NPR reporting as of the last 2 hours that Pelosi has not changed her position on impeachment

[Maven]

but is in favor of passing new laws to so that sitting presidents can be indicted. I'm sure that Mitch McConnell will get on those new laws right away!

In an exclusive interview with NPR, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she has not changed her mind on pursuing impeachment but is ready to change the law to restrain presidential power and make it clear that a sitting president can, in fact, be indicted.

"I do think that we will have to pass some laws that will have clarity for future presidents. [A] president should be indicted, if he's committed a wrongdoing — any president. There is nothing anyplace that says the president should not be indicted," Pelosi told All Things Considered host Ari Shapiro and NPR congressional correspondent Susan Davis on Friday. "That's something cooked up by the president's lawyers. That's what that is. But so that people will feel 'OK, well, if he — if he does something wrong, [he] should be able to be indicted.' "

...

The constitutional recourse for a lawbreaking president per the Constitution is impeachment. Article II, Section 4 instructs that the president "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

But despite the growing chants among Democrats for an impeachment inquiry in the House, Pelosi has remained reluctant about recourse. She fears it could alienate swing voters ahead of next year's elections and imperil moderate Democrats who were critical to her party's taking back the House last November.

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/20/762594886/pelosi-says-congress-should-pass-new-laws-so-sitting-presidents-can-be-indicted?utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews&utm_source=twitter.com

[grumpyduck]

1. Blah, blah, blah.

She can't change the law with Moscow Mitch in the way.

[ritapria]

2. New Wall Street Journal Story

According to WSJ , Trump pressed President of Ukraine to investigate Joe's son, Hunter, eight times in a late July telephone call...…

[njhoneybadger]

3. Hmmmmm, Bribery

[standingtall]

5. Legislation that would have to go through the senate and even if it did pass there

Trump is not going to sign legislation that would allow him to be indicted. Getting ridiculous it is time to impeach Trump.

[Dennis Donovan]

6. Give her 24 hrs. Things are breaking FAST on this fine Friday... n/t

[MontanaMama]

7. I have to believe

that the Speaker has a plan.

[Celerity]

11. yes, to not impeach, as she simply doesn't have the votes

All she needs is around 20 defections to scupper it. I wager there are 50 plus centrists in swing and red districts who will not budge atm, if ever.

[pbmus]

12. Way past worrying about votes in senate...

We are on the brink of losing our democracy to authoritarian control...

The time to impeach is NOW...

[Celerity]

14. No, she does not have the votes in the HOUSE

re-read my post

[pbmus]

15. That will happen...if she calls for it...if not we are all screwed

If Democrats cannot fall lockstep into impeachment at a time our leader is committing treason, then we should just kiss all our asses bye bye...

[Celerity]

20. what will happen? That all of them will switch to impeach? Good luck with that.

They are (maybe rightly, maybe not) scared (as is Pelosi, in terms of losing our majority, again maybe rightly, maybe wrongly) of losing their seats if the MAGATs (who are the majority in some of their districts) kick up their shitty hooves and boot them out. The 30 or so Dems in the very problematic, bi-partisan, partially RW-funded Problem Solvers Caucus alone can block it, and counting them, the Blue Dog Caucus, and the New Democrat Coalition there are 108 'out' centrists in our House caucus (some of that 108 belong to more than one of those groups). Even if 80% of that 108 signed on to Impeachment, there still are not enough votes (and some others who may not support it are not even amongst those 108.)

[pbmus]

21. Then we are truly screwed if Democrats cannot impeach because our majority

In the House will not follow the leader...Pelosi

If that is truly the reason, WE NEED A NEW LEADER...

[Celerity]

22. I agree. I am NOT in favour of what these blockers are doing. I think it sets a disastrous

historical precedent. It is utter abdication of our constitutional duty.

I was only laying out why I do not see it happening.

[pbmus]

24. We are abdicating by not impeaching , NOW

[Celerity]

25. welcome to the current RW-skewed electoral paradigm (due to decades of RW gerrymandering and

systemic voter suppression.) It has foisted a tonne of artificially 'too far to the right' types into our caucus due to dozens upon dozens of artificially 'too far to the right' districts, but the only way we keep a majority to to have those kinds of members atm. It is a catch-22.

[pbmus]

29. JC...OMG...time for the street..

[Maven]

18. You know I often try to build support for something by not publicly supporting it

?itemid=11356619

[BeyondGeography]

28. It's called leadership

[cwydro]

8. No words.

Pfft.

[pbmus]

9. What will imperil democracy is if the Democrats do not impeach this...

The most corrupt president in America’s history...

[yonder]

10. Correct me if I'm wrong but

there are currently no codified laws preventing the president from being indicted, right?

It's my understanding that its a matter of a previous Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopting a position that a sitting president cannot be indicted because of some sort of memo process which was reaffirmed in 2000. What is sacrosanct about a memo which describes a policy? What has kept any previous Justice Dept. (certainly not this Barr led one) from changing that policy as they see fit?

I agree that we need some sort of law to ensure that even a president can be indicted but I don't see why a normal Justice Dept. is hung up on what is essentially a policy.

[Arazi]

13. The President can just fire every prosecutor until he gets to one who won't prosecute him

Delaying any work on impeachment now is the wrong move. I'm sure she's waiting on the taxes which are the surest indicator of his criminality but the moment (and momentum) are upon her

[MyNameGoesHere]

16. When congress abdicates their constitutional duties

Patriots must carry out justice.

[sarisataka]

19. How should patriots carry out justice?

Please be specific

[Celerity]

23. +10000

[MyNameGoesHere]

27. There are numerous ways

I suggest reading history books for specifics.

[sarisataka]

32. History is pretty broad

Any time period I should look at?

[MyNameGoesHere]

33. Yeah

Cambrian period to present.

[Kid Berwyn]

17. It must really make her mad to be repeatedly asked!

Not that there’s a reason for it.

[Mike Nelson]

26. If this "Whistle Blower" story...

... comes through as some actual crime(s), she may get the required Democrats in the House. The Senate will be difficult at first, but their voters could tilt - and they may warm up to a President Pence.

[Docreed2003]

30. We already have a means for dealing with a president who breaks the law

It's right there in the Constitution.

Ok, so we don't have the votes in the house..yet. If the Speaker isn't personally in favor of impeachment, I wish she would just come out already and say why, and don't give vote as an excuse. It's an easy question...has Trump committed impeachable offenses??

If that answer is yes, then say why and take that message to the people.

We need leadership...we need a coherent message. People are begging for it! Please, Madame Speaker...if you take the lead, people will follow. We aren't asking you to move mountains, just stand up and say "This President isn't fit for office"

[dkhbrit]

31. History will show

That for everything that this administration has done, the worst thing that happened in these times was the people who had the power to do something about it and did nothing. Shame on those democrats that think only of themselves and not of their country.