Democrats are holding on to the horns of a dilemma.

[kentuck]

Should they impeach or should they not?

Nancy Pelosi is correct - it would divide the country.

But, the country will be divided so long as Trump is the President, whether or not there is an impeachment. That is not a good reason to not impeach Donald Trump.

The other excuse is political. Many of the new Democrats elected in the last election come from previously red districts and they do not wish to gamble with an impeachment hearing.

So they are stuck in the middle. The Judiciary Committee has voted to call witnesses but many doubt if they are serious about the investigation. We shall see in the next two or three weeks.

They simply cannot decide. It is a dilemma for them. We will not know for sure if it is an historical blunder until after the next election? They say they are looking for the facts. Some ask, how many more facts do they need?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. As far as I'm concerned,

they can go ahead and impeach the fucker, and then when the GOP senate doesn't convict him they can equate them to an all-white jury in Mississippi in the '50s acquitting a white man accused of killing a black man (thanks to Richard Painter for the analogy).

[kentuck]

6. They are fearful and not confident they can carry the argument.

There is no easy answer.

However, I agree with you that they could credibly blame Republicans if they refused to convict. After all, he is an unindicted co-conspirator in a pay-off scheme to keep women quiet just before the election. He may have lost if they had not been paid off and had gone public just before the election. Also, it has been known to everyone since day one that Donald Trump is violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

Now, we hear that he is making money off our military staying at his golf club in Scotland. Also, he lied about not doing business with Russia.

All this and about eight or ten charges of obstruction of justice. Why would any Democrat be fearful of prosecuting that argument?

[LakeArenal]

2. My opinion FWIW

Impeachment will take the time to the election

Everyday Dump impeaches himself

I would love to see him testify it would be awesome to see the blob of “Look It’s Not Butter” melt under the pressure.

But if I have to wait to vote against him. I’ll do that too

[Kurt V.]

3. one thing is certain. There will be reckoning on decisions made. no avoiding that.

[spanone]

4. If they find cause, it's their sworn duty....oversight

[DeeDeeNY]

34. + 1000

You are exactly on target.

[malaise]

5. ITTMF

Now!

[SoCalNative]

7. In the immortal words of Kelly Bundy

"they're on the horns of an enema."

[Hotler]

39. yes...yes...yes...

I had a crush on her.

[gratuitous]

8. Conduct a public investigation

Develop the record and show the public what Trump has done wrong. Yes, it will take time. Yes, some people will stand by Trump come hell or high water. Yes, some people will whine about how boring it all is. Yes, there are other things the House would like to get done. Yes, Donald Trump will tweet mean things at you.

Get over it. There's too much at stake. If you do your job right, you'll practically guarantee another blue wave in 2020.

[Brawndo]

9. If "The public isn't there on impeachment" then LEAD them to it Speaker Pelosi

She is currently the highest elected Democrat and the leader/face of our party. If not her, then who is supposed to be trying to move public opinion?

[StarfishSaver]

10. It's not the Speaker's job to "move public opinion"

especially if the members of her caucus aren't there yet. her job is to organize and represent her caucus - all of them, not just the ones who support impeachment. She's not going to go over their heads directly to try to convince their constituents to do something their representatives aren't on board with yet. (And not only because most people out in the districts aren't taking their cues from the Speaker of the House).

Much of the responsibility for changing public opinion is on the individual Members to move their constituents, district-by-district. I think a lot of them are working on doing just that - one of the reasons the opening of an impeachment inquiry is so important since that will help provide the evidence that will help sway their constituents.

But the idea that the Speaker is supposed to force the members of her caucus and their constituents to support impeachment is a non-starter

[Brawndo]

11. Whether she likes it or not she is the current face of the party, not just Speaker of the House

Under normal conditions, her job is exactly what you describe, these are not normal times. I know perception doesn't matter to many here but it does matter to a great many others. We are being perceived as weak and ineffectual. That is a huge problem. We need a morale boost, even if it only takes the form of rhetoric at this point.

[StarfishSaver]

12. This doesn't have anything to do with whether she likes it or not.

She's doing her job. If you so desperately need a "morale boost," you should look to someone other than the Speaker of the House of Representatives to give it to you.

No previous Speaker of the House was ever held to such a standard. No one clamored for Paul Ryan or John Boehner or Dennis Hastert or Dick Gephardt or Tip O'Neil or even Newt Gingrich to cheerlead their base to this degree. But, for some reason, Nancy Pelosi is expected not only to manage her caucus - something she does with greater skill than any speaker since Sam Rayburn - but she's also castigated if she doesn't tickle their fancies and soothe their boo boos.

[Brawndo]

13. It's not a criticism of her personally

It should be the role of anyone who is at the top of our party to publicly combat the most lawless and corrupt administration in our history. If disillusionment isn't a factor that could impact turnout in your view I think that is short-sighted. If you think its about soothing boo boos then you are not taking the threat of tRump seriously enough. Ask children dying in cages what they think of the current strategy.

[StarfishSaver]

14. If The speaker not saying the right words while the judiciary committee actually proceeds with impea

Is enough to disillusion people to the point that they won't vote Trump out of office next year, yes I do think they are asking for their boo-boos to be soothed.

[Brawndo]

15. So lets just wait until we have a nominee and hope they are a fighter

because that is what we need.

[PufPuf23]

18. Then why has Pelosi been consistent in making public statements moving public opinion

away from impeachment rather than aggressively towards impeachment?

Recall that Speaker Pelosi too impeachment off the table regards GWB.

Pelosi could have strongly suggested that members of the Democratic caucus support impeachment and go one by one to educate their own constituents starting well over a year ago.

It is a Speakers job to influence public opinion and lead the Democratic party and nation on the correct course.

[StarfishSaver]

19. How do you know Pelosi isn't talking privately with members of her caucus

She has direct access to every Member of her Caucus and, thus, doesn't need to speak to them through the press. Just because you're not privy to her interactions and conversations with them doesn't mean they're not happening. Plenty of things are happening around there that you aren't necessarily aware of and that the Speaker and the Members don't need to run by the public every time they occur.

And no, it's NOT the Speaker's job to influence public opinion or lead the party or nation.

[PufPuf23]

20. You did not answer my question.

Then why has Pelosi been consistent in making public statements moving public opinion away from impeachment rather than aggressively towards impeachment?

Pelosi has chosen to speak negatively of AOC (and others) through the press, effectively weakening them in the public sphere.

Pelosi should certainly be speaking to other members of the Democratic Congress (and her constituents in CA). How do you explain why Pelosi was booed in June regards impeachment at a meeting of the Democratic party in California in June 2019?

It is the Speaker's job specifically to influence public opinion and lead the party and nation. You are wrong that to influence public opinion and knowledge and to lead the party and nation is not part of Pelosi's job. If the Speaker does not take that role, who has that role? Are we a leaderless party? If anything, Pelosi has weakened the effort to impeach Trump. There is no question that Trump is worthy of impeachment.

You have had a pretty busy less than 6 months yourself talking down the movement within the Democratic party to impeach Trump at DU. You are an intelligent person.

[Tipperary]

21. You make an excellent point.

Wonder if you will get an answer.

[PufPuf23]

26. Doubt it. Thank you. nt.

[Brawndo]

24. Thank you for articulating this sentiment better than I could

[PufPuf23]

25. You said plenty on your own. Thank you.

Much more energy than I retain in my time of ill health and sloth.

[Brawndo]

27. I truly hope your health improves, the sloth condition we both suffer from

[FBaggins]

33. Pelosi hasn't been trying to shift public opinion away

From impeachment.

She’s recognizing that it isn’t currently for impeachment... yet her voting base is heavily for it. She’s trying to keep that portion of that base from forcing Democrats to commit electoral suicide. She’s merely counseling then to wait until public opinion shifts in their favor (if/when hearings have an impact)

[Volaris]

23. Its questions like this that really really make me wish that Hillary..

had set up a British-style 'shadow government': an unofficial shadow cabinet, who's only purpose was to designate agency spokespersons to go on TV and say 'well, if we had been elected, this is how WE would have responded...'


Can you imagine her on TV once a month kicking his orange ass and taking up space in his head?

[Bettie]

16. The Country is already divided

there are MAGATs who believe that any and all actions taken by "Dear Orange Leader" are acceptable and decent people who think that laws should apply to everyone.

[uponit7771]

17. 👍🏼

[YOHABLO]

29. That sentence doesn't make any sense.

[Bettie]

35. Two groups

Group 1: MAGATs who believe that anything their Dear Orange Leader says is true and right

Group 2: Decent People.

That's the divide. It isn't that complicated and I'm tired of hearing how they are "good people" who have economic anxiety. No. They are people who have made a choice for hate to be their guiding principle.

[myohmy2]

22. I prefer impeachment...

...but it seems to me, both Democrats and republicans alike, are running out the clock on impeachment...

...history may judge this to be a tragic mistake and blunder for our country...a major turning point...the beginning of the end...

...we shall see...

[YOHABLO]

28. Do you really think the American public has been paying attention?

Impeachment proceedings would put all of his crimes front and center. The Public must be educated. This is the only way.

[OnDoutside]

31. It's only a dilemma for those who don't understand the issues that Trump has blocked all documents

and key witnesses from appearing before the House committees, and said that he'll do the same even if Democrats launch an Impeachment Inquiry, so they would STILL have to go to court but would have created the EXPECTATION amongst supporters that "We've got him ! We've got him !" When they start winning some enforceable court cases, then great, go for it, but until then they have to slow walk it.

[kentuck]

32. The problem may lie in the courts?

If the Courts fail to follow the Constitution, by accepting the position of the Executive Branch at face value, something has been lost?

I wonder if it is a given that Corey Lewandowski is going to show up for his testimony on Tuesday? He may be persuaded to believe that he also, is above the law?

If the DOJ cannot follow the most simple dictates of the law, then maybe we have lost the country? If they cannot enforce a single subpoena on a witness where his information may be in question. He told the Special Counsel, under oath, that he had been asked by Donald Trump to thwart Robert Mueller's investigation. He wanted him to fire the AG if he did not meet to discuss the matter. We have a right to know whether or not that is true? Bill Barr does not have the right to withhold that information.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/trump-told-lewandowski-to-do-his-dirty-work-thwart-mueller.html

[OnDoutside]

36. To be fair, these cases take a bit of time to work their way through the courts. Ideally some of the

cases will be quickly (relatively !) won, such as Richie Neal's request of Trump's Tax Returns. When they started this, they talked in terms of getting a final decision by October, on this particular one. Lewandowski is on a much weaker footing than those who have been working in the WH. I have no doubt that he will either not turn up, or if he does, he will attempt to bat down as many questions as he can. Even if he's caught lying, that still takes time unfortunately. You're right about Barr, but nothing will happen under this Presidency, and the reality is that it is unlikely to ever happen. I would bet right now that a Democratic President will want to heal the country, and scum like Barr will go off into wealthy retirement.

[kentuck]

37. They haven't yet been able to get the Grand Jury testimony.

The Judiciary Committee has not been real successful up to this point. Perhaps that will change in the next few weeks?

[OnDoutside]

38. The biggest problem is that normal rules don't apply. Trump is a piece of lowlife trash and fights

like that. The old days of Republicans holding their hands up when caught out, are no more. Trump's tactic is to go to court on everything, to delay as long as he can, and in truth it's working well so far. Democrats (so far), can't get GJ testimony, as you said, but also emails, documents Tax Returns and witnesses. Nadler and Neal's only option is to go through the courts, and if they start to get any of the afore mentioned, I'd be confident they will speed up.