was not particularly contentious and that they described Pelosi's comments as offhand.

"They agreed to keep all options on the table and continue to move forward with an aggressive hearing and legislative strategy, as early as next week, to address the president's corruption and abuses of power uncovered in the report," the spokeswoman, Ashley Etienne, said in a statement Wednesday."

So there you go - early next week.

But if one needs reasons to rationalize one's dislike of her, I'm sure one can continue to seek out something, somewhere.

[Eyeball_Kid]

40. Pelosi's statements imply that she has no faith in the impeachment inquiry process.

Impeachment inquiries are designed to gather evidence to PERSUADE the Senate to convict. It's illogical and impractical to assume that the Senate has the relevant evidence for conviction BEFORE an inquiry is ever performed. Pelosi knows this, and THIS is where we can wonder why she is abandoning the primacy of initiating an inquiry. Based upon her history, she appears to be disguising her reluctance, and perhaps her refusal, to impeach.

[ehrnst]

41. "imply" - there you have it. She didn't state that, you want to believe it.

Again, you think she got to where she is by being "illogical and impractical?"

Or by showing her hand? Or "abandoning the primacy of intiating a hearing?"

[Hortensis]

19. I don't think you should believe that. Everyone wants

Trump removed from office. Those words, assuming accurate, were in the context of private, ongoing conversation and could have meant a couple of different things depending on what was intended. None of us should have an agenda that requires us to insist any one of them.

What I'm wondering is how any intelligent observers could possibly imagine they would want Trump out of office asap more than those who work long, stressful, exhausting days every day to somehow protect our nation from him -- and the Republicans.

Pelosi's life and responsibilities, which these days include carrying the weight of a nation on her shoulders, bear no resemblance to yours.

[cwydro]

35. I was agreeing with your post until I got to the unnecessary snark at the end.

You have a nice day now, ya hear?

[ehrnst]

43. You made specific personal judgements as to Pelosi's thinking and motives.

But you call someone addressing that being "unneccessarily snarky?"

It was appropriate to your comments.

[cwydro]

73. I absolutely did not. I simply repeated her words.

Do not say i said something I didn’t.

She said something that I quoted, and I said she is a woman of her word. You’re really stretching it to turn that into “personal judgments.”

[Laura PourMeADrink]

83. What you are missing dear Cwydro, is a lack of blind faith!

[cwydro]

85. Obviously lol.

What I’m also missing is the multi-millions of dollars that will protect Pelosi and her family when the shitstain’s actions make this country go sideways.

We regular folks will have to deal with more and more of these cretins who have crawled out of their cracks thinking that racism and hatred is not only ok, but there’ll be no repercussions for it.

[ehrnst]

95. ....

[ehrnst]

106. Combo straw man and false dillema fallacies.

At best, it's a strawman to call trusting an experienced professional more than people with less or no experience "blind faith." It's also a false dillema - you can either trust Nancy more than you trust someone less experienced, OR you are capable of analytical thinking.

Trusting that someone is more qualified to make a decision than oneself, based on their track record, experience, and confidence of their peers isn't "blind faith." It's called knowing enough to know what you don't know, and leaving it to those who do. It's called relying on expertise one doesn't have.

Yes, I trust Speaker Pelosi more than I trust anyone on DU who claims to "know" that she's "afraid" or "lying" or "confused," because no, they don't have the qualifications that she does. When I say "I trust Nancy," I'm saying that I trust her more than someone ranting on DU, even if they may be validating my anger more...

Is trusting one's acredited, experienced pediatrician to know what vaccinations are considered safeappropriate over a bunch of people on Google "blind faith," or rational decision making - even knowing that sometimes pediatricians make mistakes?

Is trusting emergency room doctors that you actually have a burst appendix "blind faith," or understanding that they are more qualified than you are to make the diagnosis - even knowing that sometimes physicians do make mistakes?

"Blind faith" is an insult that implies people who don't agree with you are not rational.

[ehrnst]

94. Do not say i said something I didn't.

"personal judgements."

See what I did there?

lol.

[PufPuf23]

10. Pelosi is wrong now just as she was wrong in "keeping powder dry" and

"taking impeachment off the table" regards GWB et al.

I do not understand Pelosi's logic nor opinion; it is not consistent and bears just as much risk of failure for the Nation and Democratic party and, in the case of failure, looks to be the path for Trump to be re-elected POTUS in 2020. Meanwhile the damage continues unabated and in a cascade, the unacceptable becomes unacceptable and in many cases there is not an easy way back (especially regards the courts and international relations). The Congress may be supportive of Pelosi's opinion now but she is losing the Democratic party on the ground as the vast majority of rank and file Democrats favor impeachment, soon and with utmost prejudice.

If Trump is not impeached by the House, history will not consider Pelosi with favor.

[ehrnst]

20. That is correct - you do not understand her logic or opinion.

Last edited Fri Jun 7, 2019, 11:23 AM - Edit history (1)

All you know is what she has stated for the consumption of the press and the public.

Why do you think that she's been elected as leaders by her peers over and over again?

Do you think that she is going to be foolish enough to show her hand?

Why should we believe that you are right and she is wrong about something she has decades of experience dealing with?

[cwydro]

74. Looks like you're making "personal judgments" lol.

Guess you’re a mind reader, huh dude?

You know no more than anyone else on this board.

[ehrnst]

92. As you are doing with Pelosi. (nt)

[bdamomma]

11. Now let me understand

this, Ms Pelosi wants to vote him out??? so that means us and not the Congress to do what they are supposed to do through the impeachment process. Is she worried that McConnell and this thugs won't impeach him??? Impeach him any way.

How do we know it will be a clean election without Russian interference??? Impeachment inquiries must go on.

[Poiuyt]

13. Trump cheated once to become president. There's no reason to believe

he won't do it again.

[ehrnst]

21. The OP didn't post a link, so we don't know what she said. (nt)

[StarfishSaver]

22. Even if he's impeached, he won't be removed so voters will STILL have to vote him out

[ehrnst]

26. +1000. (nt)

[Hoyt]

38. Exactly.

[bdamomma]

49. oh boy

we must flood the polling stations, cause they will try to steal the election again.

[StarfishSaver]

52. True - but even before we flood the polls, we must do everything in our power to make sure OTHER

people can get to the polls, as well.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

87. Not only us, who help in campaigns and GOTV, but

Our candidates will have to establish not just enough to win but an extra buffer to allow for rigging factor.

[bdamomma]

96. They (repigs) will

do anything and everything in their power to de-enfranchised voters from voting. Such SOB's. Well they can forget to get the women's vote since they are taking away a women's right to choose.

[ehrnst]

18. Link please? Oh, wait, here's one...

Last edited Fri Jun 7, 2019, 10:20 AM - Edit history (1)

NBC News confirmed that Pelosi said, "I don't want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison."

Politico did not characterize the full context or tone of Pelosi's comment, but a congressional aide who was in the room told NBC News that her remark was "consistent with her position that Trump needs to be removed electorally in 2020."

The Washington Post also said two sources told the paper that the meeting was not particularly contentious and that they described Pelosi's comments as offhand.

"They agreed to keep all options on the table and continue to move forward with an aggressive hearing and legislative strategy, as early as next week, to address the president's corruption and abuses of power uncovered in the report," the spokeswoman, Ashley Etienne, said in a statement Wednesday.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-reportedly-told-democrats-she-would-rather-see-trump-prison-n1014516

[dewsgirl]

28. When the election will be stolen from us again anyway, how in the hell will this work? On top of

that, imagine the damage he will do over the next year and a half.

[bdamomma]

50. we are there with the damage

now he wants July 4h to be his day. How much more evidence do they need for a wanna be dictator.

https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/its-official-trump-is-going-to-try-to-make-the-fourth-of-july-all-about-himself/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=297&recip_id=21760&list_id=2

sorry for posting this here.

[dewsgirl]

82. Rachel Maddow did a special in this during the week.

About how Nixon did this, but at least he was smart enough not to make it all about him, since it didn't really go well. Trump of course would encourage violence, perhaps that's one of the points.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

88. Exactly! If you live in a red state you hear it frequently..the

"Guy must have been clean because the Dems hate him. And if they had something they would have impeached him."

[Nuggets]

30. I hope she just waits until 6 months before the election to

keep fresh focus on his crimes.

Americans are not going to pay attention for a year and a half especially with the GOP and cable news networks using the witch-hunt narrative.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

89. Yes, but think there is some point when the window

closes. Maybe that's at the 6 months mark? At some point, people will see it as a fully partisan move. That's why as close as possible to the Mueller report was important. It linked impeachment to a supposed non-partisan, Mueller, who had worked for years with the best prosecutors around. But guess it's a moot point since we didn't do that and said then said we were waiting for compelling and ironclad clad evidence...which evidently the Mueller obstruction stuff was not.

[Skidmore]

46. It was also reported this morning

on Axios that 218 more votes are required for impeachment.

https://www.axios.com/impeachment-house-democrats-whip-list-c730f5e6-201f-41db-b3e1-923c387b894c.html

[StarfishSaver]

53. This is really interesting. Have you thought of making it an OP?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

97. Yes, but how many of those are just being obedient

until they are released? To vote their conscience?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

47. Eh. Why not impeach him?

While it's likely not going anywhere in the Senate because the Republican Party is as hopelessly corrupt/compromised as Trump is, the House still has the obligation to hold hearings and let the chips fall where they may irregardless of what anybody else does. And IMHO just sitting around and waiting for 2020 to vote him out without any repercussions doesn't do us any favor in terms of making the case for getting rid of him 2020 and Trump will just tout inaction as "vindication" and weakness.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

98. Exactly. They already think that Mueller found nothing

important since we didn't impeach at the most optimum time! And he's been filling the void for what, two 1/2 months? Exonerated!

[Golden Raisin]

55. This assumes the election will not be stolen,

manipulated, Putinized, whatever. We all went to bed last time thinking Hillary would be President when we woke up. McConnell and complicit Republican Congresspeople are currently and vigorously blocking anti-tampering measures. I sincerely hope I'm wrong but I have grave doubts about our electoral integrity.

[bearsfootball516]

56. It's still the only way.

The House can impeach Trump if they want, but there’s no chance 20 GOP senators vote to convict. So he’ll still be in office, running in 2020.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

102. If trump can use a go fund me account to build a wall

Why don't we start one to help swing States with Dem governors buy anti-tampering software? Gotta do it quickly since it will take time to install and test.

[aikoaiko]

66. She may want to convict him, but she has no power to do so.

If Democratic voters get disillusioned by a lack of impeachment action, she may not even get him out of office.

[StarfishSaver]

70. If Democrats are so disillusioned by lack of impeachment action that they don't take the action they

have within their power to remove him from office, where does the problem lie? Not with Speaker Pelosi.

If voters are so disgusted by Trump that they think he should be impeached, they surely should be disgusted enough to get off their butts and go vote him out. And anyone who thinks they don't need to do that is in no position to demand that anyone else go out of their way to do anything about him.

[aikoaiko]

71. Voters or those we would like to see vote for us can demand anything they want.

My point is we need voters to vote FOR something, and not just against Trump.

We already know what happens when we expect people to vote against Trump because he is vile and doesn't know how to govern.

[OliverQ]

69. That's stupid. If Dems are too cowardly to impeach him

regardless of the results in the Senate, it will just make his chances of winning easier. And if he wins again, America is finished.

Pelosi is really failing here.

[BlueJac]

76. K&R

[Buckeyeblue]

80. If he resigns does he still get his presidential pension?

That maybe the only money he'll have.

[Honeycombe8]

91. She has never wanted to impeach anyone.

If they don't impeach, voter turnout may be lower than expected.

[StarfishSaver]

93. If people won't vote to remove Trump because Democrats didn't impeach him

why would you trust them to bother voting if Democrats DO impeach him?

Anyone who's logic is that screwed up ("I'll be so pissed that Trump wasn't impeached that I won't do anything to keep him from being elected for another four years".) isn't a reliable Democratic voter in the first place.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

99. Overall enthusiasm suffers. To donate. To GOTV..

It isn't a planned thing...its almost subconscious.

[Vinca]

100. That will probably be what happens whether he's impeached or not. The Senate will not vote to

remove him from office. That said, the voters elected Democrats in 2018 because they wanted action. Holding impeachment hearings (which would be televised) over the next year and a half wouldn't be a bad thing. Voters should know their choice at the polls: respectable human being or criminal thug.

[shanny]

104. Two actions she has zero control over.

Convenient?

[ehrnst]

107. So? (nt)

[BeyondGeography]

105. You mean she wants us to vote him and the courts to deal with him

Gutsy and principled.

[mainer]

108. Are impeachment + jail mutually exclusive?

Why can’t we impeach now and then charge him with crimes after he leaves office?