...(The bigger scandal) is the Democratic Party's refusal to impeach him for it. - AOC wow

[sharedvalues]

Presented without comment.

Wow.

Link to tweet

[Skittles]

1. it's becoming a bad joke now

[EveHammond13]

2. AOC IS the Fearless Girl

[triron]

26. AOC For speaker.

[LiberalLovinLug]

196. +1000!

[Magoo48]

202. Damn good idea!

Standing around and shouting names at them over the fence hasn’t been real productive.

[ehrnst]

298. When she earns the trust and respect of her Democratic peers to lead them

then they will elect her Speaker, if she's still in Congress. A rookie rep doesn't have the chops to lead.

Speaker Pelosi is their choice, and has been for years.

[Kid Berwyn]

166. She is right.

When people fail to oppose treason, they enable treason.

[Chemisse]

261. Fearless and somewhat foolish.

Right now she is an activist, not a politician. This is satisfying for those of us who would like action right now (and really, who here wouldn't?). But playing the rebel in her own House is somewhat destructive and derailing. She has the inside track; why not work there?

She will be an amazing politician in another 10 years once she has a little more wisdom and self-control.

[colorado_ufo]

263. You want wisdom and self-control? We've got that.

Now what?

[StarfishSaver]

267. A fellow activist once asked me to help organize a protest march against a large company

I reminded him that he was close to the head of a civil rights organization on whose board the president of that company served. "Why not just arrange a meeting with him to talk a out the problem?" At first he resisted because he wanted to "make a statement." I was finally able to convince him that the point of marches and protests are to make ourselves heard when we have no other option. But if you can call up the president of the company and talk to him personally, there's not much point in organizing a big protest - unless, after talking to him, your concerns aren't met.

He eventually did that and was able to resolve the problem very quickly without having to make a big fuss.

As you said, the point of getting on the inside is to be able to work the inside track. Otherwise what's the point - just stay outside and agitate.

[montanacowboy]

3. Yes the Sad Truth

this is what it has come to, this is what we have become

[FirstLight]

4. + a MILLION!

Go GIRL! SPEAK IT!

I am up to HERE with this shit, there's ACTION that can and should be taken, stop pussyfooting and fucking SAVE the fucking CONSTITUTION!

[diverdownjt]

275. I agree 10000%

She is on the inside and can see that there is no budging Pelosi off of her stance of
"No Impeachment". So from within and from without the rabble must be roused and
the Constitution must be defended. That IS what she and all the others swore to do.
"Protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America"

The time for sitting back and collating the data is over. Impeach now!

[leftstreet]

5. DURec

[rampartc]

6. she is right, you know

we have a responsibility to the nation and its people.

[dalton99a]

7. Kick

Last edited Sun Sep 22, 2019, 02:07 AM - Edit history (1)

[StarfishSaver]

8. No, the fact that the House hasn't impeached him yet ISN'T a bigger scandal than Trump's behavior

Not even close.

She's new to Congress, but she's been there long enough to understand how many votes are needed to make something happen. Maybe, instead of publicly attacking her own party (or even just in addition to it), she could help rustle up some more votes for impeachment?

[chowder66]

9. And there's that little issue with the ENTIRE Republican party that is propping him up and

participating in the theft of American's hard earned tax dollars, plus I'm sure numerous crimes we haven't even begun to imagine.

I like AOC but on this she's putting the cart before the horse.

[Perseus]

10. She may be helping "rustle up some more votes for impeachment?" by twitting what she did.

Someone has to say it and she is the only one with guts to do it. It is a total shame that the creature has not been impeached, she is right, the more time it passes the more difficult it will get.

Instead of anyone attacking her they should ask Pelosi why she refuses to do it. Not impeaching the creature is enabling him.

[StarfishSaver]

11. I doubt that AOC tweeting out attacks on the party is going to get any of her colleagues to support

impeachment. It's childish and petty.

"Someone has to say it and she is the only one with guts to do it. ... Instead of anyone attacking her they should ask Pelosi why she refuses to do it." Because no one has done that at all up until now.

[Doremus]

28. The more sunlight focused on these crimes the more public outcry.

It used to be that public outcry swayed congress. Perhaps it still will. One thing is for sure, inaction will sway no one and guarantee status quo.

History is going to show that AOC was one of a very few who had the cajones to speak truth to power in this troubled era.

[StarfishSaver]

36. Oh, please

"AOC was one of a very few who had the cajones to speak truth to power in this troubled era." It doesn't take courage to talk smack on Twitter - especially when she's not saying anything different than what plenty of other people - including a whole lot of people on DU - are saying.

History won't be all that interested in AOC's tweets. It will be interested in anything she actually DID, like maybe convincing some of her colleagues to change their minds. That takes skill and tact and isn't done by haranguing people on Twitter.

[democrank]

62. No.

History will harshly judge the politicians who allowed this to happen. Their cowardice will be examined and the results of their cowardice will be written about for a very long time.

Donald Trump poses an immediate danger to this country, this world. He must be stopped, whether or not that fits into an individual politician’s career plan.

[Doremus]

135. Yes, because social media hasn't had any influence on anything ever.

The only correct way to sway public opinion/increase pressure on our elected representatives is behind the scenes, one on one in dialogue with people who are on the payroll of billionaires.

Says nobody. Ever. Oh, except you.

[StarfishSaver]

137. Having influence isn't the same as being representative of the larger world

MAGAs and the Tea Party have influence. Do they speak for you or represent a majority of the public?

And since those people you think all "are on the payroll of billionaires" - all of whom are Democrats, by the way - are the people who are deciding whether to vote for impeachment, yeah, talking to them to persuade them to change their minds is a smart thing to do.

If you think not, that's your prerogative. But if you think that a Member of Congress ranting to a bunch of her anonymous Twitter fans is more likely to nfluence her colleagues than her actually talking to them, you don't have much faith in her political and communications skills - since being an effective politician is more than just talking smack on Twitter.

[SMC22307]

141. She's receiving death threats for "talking smack" on Twitter.

No one on DU is a U.S, Congresswoman, as far as I know. AOC's tweets are far-reaching; DU plays to its own audience.

Focus on why Pelosi isn't doing the right thing... that's what's really curious in all of this. Republicans are kicking sand in our faces and Democrats are FED UP.

[StarfishSaver]

143. The "right thing" is a matter of opinion

We're all trying to get to the same point. You just don't agree with the approach Pelosinis taking. But it's wrong to assume that, unless someone is ready to impeach Trump today, they are doing the wrong thing.

Many people who are just as committed to justice and what's best for the country disagree that impeaching him immediately is the best way to go about it. It doesn't make them any less decent or committed than you or AOC or anyone else who thinks a different approach is better.

The problem with AOC's beat to eat is that she assumes that anyone who disagrees with her strategy and timetable is, by definition as craven and evil as Trump. That kind of "my way or else" thinking is immature and counterproductive.

[SMC22307]

154. Impeachment was off the table for Dubya, thanks to Pelosi.

How much more Republican corruption can this country withstand? They know they can illegally invade countries, interfere with elections, interfere with the legislative branch, etc. and there will be no repercussions.

"Assuming" to know what AOC "assumes" is rather ridiculous.

We need less hand-wringing and more Barry H. Berke, Esq. hammering the shit out of Republicans.

[brutus smith]

161. You're absolutely right about Pelosi taking impeachment off the table for bush

That approach lost us the House for how many years. The American voters have given her a 2nd chance to do the right thing. Don't blow it Nancy.

[StarfishSaver]

163. The Democrats didn't lose the House in 2010 because.Bush wasn't impeached in 2007

[brutus smith]

172. Oh, because you say so?

[StarfishSaver]

174. No. Because facts...

[Thekaspervote]

217. That's right and we lost the house mainly due to the ACA

Don’t kill me... not saying we shouldn’t have pushed for the ACA.. just stating facts

[brutus smith]

292. So you're saying we lost the House because of the ACA but regained it because of the ACA?

[SMC22307]

184. Many voters were disgusted by that,

but I have no idea the impact it had on elections. I do know that fewer and fewer voters are identifying with any one party and registering as indies. THAT is a problem. Why is our brand not selling?

[brutus smith]

190. Correct.

In my small town you use to see hard signs for Dem candidates. Now, none, nada, zilch.

[pangaia]

145. Maybe focus on why REPUBLICANS aren't doing the right thing.

[SMC22307]

149. We know why Republicans aren't doing the right thing -- they're corrupt assholes. (n/t)

[StarfishSaver]

150. They're corrupt assholes who are getting a complete pass while

everyone focuses on smacking around the Democrats for not cleaning up Republicans' mess fast enough for their liking.

[SMC22307]

155. LOL, that is truly lame rationalization.

They're getting a complete pass because the Democratic Party is giving them a pass. George Dubya got a complete pass. Fat Nixon appears to be getting one, too. We'll see though. We need more Barry H. Berke's and much less bumbling.

[Thekaspervote]

218. Exactly... never is it right to smack down our dem leadership

[pangaia]

151. Of curse WE know that... it is enough of THEM(or is it THEY) who must be shown and convinced

[SMC22307]

188. And the way to show and convince them...

is very public hearings. Like the recent one where Barry H. Berke, Esq. hammered the absolute shit out of Lewandowski. Sad sack Corey ( "I didn't get to go to Harvard or Duke!" ) admitted he lies to the media, and therefore, the American public. We need MUCH more of that type of exposure.

NC-9 is a good example of what 2020 might bring. Suburban Republicans broke for the Democrat, whereas rural voters stayed with the Republican. These suburban voters in particular need to be made aware of the corruption within the Drumpf administration. They might just start pressuring their representatives and/or vote against them.

[certainot]

266. dems are reticent because

they and the media overvalue the trump base and that is because the dem base and left continues to ignore the only real advantage trump has.

the left/dems are completely missing an opportunity. the only clothes this fucking emperor has is basically what a few hundred asshole limbaugh wannabes on 1500 radio stations the kremlin has probably been feeding for 10 years have been putting on him every fucking day as they scream to 50 mil a week the excuses and alt reality and attacks on the dem reps we are supposed to be supporting.

when dems finally stop ignoring rw radio the media will start factoring it and dem politicians will get more brave and republican reps will be more likely to turn on trump.

attack the rw radio monopoly with boycotts and monitoring with AI and protests at universities and pro teams that support rw radio stations and the ad industry will have to start asking clients if they really want to support trump and global warming denial. that will kill the only advantage trump and russia and the gop have and it will fall apart and we can have a real democracy.

until then complaining about dems bravery and caution while letting a few hundred shits on the radio take free potshots at them all day to 50 mil a week is bullshit.

[luxmatic]

156. Talking smack and taking names in 2019

History won’t be interested in the Saver’s rants on a message board, It will be interested in anything the Saver actually DID, like convincing some of the Saver’s fellow message board posters to change their minds. That takes skill and tact and isn’t done by haranguing people on message boards.

It would be much better to reach out, with skill and tact, to fellow message board users, by talking with them face to face or a private phone call, or maybe by using modern internet based technologies like private email or direct messages. And definitely don’t use public posts in a message board, or more advanced media like Twitter to talk smack. It shows a complete lack of courage.

[StarfishSaver]

160. You may be surprised to know I mostly agree with you

That's why I spent a great deal of my time doing face-to-face advocacy and working directly in the community to educate and engage voters, among other things, and run a non-profit that empowers underserved communities to be more influential politically. My online engagement is a small part of that effort and is intended to help better educate the online community about the law and processes related to current political issues.

What are you doing to make a difference?

[Thekaspervote]

216. This!

[SMC22307]

182. Exactly. When Berke got Lewandowski to admit he has no issue...

with lying to the media, and therefore the American public, I practically stood up and cheered. (Kinda like I did when George Galloway took down Republican Norm Coleman.)

I'd wager the vast majority of Americans have no idea of the level of corruption within the Trump administration. DUers often seem to think that voters are political junkies like on this site. A large percentage of the country listens to nothing but FUX and right-wing media. We DESPERATELY need sunlight.

[George II]

249. History may show that Badrun Khan will do the job as an effective Member of Congress.

[japple]

268. I seriously doubt that AOC has "cajones" and this term as it it is used

to describe "courage" is a denigration to women.

[wasupaloopa]

71. She needs to be attacked. She is a part of the problem not the solution. We do not have enough

votes for impeachment and she knows that. Instead of explaining where we are and what we need to do to get there she grandstands like Warren who also knows better.

Kicking her teammates when they are down is not good.

[ArcticFox]

121. No, she is laying out truth

She is not "kicking her teammates," but rather pointing out their standing on the sidelines while Trump tramples Our Constitution.

History will note that the House, where impeachment must occur before the Senate may even consider conviction, was full of members too concerned for their own political careers to take the first step.

Ocasio-Cortez is 100% right. When your so-called "team" won't even get off the bench and play the game, it's called a forfeit. Democrats right now are forfeiting the "game." Only the game is Our Democracy and this is the finals.

And her "teammates" aren't down unless by their own doing. How were they down? The election put the Democrats in charge of the House in the midterms, which any serious statesperson would consider a MANDATE to impeach.

[murielm99]

159. I see people here

saying that she is "a breath of fresh air."

That is not true. Mayor Pete is a breath of fresh air. He has ideas and he expresses them well. Let's stick with the positive and get things done.

I would like to see 45 impeached, too. But it may not happen. It may never happen. We will have to get rid of him and his ilk in 2020 and make some serious changes. Voting them out is the solution.

[SMC22307]

189. Why are her teammates down? Whose fault is that? (n/t)

[LiberalLovinLug]

198. She is not the one "kicking her teammates when they are down"

Its the one in charge. Keeping Democrats heads down...see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Making sure no Democrat's hands are raised for impeachment.

Instead of encouraging them to rise up! To stand for the Constitution, and start fighting.

[c-rational]

122. I will be on the phone to Pelosi's office tomorrow morning with just that question. Not explaining

her tactics clearly to the Democrats has had IMO a demoralizing effect on our party. As other posters have written, the Constitution says the House "shall" impeach when high crimes and misdemeanors are uncovered, not when it is politically expedient. Enough.

[StarfishSaver]

130. Your time would be better spent getting on the phone to Members who don't yet support impeachment

Pelosi's not your problem. They are.

And if she's "explaining her tactics" to you, she's explaining them to Trump and his team, too and that would be dumb.

[TCJ70]

131. Pelosi could be part of the solution if she wanted...

...if she came out in support of impeachment it would send a huge message to those that are scared to do the right thing.

[StarfishSaver]

140. OR

It could drive some people further away from supporting impeachment since many of them are in district where constituents don't like Pelosi because they think she's too liberal - how quick we forget how many winning candidates has to distance themselves from her because she was seen as too much of a liberal "lightning rod."

One of the reasons Pelosi isn't saying what you want her to say is that she probably knows that the minute she says it, she'll guarantee she'll never get the vote of many purple district Members who can't look to their constituents like they're getting pushed too far to the left by the liberal Speaker from San Francisco. She has to give them the space to get where she wants them on their own without giving the impression she forced them or that they're doing her bidding. That's the point of the hearings and continued investigations.

[TCJ70]

153. We're they elected to do what's politically expedient or uphold the constitution?

It’s Pelosi’s job to lead. Those purple district reps need to understand their duty to the constitution as well.

[Thekaspervote]

219. And so it's okay with you that we loose the majority in the house, because that is what you are

Recommending

[TCJ70]

244. Where is that guarantee? That's a fear-based excuse for inaction...

...with no basis in anything.

[Thekaspervote]

264. Far from being a fear based excuse... this is the reality of the situation

[StarfishSaver]

279. If you want them to uphold the Constitution, you should want them to do it right

The Constitution doesn't require that impeachment take place on your timeline or that a vote to impeach be done as fast as humanly possible even if that means the vote will fail.

If your goal is for the House to have an impeachment vote asap - whether or not that vote passes - then, yes, they're taking too long. They could have had an impeachment vote as soon as the new majority got sworn in last January. I m not sure what good that would have done or how that in anyway "upholds the Constitution." But ok.

But if your goal is to actually impeach him, that's going to take some time.

[pbmus]

278. 'Getting pushed too far to the left' is not what this is about...

The law is not left or right, it’s the law and every representative should ask themselves this question...

If you are not standing up for the rule of law...then you are allowing lawlessness, which is what is happening...

If allowed to continue, societies breakdown, then people can start blaming Nancy...and hundreds of other representatives...

[calimary]

271. She's very calculating and persuasive. I wish she'd use her power to twist some arms to get

the Democrats' vote count up.

History will NOT be kind to our side for hesitating. For cowering in fear. For worrying more about our jobs in the power seats than for upholding the Constitution and sending a message to future wannabe emperors (or empresses) that This. Is. NOT. Acceptable. And WON'T. Be. Tolerated!

That we had the chance and the power and the authority and the positioning to do something to stop this runaway rogue, and we did not. For whatever the political excuse-du-jour was.

Besides, Nancy and company are leaving out (or trying to avoid) the reality that we may NOT be able to "just vote him out in 2020." Not when he can appeal to the Russians again. Hell, he's already been caught pressuring Ukraine to help him cheat to win next year. Remember: he's even more highly-motivated to stay in office for another four years. And the Russians are going to want to make doubly sure that their "friend" and "vassal" remains in the Oval Office for them to continue manipulating. You can bet donald's got his eye on the calendar - for when those statutes of limitations run out in the middle of a presumptive second term. He badly wants to still be president at that time. If he loses the next election, he won't have any of the presidential "protections" he's been exploiting to high heaven to shield him from any of that any longer.

But that's an awfully big bet, and a rather reckless one, too, imho.

[StarfishSaver]

273. Twisting arms works when a vote is close

It doesn't work when you're 100 votes short.

[pbmus]

282. Then we need 100 new representatives...

[StarfishSaver]

293. The Representatives represent the people in their districts

It's not up to you.

[ehrnst]

300. lulz. And how do you intend to do that?

The DCCC would love to hear how easy you think that is.

[c-rational]

165. Calling other members of Congress does not really help. They listen to only their constituents.

The speaker will or should listen to all as she holds a national position. I am not asking that she lays out her roadmap, but to provide better leadership and instill more faith in those that support her, including me.

[StarfishSaver]

167. The Speaker answers to her caucus, not the general public

Pelosi already knows what the general public wants - and at this point, the majority of the public doesn't want impeachment nor does a majority of her caucus. Calling her and harassing her about it isn't going to change a single vote in the Caucus.

[SMC22307]

191. A majority of the public believed Saddam had WMDs...

and supported the illegal invasion of Iraq. It's up to Pelosi and Schumer and the Democratic Party to now set them straight on the staggering levels of corruption within the Trump admin. Watergate was like child's play compared to this lot.

[ehrnst]

304. They have not been "setting the public straight?"

And people wonder why women say that after they reach a certain age, they're "invisible."



Pelosi assails Trump for ‘unconstitutional’ acts in new messaging campaign

Nancy Pelosi calls Trump's properties 'cesspool of corruption' after Pence stayed at Trump hotel in Ireland

Nancy Pelosi says Trump "does not know right from wrong"

Nancy Pelosi on Trump scandals: "Connect the dots in all of this — it’s all about money"

Pelosi warns Trump on unapproved move against Iran

Pelosi on Trump's foreign dirt comments: "Everyone should be appalled"

Pelosi backs changing the law to allow a sitting president to be indicted

Pelosi warns Trump against war in Mideast; Dems demand info

Pelosi, Democrats launch Mueller messaging blitz

Pelosi Defends AOC Squad: "Racist" Trump Doesn't Share American Values

Pelosi Tells Dems She’d Like to See Trump ‘in Prison

[SMC22307]

318. Where are your blue links for Schumer?

Seems men of a certain age are invisible, too.

All those words are really nice... it's time to see some meaningful action.

[ehrnst]

319. Goalpost moved from "they should be setting the public straight about the staggering corruption"

then when you are shown to be wrong on that, it moves to "They should be setting the public straight on the staggering levels of corruption in the Trump administration isn't enough!" and "You don't give me enough links about Schumer setting the record straight!!!"

Some people want only to see reasons to scapegoat our Democratic leaders, it seems, because being corrected about what they are indeed doing only makes them more angry.

But here you go anyway - some you missed about Schumer "setting the public straight," who, incidentally has less power right now than Pelosi, being a minority leader, and some more that I didn't include earlier. You're welcome.

https://thehill.com/latino/450451-schumer-displays-photo-of-drowned-migrants-on-senate-floor-in-appeal-to-trump

https://ktul.com/news/nation-world/schumer-wants-senate-to-investigate-trump-over-ukraine

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/schumer-republicans-co-conspirators-trump-silent-cohen-manafort

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/462598-schumer-demands-gop-investigate-issue-subpoena-over-whistleblower-complaint

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/03/18/pelosi-and-schumer-request-a-criminal-investigation-of-trumps-massage-parlor-madam.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/nancy-pelosi-chuck-schumer-to-deliver-response-to-trump-oval-office-address

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-pol-schumer-probe-inspector-general-trump-whitaker-contact-20181120-story.html

https://fortune.com/2017/05/09/chuck-schumer-donald-trump-james-comey-read-transcript/

[Ferrets are Cool]

205. SO? Just sit down and shut up like a good girl huh?

At least some have the courage to speak out.

[StarfishSaver]

206. Oh, yes. Because criticizing someone for attacking her colleagues is the same

as telling her to just sit down and shut up like a good girl

[Ferrets are Cool]

208. It seems your definition of "attack" and mine are grossly different. nt

What "I" read was criticism of a lack of action.

[StarfishSaver]

210. Perhaps

It to me, accusing your colleagues of perpetrating and national scandal worse than Trump falls squarely within the definition of an "attack"

[brutus smith]

213. Well, you're wrong.

[Cha]

235. No, she is Not.

[ehrnst]

306. Oh, because you say so?

[brutus smith]

310. Yep

[ehrnst]

311. Nope, it isn't. She's right. You're wrong.

[brutus smith]

314. Ohhh, because you say so. Well excuuuuuuuuuse me

[ehrnst]

316. Yep

[Bettie]

209. Right, instead we should all be saying

"well, there's no need to impeach, they've done nothing wrong....after all, civility, blah blah blah".

[StarfishSaver]

211. No. Because that would be silly

And because intelligent people know there's a world of options between accusing colleagues of perpetrating and national scandal worse than Trump and the silly babble you suggest.

[ehrnst]

312. Who is saying "they've done nothing wrong?" and is promoting "civility?"

Care to provide a link?

[StarfishSaver]

102. I doubt her tweet has gotten one single more person to support impeachment

Members of Congress don't tweet at each other to communicate. They go down the hall or walk across the House floor and talk to each other. Insulting her colleagues on Twitter is a showboat move great for showing off for her fans. Anybody with a Twitter account and followers can do that. But as a sitting Member of Congress, she has something most tweeters don't have - Direct access to and influence with her colleagues.

But using that isn't easy. She would have to engage in a conversation, listen as much as she talks, respond thoughtfully to their position and perspective. She wouldn't have the nerve to talk about them to their face in the insulting way she talks about them from the safety of Twitter.

But, instead of having rational conversations intended to persuade her colleagues, she takes to Twitter to mock and insult them.

Lots goes on behind the scenes that we're not aware of, so it's possible that she actually is having these conversations. But given her public tantrums and smack-talking, I doubt it. It sounds much more like she:s not ready to do or not interested in doing the work involved in doing part of a Member's job so, instead, she'd taking the easy way out and throwing red meat to her fans.

[Arazi]

119. Your hatred for her isn't very subtle... AOC has "public tantrums"

You freely admit you know nothing about what she's doing daily so you just decide it's got to be nothing but tweeting and mocking, insulting and showboating, smack talking and throwing red meat to her fans

[StarfishSaver]

120. Assuming criticism is hatred is a lazy argument when you have nothing else

Unlike many others around here, I don't assume that if I don't see it happening, it couldn't possibly be. So, I acknowledge that she could be talking to people behind the scenes.

But I also know quite a bit about what happens behind the scenes on the Hill and know that Members who are out in public criticizing their colleagues with the words and tones AOC used rarely try to persuade them face to face and even when they try, they don't have much influence after insulting their colleagues by publicly calling them traitors and cowards.

[Arazi]

164. Your post speaks for itself. It's dripping with disdain

But please, carry on believing this is just "criticism"

[SMC22307]

197. Yeah, we all watched 'House of Cards" too.

You have no idea what AOC is or isn't doing behind the scenes. NONE. And perhaps some of her 5.3 MILLION Twitter followers will actually call their reps. You don't have a lock on what inspires people to act. We need to approach this from all angles, considering the power right-wing media has over this country.

[Thekaspervote]

220. Thank you!! Amazing that sooo many here seem to think they have a better plan.

When reality they have no idea because they are not there...”behind” the scenes

[pbmus]

281. No, we are in the real world where the rubber meets the road..

Where the laws that government makes, We follow....

[melman]

232. +1

[Newest Reality]

96. I don't see

informed criticism as an attack necessarily.

Framing it as an attack seems specious. If we have grievances with our own government, we have the right to voice them. That is not an attack. The same applies here. If you bring up problems with your workplace, are you attacking your company? If they frame it that way, do they have a problem?

It seems more divisive and destructive to our party to frame it as an attack defense posture and smacks of extremism.

In other words, you posit a point or proposition or argument. The other party responds, etc. That seems to be practical and formally correct. So you could call it debating with or, if used correctly in the positive sense, arguing with the party.

[StarfishSaver]

97. Equating her colleagues with Trump in a tweet isn't "informed criticism"

[mcar]

110. Informed criticism?

How is saying Democrats are worse than Republicans informed, or even rational?

[snowybirdie]

133. Thank you

for stating the obvious. Democrats are NOT worse than that monster in the oval office and his Republican minions!

[still_one]

138. Those comments from Rep Ocasio-Cortez are not helpful at all, but not surprising

[Thekaspervote]

215. This!

[Kablooie]

12. Exactly what I've been feeling lately.

[UniteFightBack]

13. The FACTS aren't even OUT YET. Maybe she should join another party if she's so displeased. nt

[TCJ70]

124. What? They definitely are:

- Trump has, or has tried, to work with two foreign governments to undermine our elections
- Trump has modified official reports to his benefit, sometimes with sharpies
- Trump obstructed justice repeatedly during every investigation into him
- Trump incites violence

There are PLENTY of facts.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

181. Maybe our party shouldn't be so disappointing.

AOC is right. She’s one of the best we have.

[kentuck]

14. I would say it's bigger than Party.

Just my opinion.

[dchill]

30. Sadly, mine, too.

The clampdown is underway. IMO.

[melman]

15. She is 100% right

[PSPS]

16. Tell it to Moscow Mitch. He's trump's firewall.

[JudyM]

176. She needs to be directing her firepower at him, squarely between the eyes. At least Nancy is trying

to rally people.

And WE all need to be directing our firepower at our own congresscritters.

[yuiyoshida]

17. Republicans certainly won't impeach him...

Infact, they will toast him, and call him FUCKING Brilliant for blowing up the halls of Government. Bastard! Mitch McConnell is fucking Asshole as well.

[Skittles]

242. we have to stop making decisions based on what fascist repukes do

we have to do what is RIGHT, get it ALL out there for the voters to see

[yuiyoshida]

251. There are still 30% of the population who

Worship at his feet wanting him to be "DEAR LEADER" and will never see reason. When Trump is removed from the White House, they will be coming with their guns...expect a bloody fight some where in this nation.

[Skittles]

253. 30% of the population will always be assholes

they worshipped the warmongering piece of shit Duyba too

[yuiyoshida]

257. Yes they did but I don't

think they had been this Rabid in believing their way of life is being threatened...there will be a lot of deaths..on both sides.

[betsuni]

18. "refusal"

So the votes to impeachment are there, there's evidence against Trump that even Republicans can't ignore, the Congressional investigation into impeachment is over but Democrats still refuse to impeach?

Is that what happened? Really?

[sharedvalues]

84. You do what's right and the votes will follow. Also:

Link to tweet

[PSPS]

19. Understand the frustration, but this is counterproductive.

[sharedvalues]

85. Oh, this is leadership.

It is defending the country. Good for her.

[Cha]

238. No.. I don't think it's "leadership".. it's a vile

disingenuous insult against the Democratic party.

[ehrnst]

296. Leadership by tweet. (nt)

[Skidmore]

326. Who

else does that??

[ehrnst]

327. And demonizes the press. (nt)

[ehrnst]

294. Against whom? (nt)

[NurseJackie]

328. Excellent observation. The contempt for the party is palpable.

And I must also point that that anyone with a close association with Cenk Uygur's groups (TYT and "Justice Democrats"... two entities who have nothing but contempt for the Democratic party and who seek to "destroy and rebuild" the Democratic party) no matter who he or she may be... is someone that I'd never be able to fully trust, and someone for whom I'd always have deep suspicions about motive and intent.

All I'm saying is... people need effective leadership. If someone who's in office creates anxiety and suspicion and distrust... they can't be effective. We need mature LEADERS in office, not "activists" who (once actually INSIDE still acts as though they're "outsiders"... it just doesn't work that way.) We need humble leaders who are are willing to learn the ropes from those more experienced.

That's a reasonable thing for anyone to hope for. I think everyone can agree with that.

[Prof.Higgins]

20. Saying your party's worse than Trump is unwise, egregiously unwise.

The Democratic Party united will never be defeated!

[LiberalLovinLug]

200. Worse in that they could do something about it if they chose.

Imagine a serial killer going to court. And there is mounds of evidence against him.

But, even as more and more evidence piles up daily, the appointed prosecutor stalls and waits and finally says..."You know what, I don't have enough support from my peers, (support I am actively working to suppress), so...meh...I think we'll just let this one slide. Maybe one day we may get around to it (but probably not)"

With the brilliant idea that because she is up for re-election in their county next year, she thinks voters will be mighty impressed with her's and the top brass at their law firm's restraint. After all, a trial would be costly, messy, upsetting to the voters to have to endure. They will thank the prosecutor at the ballot box for looking the other way, and the defendant being released back into the community to carry on as before.

[brutus smith]

212. +1000

[aeromanKC]

21. Pelosi seems to be waiting for the Courts

Her timetable seems to take us well into 2020. Perhaps she is waiting til it's realistically too late to replace Trump on the ballot. While in the meantime, yes it is frustrating!!

[JudyM]

177. It'd be helpful if she'd share her strategic plan with AOC, at least.

Disappointed to see AOC leveraging her energy against Pelosi unless she knows something we don’t.

[StarfishSaver]

179. Maybe she has and AOC doesn't like it or

Maybe she hasn't because leadership doesn't need and shouldn't have to share all of its plans with every freshman Member in order to keep them from going on Twitter and accusing the entire Democratic caucus of being traitors and cowards

[JudyM]

183. Nancy has given the impression of being a good team leader. That impression is fading.

Why did we walk away from prosecuting shrub/cheney? This is starting to feel similarly non-leader-like to many of us who otherwise support Pelosi. Maybe this isn’t the time to be conciliatory, and time is quickly running out.

[StarfishSaver]

186. She didn't walk away from anything

She didn't have the votes.

[Fiendish Thingy]

22. A patriot speaking truth to cowards nt

[FoxNewsSucks]

23. + 1 billion

[Capt. America]

24. Clearly Nancy is using Dear Leader's repeated abuses of power as

a way to gin up anger with Dems and Indies. However, if I recall she didn't take an oath to the Democratic Party; rather, to America. She's just as political as the Rethugs on this.

[Hamlette]

25. eating our own. This can be harmful, maybe fatal.

[cstanleytech]

27. Thats not what is happening rather AOC is simply building upon her platform to make her

base stronger should she face a challenger.
It's actually a good strategy as she can play the maverick Democrat but she and all the rest of us Democrats are on the same page of wanting to get rid of Trump and pay the Repugnants back for everything they have done x3.

[StarfishSaver]

37. So she's undermining the party for her own electoral benefit?

[cstanleytech]

45. I think rather it shows that our party is more open to differences of opinion which is

completely the opposite of the GOP.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

90. She might be primaried from the left.

She's got to prepare for that, as it's how she got to the office.

[dansolo]

100. She won't be primaries on the left

If she is primaried, it will be by someone who isn't constantly seeking the limelight and who will actually be more focused on their constituents. She may end up suffering the same fate as Joe Crowley if she takes her own district for granted. Has she even opened a local office yet?

[Arazi]

111. Oh ffs, that's a blatant right wing talking point. Please don't do that

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/contact/offices

[Dr Hobbitstein]

201. "Seeking the limelight".

Bull and shit. She’s an active member of congress who is actually doing something.

And she is quite active with her constituents.

RW talking points about one of the best we’ve got is unhelpful.

[SMC22307]

246. What proof do you have that she isn't focused on her constituents?

That sounds like something the FUX & Friends brain trust would push.

[ehrnst]

303. She won the primary because her opponent stopped even trying to campaign

only 15% of the Democrats in her district were excited enough to bother to come out and vote in the primary.

But she has SO MANY TWITTER followers!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hadEnuf]

49. Yet Trump is eating the country while certain Dems are wringing their hands trying not to look bad.

We should be more concerned about what the country thinks of the Democrats response to Trump's lawlessness rather than what the punks at Fox News will think.

[melman]

29. There's a reason this tweet has 48,000 likes in one hour

This is the way people are feeling.

[StarfishSaver]

40. The fact that her Twitter followers agree with her isn't really indicative of much

The Twitterverse isn't the world.

[melman]

46. It's more 'the world' than this board is

And as you can see, the number has gone up by more than 12,000 in the short time since that post.

[hadEnuf]

50. You mean like clowns getting pies smashed in their faces over and over again?

Yeah, I hear you.

[StarfishSaver]

51. Twitter ISN'T the world

But it does play one in Twitterland ...

[melman]

53. Whatever

Your agenda is clear. You talk down impeachment no matter what. It's expected and quite boring at this point.

[StarfishSaver]

57. I don't talk down impeachment. I explain law and process, apply logic and shoot down BS

Some people have a problem with that ...

[Bluepinky]

126. You say you're talking law and process.

The US Constitution states that the President shall be removed from office on impeachment of, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

There’s no exception for waiting until there are enough votes. Pelosi should state that the President is impeached, which allows for obtaining any documents needed. Get his damn taxes and anything else needed; the House Democrats and any respectable Republicans will have to vote to remove him from office, once the proof is out there.
Once he’s out, convict him in a court of law and put him in jail, where he belongs.

[StarfishSaver]

136. The Constitution doesn't require impeachment.

It gives the House the power to impeach when a majority of the body determines that the president should be impeached for committing treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. To date, a majority of the House does not believe that to be the case.

And there is indeed an "exception for waiting until there are enough votes." Since impeachment operates by virtue of a majority vote in the House, without which, impeachment doesn't occur, the only way to impeach is for there to be enough votes to impeach.

[Thekaspervote]

222. Thank You!! Think they got it this time??? Just sayin' appreciate your efforts

[StarfishSaver]

223. No, I don't think so

But thanks!

[sheshe2]

252. I admire your patience. nt

[TwilightZone]

243. lol, no

Twitter is not even remotely representative of the real world. Twitter activity is also not representative of anything other than activity.

Trump has 64 million followers. Judge him based on that number, do you?

Does that make him 300 times better than AOC? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.

This place is hilarious sometimes.

[melman]

247. "This place is hilarious sometimes."

Yes, it certainly is. For example, the way some want it to be a fan club for certain politicians. And how they act like these certain politicians are infallible and must never ever be questioned. That is hilarious.


Luckily though, out in the real world people don't think like that. As we can see by the 200K+ likes for this tweet.

[Thekaspervote]

221. "Twitterverse" FB, political crap on YouTube.. doesn't come close!

[G_j]

245. I talk with people most everyday

who share those sentiments.

[ehrnst]

308. Indeed. (nt)

[AlexSFCA]

31. trump can go out of WH and start shooting the crowd

and he still won’t be impeached and would likely solidify his support.

[Tipperary]

32. Boom!

K and r.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

33. She's giving Rethugs ammo for the echo chamber along with Faux.

Her statement is patently false and not something a U.S. House Democratic Rep should be tweeting.

[melman]

38. Right

Because Fox and the Republicans are definitely going to start saying how bad failure to impeach is.

[SlogginThroughIt]

41. one might think that they are here already. Saying it right now. Like right here. In this thread.

[sharedvalues]

86. It's bad. Good for her!

[StarfishSaver]

42. Thank you

Yet people on DU are cheering someone who is trashing the Democratic Party.

[JI7]

34. are there enough votes in the house to get impeachment ?

[xmas74]

75. The House is close

But it'll never make it to the Senate floor and could rally his base to action in 2020.

Personally, I think we focus on 2020. We focus on not just the WH but key Senate races. If we lose the WH but pick up enough Senate seats impeachment is feasible. If he loses the WH in 2020 throw him to the dogs. Let the states pick up the trash. It seems like NY is steadily building a nice case against him and that's a state where I don't think he could weasel out of it.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

79. remember voter suppression and electronic voting machines and foreign interference?

Think those have become less efficient over the years?

[dansolo]

98. The House is a ways away

Last count I believe that there are still about 90 votes needed.

[JI7]

35. lol, how is that a bigger scandal ?

[SlogginThroughIt]

39. Ridiculously idiotic thing to say.

[betsuni]

56. The Democratic Party are "spineless ass clowns"?

That's not very nice, fivegan.

[Cha]

239. Unreal. smh

[SlogginThroughIt]

44. What are the facts. What are the articles that are drawn up with evidence and with backing

What are the facts. What are the articles that are drawn up with evidence and with backing such as witnesses and testimonials.

Meanwhile check out the house's calendar. Look at the items coming up.... Sure looks like impeachment investigations to me.

Fact. Impeachment will not go anywhere in the senate. We will not be removing the president by way of impeachment. Unless for some crazy reason there is something that has yet to be uncovered sways the senate republicans to want to convict. But guess what... we don't have that yet. It will take.... wait for it.... investigations..... Again check the calendar.

However, even if we don't remove him via impeachment that isn't a reason to NOT impeach. There is just a different reason for doing it and that is to show the public in a very easy to understand manner in the media what is going on. A long drawn out show of the Trump administrations wrongdoings constantly on display.... because we aren't going to remove him via impeachment... or rather the senate republicans aren't going to do it. So we the people need to do it via vote. And the best way to use an otherwise useless impeachment is to make it as painful as possible by slow walking this and reminding the public constantly over the course of the next year all the very many things that are reason enough for people to get off their asses and show up and vote.

OR.... or we can sit and piss and moan about the party that we ran under, demand that we run impeachment up the flag pole and have the senate shoot it down instead of getting every bit of worth we can out of it.

Give me a damn break. Democrats are a bigger scandal than the guy putting babies in cages, selling us out to a foreign country for ginned up kompromat, and a whole slew of other deplorable bullshit. AOC is off her damn rocker if that's what she thinks and completely assinine for putting it out on twitter.

[StarfishSaver]

52. This

The childishness ...

[betsuni]

54. +1

[Baked Potato]

158. Yes! Speaker Pelosi is playing Trump like a cheap fiddle

Below in an excerpt from this article:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/18/pelosi-nadler-schism-impeachment-1501755

“I think the speaker wants to be careful of all the different members of the caucus,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and a vocal impeachment advocate. “She doesn’t always want to use the word ‘impeachment’ but believe me, she signed off on every piece of what has been put forward.”

AOC is doing what she does. I want her right where she is and Speaker Pelosi in charge.

[NCLefty]

47. It's the Right Thing To Do, but it can also come back to hurt us.

I think they're scared to find out that last part.

[Ligyron]

48. Word

[Hekate]

55. Incredible false equivalency, Grasshopper....

I suppose this young woman knows where all the votes are hiding, does she? Spends all her time on the job chasing after GOP colleagues in the House and persuading them to vote for this?

[StarfishSaver]

60. Or she could just pull aside one or more of her Democratic colleagues and try to persuade them

to change their minds.

Perhaps she's too busy tweeting to actually talk to any of them.

[ehrnst]

302. Tweeting is so much more satisfying than 'busy work' on congressional committees.

“I was assigned to two of some of the busiest committees and four subcommittees,” AOC said. “So my hands are full. And sometimes I wonder if they’re trying to keep me busy.”

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/tnyradiohour/segments/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-2020-presidential-race-and-why-we-should-break-homeland-security

[floppyboo]

58. Stop Being So Scared!!! GO AOC!!!

I totally get why Pelosi doesn't want to go impeachment cause she's stuck in old school 'go for the center' - 'indies are the middle' and a bunch of other old fables that simply aren't up to date. I seriously don't think she gets what's going on here.

[democrank]

59. Country over Party....an outrageous concept to some.

Letting Donald Trump get away with the destruction of our institutions and the debasing of our Constitution is dereliction of duty. This is not about the Democratic Party, it’s about our country.

The Democratic Party leadership should worry less about looking bad in case some future vote fails, and worry more about standing up for what those who have come before us have fought and died for.

[Thekaspervote]

224. And so you're okay if madam speaker forces a vote and we end up loosing the majority?

[floppyboo]

61. Irony moment: What would Crowley do? nt

[CarlitosMMT]

63. To clarify Constitutional procedure and basic logic

Since there are so many that appear to be confused

It takes a simple majority in the House of present members to vote to impeach.

The Dems have a majority in House and therefore the votes to impeach.

The Senate then tries the Impeached with CJSCOTUS presiding (in case of the impeachment of POTUS). The House serves as the prosecution, and are referred to as managers. 2/3 Majority of members present is required to convict.

According to some, Dems shouldn’t impeach because Senate math is bad. Extending that to its logical conclusion, Dems shouldn’t pass any House legislation not likely to pass the Senate, let alone be signed by POTUS. That’s a terrible opinion that relegates the Dems to a junior or sub party status. I will change my voter registration to BURN IT ALL DOWN if that’s the prevailing view.

A lot of legislation Pelosi has allowed and supports doesn’t meet this Senate math test. But her argument is that impeachment is especially divisive (with the implication that it could backfire).

So the people against impeachment either believe Trump hasn’t done anything to be impeached and/or that failure to convict would help him politically.

Looking at the evidence (Mueller report and beyond including his trade deficit terrorism and temperament of decision-making) and likely evidence (tax returns, IC whistleblower), it would take an especially perverted and mentally deranged populace for a failed conviction bid to help Trump politically (that would mean a deeply cynical view of the American people). We really need to stockpile guns and ammunition if this view is accurate (Sorry Beto and Parkland kids).

So if you are a Dem that’s scared to impeach because of the political risks, it is better to do impeachment sooner rather than later. But if you are not scared per se but want impeachment to have the maximum political impact (like on Senate races), closer to 2020 elections is better than sooner.

The assumption is that Pelosi is in the latter camp but she has publicized the former view and we don’t know where she stands nor understand her strategy and it would appear that neither do House members. Some believe she has signaled that she wants to be pushed by her caucus to impeachment so it’s not “Pelosi’s impeachment of Trump” and she’s seen as doing what’s best for the country (further strengthening the case for conviction).

As the de-facto leader of the Dems, the Speaker must do better.

[sharedvalues]

88. Thank you. Excellent analysis

[mcar]

113. You may want to do some research

All House Dems do not, yet, support impeachment.

[CarlitosMMT]

123. Let me restate with more words to satisfy your intellect

The House Dems have a majority at 235 with 17 votes to spare and Justin Amash’s vote.

By some accounts 140 favor impeachment right now despite the Speaker’s protestations.

Reading between the lines and making an assumption, the remaining votes 218-141=77 can be delivered by Pelosi out of the remaining 95 House Dems with 18 Dems able to vote the other way.

So my point was that Pelosi has the capacity to impeach given the votes she controls.

[c-rational]

129. Well said! nt

[Aussie105]

64. AOC is frustrated

and rightly so.

Nancy needs to come out with some information. Like, a list of the things that could be topics for impeachment.
She doesn't need to commit to the actual process, but she does need to get the message out there that she is awake and watching.

Otherwise, people like AOC (and me, and a few million other people) might think Nancy P. doesn't know, doesn't care, doesn't plan to do anything. If true, that would make her just another complacent politician drawing their pay without doing the job.

We had high hopes for the Mueller report. That was a fizzer. Now we have high hopes for Nancy. Another fizzer in the making?

Waiting for 2020 voting, with the possibility of more vote rigging, is too late, in my opinion.

[sprinkleeninow]

68. Exactly my thinking just before I posted below you.

For our sake, present an itemized list of potential points that would be included in an act of impeachment.

I have stronger forebodings lately.

[StarfishSaver]

73. Lots of people are frustrated. But she's a Member of Congress

She needs to grow up and start acting like one.

[sprinkleeninow]

65. This tweet rattled me:

Pelosi doesn’t have the votes because she doesn’t want to have the votes.

I don't know what to think.

Oh God. What if the strategy in play will end up being wrong.

I just don't know anymore...

[TidalWave46]

66. I think she is both right and wrong at the same time.

I don’t think it’s any type of scandal because it looks to me like we are impeaching him. Seems pretty clear to me.

Where she is right is using her clout to be out front pushing for impeachment.

Seems the team is working well together. This is what it looks like. People like AOC build pressure as people like Nadler and Schiff build the actual case.

People don’t think the senate will remove Trump after the house impeached. I think that is a flawed assumption. If the case is built Trump is gone. Anything else and public opinion will be that it’s simply a political hit job. Trump is gone, folks. Once articles are decided on the hearings will expose the criminal fraud. These won’t be normal hearings. The country will be tuned in.

Keep it up AOC.

[StarfishSaver]

70. Equating her colleagues attempts to get impeachment right with Trump's criminality

isn't helpful.

She can get out in front on impeachment and try to push her colleagues without pushing them under the bus.

And if she really wants to influence them and not just throw red meat to her fans who already agree with her, this isn't the way to do it. Why not talk to her colleagues directly and they to convince them? If she's the skillful politician and leader she's portrayed as, she could be very persuasive and make a difference.

But yelling at them on Twitter and equating them with Trump is immature, counterprodictive showboating.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

81. agree completely; some publicity IS bad publicity

We need something to attract the general public's attention to Twitler, but AOC's tweet in the OP is not the way.

[TidalWave46]

93. I agree with a lot of what you said.

One part I do disagree with is important. I don’t think it’s counterproductive. I think she is pushing an extremely important message. While it is a shot at leadership it also reads that the leadership is being patient and diligent. They aren’t just making rash decisions at the demand of a freshman house member.

Please recognize that where I said I felt she was wrong is in line with your issue as well. I do recognize that.

“If she is the skillful politician...”

She is a freshman house member in a very left leaning district. The last person to hold her seat was a very progressive leader with a lot of clout within the party. AOC’s current clout comes by way of Twitter and an activist following. It’s what she has.

I still say that this helps. It makes the party look like they are being diligent and responsible. Not rash and following the direction of those lobbing bombs on Twitter. At the same time, it shows that many feel articles should have already been put forward. That’s not a bad narrative.

I don’t claim AOC to be a great politician or leader. Her seat isn’t even warm yet. We never really make those claims when it comes to freshman house members. I know a certain segment pushes that but they are politically naive and I don’t follow their assessments.

[StarfishSaver]

99. Attacking her colleagues in this way is completely counterproductive

It's not likely to get one single additional vote for impeachment but it does undermine support for the Democrats, minimizes the culpability of Trump and the GOP and gives them and the media some a great anti-Democrat talking points. It's the definition of counterproductive. It helps nothing, except perhaps her, and I don't even think it does that since most of her activist following isn't in her district, which may not be as left-leaning as she assumes.

[TidalWave46]

112. I disagree that it's impact is what you suggest.

Or that there are negative consequences.

In no way does it “minimize the culpability of Trump and the GOP.” That is reactionary bomb throwing on its own.

[StarfishSaver]

117. Fox is already having a field day

And you can bet that today - and maybe beyond that - her colleagues are going to be asked about her comments rather than about Trump's crimes.

In other words, she's made the story about her

[SMC22307]

255. Then her colleagues can skillfully reply that they need to ask AOC directly...

in the meantime, let's talk about Trump's crimes. Take charge of the interview.

Who fucking cares about Fox? They had a field day over Obama's tan suit.

[Rhiannon12866]

76. Thanks for the encouraging post

And welcome to DU!

[Duppers]

67. What would Nancy have done in 1974?

[betsuni]

78. Didn't Democrats have the majority in both Congress and Senate in 1974?

I thought they did.

[Mike Nelson]

82. Not only that, but also...

... A Democrat could say to a top Republican like Howard Baker or Barry Goldwater, "this is provable and wrong." Their response was yes... Mitt Romney and Mitch McConnell know right now, but will not act.

[betsuni]

83. +1

[Thekaspervote]

226. +1000

[Thekaspervote]

225. In 1974 the house and the senate were held by the dems

[StarfishSaver]

309. And it STILL took nearly two years to build a case to get Nixon out of office

[ehrnst]

301. When there was a Dem House and Senate?

[TheDemsshouldhireme]

69. If Pelosi is not going to do anything

then Trump would be a fool to not keep pushing for foreign interference in our election.

[StarfishSaver]

72. "If Pelosi's not going to do anyhing"?

Because it's all up to Pelosi? And if she would just "do something," he'd start behaving himself?

[Aussie105]

74. I'm calling it.

Trump is now up to 123 Nixons (*)

(*) A single Nixon is a single item that makes a sitting President the subject of possible impeachment.

[betsuni]

77. "The GOP's silence & refusal to act shouldn't be a surprise. Ours is."

She tweeted this too. Democrats haven't been silent (and our last presidential nominee was constantly scolded for campaigning as the not-Trump candidate and talking too much about him, when she did no such thing), and use of the word "refusal" suggests collusion with Trump both sides nonsense.

[Mike Nelson]

80. I guess this is...

... the "a pox on both!" argument. Impeach the non-Impeachers! I think sh'es just looking for things to post on Twitter... this is a normal response. I wish there were the votes to Impeach and Convict. I see people posting "IMPEACH!" all over social media... they think it means Crooked Donald is done and don't understand why Democrats don't just end it all... AOC understands the process and I hope she educates her followers.

[treestar]

87. Why does she and everyone else insist on blaming Democrats

when it is the Republicans in the Senate who won't convict?

[betsuni]

89. Because it makes them feel hip and cool.

Blame the Mommy Party.

[Thekaspervote]

227. This!! Being hip and cool... gets about zero done!!

[sharedvalues]

95. Because no one wants them abdicating the power of an independent branch

They’re Congress. They are a co-equal branch.

And they should take action to enforce subpoenas and contempt.

[ms liberty]

116. And also, we don't know yet what the Senate will do, not for sure

If we have the full impeachment proceedings and everything is presented in it's full ugliness on the national stage. A total spectacle with the media on it 24/7. What will they do in the spring/summer of 2020 when we all know what they're defending and they're way behind in rhe polls, and all anyone ever asks them about is Comrade Dumbass and him crimes against America? Will they vote to impeach if the alternative is to lose their election?
If the Democrats handle it like they should, we could make the GOP go the way of the duck billed platypus. I am not the only one who would throw a ginormous party afterward.

[durablend]

105. Because

While the burglars are robbing the house, the police don't just sit by and say "Hmm, we'd better find ironclad proof that the burglars actually are robbing the house"

[StarfishSaver]

128. Not an apt analogy

Your analogy might work if impeachment were likely to stop Trump from committing any further crimes. He may be robbing the house but nothing the Democrats do will stop him from continuing his crime.

A more appropriate analogy would be if someone's robbing a house, several police officers show up but don't have the weaponry or manpower needed to apprehend him. So instead of storming the front door with their pistols, risk getting shot and having him escape anyway, they surround the house so he can't get away and call for backup to make sure that when they go in, they actually take him down.

[egduj]

169. Ah, yes. The Deputy Scot Peterson strategy.

How did that end up?

[StarfishSaver]

173. No. Not that at all

[Thekaspervote]

228. This!

[treestar]

259. They walk in on it, they have proof

While the Dotard's behavior is terrible, proof is needed of an actual crime in order to convict him. And even if there is proof, the Rs are not above acquitting him anyway.

[TCJ70]

127. Democrats have the power to impeach if they have the will. Trump has certainly earned it.

And I doubt any of them, if asked, would say otherwise. The fact that they haven't done it is pure political calculation. Democrats were given power in 2018. Use it. Who the fuck cares what the Senate will do? Impeachment doesn't require the Senate.

[treestar]

258. You don't think the Senate acquitting him

will be a big fat positive for his campaign?

[TCJ70]

262. I think it doesn't matter what he's going to say because...

...we can pick one of two options:
- “Of course I’m innocent! Even the Dirty Democrats wouldn’t impeach me when they had the power!”
- “My friends in the senate cleared me after the impeachment.”

I’ll take the second one over the first.

[RandiFan1290]

91. So grateful Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is there to speak for me

and I absolutely LOVE how much she bothers the right wingers. It fill my heart with pride when I see how much energy they put into hating her.

[RelativelyJones]

92. I'll take Pelosi's judgement over AOC's grandstanding for her Twitter posse any day of the week.

[mcar]

115. +1!

[Thekaspervote]

229. Me too!! Madam speaker continues to play the long game... you know the one the gop plays

And then beats us over the head??!!

[Cha]

240. Amen and Hallelujah!

[duforsure]

94. I suspect there is a lot more

Going on to get all involved, and all intel needed, and planning to end this corruption going on, and Nancy along with a few others know we have to let it play out to get them all. She knows almost everything while we only know a small fraction of it. She also knows the public opinion isn't high enough to support impeaching trump yet.

[Thekaspervote]

230. Oh my gosh!!! A voice of sanity... thank you!!!

[malaise]

101. Sorry AOC you're wrong this time n/t

[blm]

103. I wish she was NOT right on this, but, she is.

The world suffers.

[mcar]

104. Right. Let's go along with blaming Democrats for Republican perfidy

That'll teach 'em.

[bucolic_frolic]

106. AOC ought to know better

There is a lot going on behind the scenes. Court battles over subpoenas and records, stonewalling executive branch personnel, IC maneuvering, public opinion. Minimizing fallout is not just a Nancy Pelosi calculation, it's being considered by many players in this epic saga. If and when things fracture along provable illegality/rule of law lines to most reasonable people, impeachment will happen. I suspect the IC has more to release. Measuring up Republican loyalties - Trump, party, or rule of law? - is also important. And we really need to get control of the mass shooting epidemic. Impeaching Trump could flush some major crazies out of hiding. Treading cautiously has its merits here.

[True Dough]

107. I don't support the manner in which AOC expressed the message

but I support its spirit in conveying that it's a crying shame for the Dems not to be pushing ahead with the impeachment process. As more and more evidence is put on the table, the votes against Trump are bound to grow due to public pressure. His approval rating is poor already. He'll always have a solid base of Trumpers who support him no matter what, but some will swing.

[Gore1FL]

108. She's right.

Until we stop cowering, we are worthless.

[Scubamatt]

109. I just don't get it . . .

I keep hearing that we should just abandon the impeachment effort because Moscow Mitch will never allow a trial that leads to conviction and removal. I agree with the second part, but disagree as to the first. I really think this is part of the overall “keep our powder dry” strategy that did nothing to help us in the years before Obama. To be clear, Moscow Mitch isn’t letting ANYTHING the House votes on up for a vote (Remember election security, anyone?). So, we might as well just go home, right? Since we can’t get anything passed, we just do nothing, right? Of course not. We have to shape public opinion and change people’s minds by our constant action COMBINED with decent messaging. Our side seems to assume that the average voter will just someday wake up and find the time to read the Mueller report, the NYT etc and wake up on his/her own. NOOOO. The CONs got their 30% diehard base because of Fantastic messaging. Not just FOX news 24/7, but because their leaders constantly coordinate and repeat a SIMPLE POWERFUL MESSAGE and keep repeating it till it sinks in. I really thought we were into something with Moscow Mitch, but that died because none of our leaders picked it up and repeated it. Is there danger in moving forward with impeachment? Of course. BUT there is more danger to our Constitution in doing nothing while these thugs flaunt their corruption in the open. Use this situation to LEAD - tell people we stand for the rule of law -say it every day - scream it on social media - shoot on Sunday talk shows!!! The reason why I tend to agree with AOC is because this seems so obvious to me and I’ve never run for public office - I have to believe that our leadership knows all of this, bu I can’t figure out why their caution. I mean it’s not like we’re much of a check on Trump’s shenanigans now, even with our control of the House, is it? Let’s face it: our public has been conditioned to respond to aggressive action from folks who act and speak like winners. It’s time our leaders learn that lesson.

[Sudsy]

114. The People gave control

of the House to Democrats believing they would reign-in Trump or impeach him. They have so far done neither.

[kentuck]

118. I don't know if self-flagellation is productive at this time because...?

..the Congress is all we have to protect our Constitution at this moment.

[prismpalette]

125. Political cowards

If the democratic party-us, stand by with a wait and see attitude and the mantra "republicans aren't on board", we become complicit. We sanction his behavior and become cowards for not engaging. This democracy is engaged in a war. A war to protect the rule of law, to protect the environment, and our fundamental rights as Americans. It is no longer a consensus or compromise government-IT IS WAR to save our country. The younger generation sees this and has no ideology concerning the good old days such as they were. Unfortunately Pelosi is leading us over the cliff of yesterday with her pragmatic approach that makes an already stressed electorate bone weary and wary of politics.

[SKKY]

132. What AOC lacks in experience and political savvy...

...she more than makes up for in just pure instinct. And her instincts are razor sharp.

[Thekaspervote]

231. That remains to be proven!!

[ehrnst]

297. Yes, she does tweet a whole lot doesn't she? (nt)

[Locutusofborg]

134. Trump would be found to be not guilty

In any Senate trial because there just aren’t 20 Republican Senators who would vote him guilty and it takes 67 Senate votes to remove him from office.
So if what is being sought is a purely symbolic act of impeachment by the House and the gift of a not guilty verdict for Trump in the Senate, then by all means, impeach him.

[Celerity]

139. go go AOC!!

[Bradical79]

142. Agreed

By far my biggest disapointment on all of this is how little real fight too many Democrats have shown. So called moderates and centerists think that we can win an election and then just turn back the clock to the Obama years, and pretend none of this ever happened.

[orangecrush]

146. That decision is above my pay grade.

I believe our leadership knows exactly what the correct course is, and I support them without reservation.

[Thekaspervote]

234. +1000... and it would be nice if others here would admit that as well

[ehrnst]

295. +1000. (nt)

[pangaia]

147. I propose she also goes after REPUBLICANS!!

Whatever the pros or cons of Pelosi's action or inaction, it is REPUBLICANS who are the traitors!!!

[StarfishSaver]

152. But that wouldn't get nearly the attention, mentions and retweets

[brutus smith]

162. To AOC. Keep pressing what the voters ask for.

[AncientGeezer]

199. Then she'd be asking for not impeaching....those "the voters" mood so far

There isn't a majority...a plurality in favor of....there aren't the votes in the House yet.

[defacto7]

168. That's dangerous and factless hyperbole.

I like a lot of what she says and stands for but such an unprofessional statement is manipulative and undermines her own proclaimed goals.
It sounds like it's personally vindictive.

[ancianita]

170. AOC wants the right thing but blames the wrong people. She can better help Americans get

to impeachment by helping them understand that:

1. Structurally, Democrats are blocked. But only temporarily.

2. Let the legal process work. Just because they don't see enough happening, doesn't mean the right legal work isn't happening.

3. Democrats can't tear down a dictator's house using dictator's tools.

4. The Law isn't fast food service. It's a four course lengthy meal.

5. Adults try to delay their gratification.

6. Keeping constitutional oaths moves more slowly than breaking oaths.

[Baked Potato]

171. Strategic Hyperbole

Keeping her faction satiated while Nancy does her work.

[KPN]

175. Gotta love her spunk! Frankly, it's exactly what we need in these times regardless of what

others may think.

[Duncan Grant]

178. Bookmark this thread, you'll be glad you did. (no text)

[The Liberal Lion]

180. Amen! There is much I have to say about our party in the House

All of it, however, would be in violation of DU rules, so I'll just praise AOC for this tweet instead.
Better to be positive than negative, right?

[Politicub]

185. I wish she would keep her poison pen aimed at the real enemy

Trump’s corruption is one of the biggest things the country has to deal with.

[beachbumbob]

187. Not close to the biggest scandal..name a trump admin official,

any official that's been held accountable since Jan 2019?

Barr has lied
DeVoss has lied
Admin officials have ignored subpoenas


Who has been held accountable? Who been held in contempt? Fined? Held?

[Thekaspervote]

236. Care to lay out those steps? Who in a court of law with no more physical evidence than we have is

Going to make that happen??

Please proceed... tell us how to make it happen.

And not just he lied

[JoeOtterbein]

193. AOC is right and Nancy is wrong.

[AllyCat]

194. Checks and balances gone. Democracy gone.

Political positioning is crap.

[lefty2000]

195. There Is An Even Bigger Scandal Than That

The bigger scandal is that the Republican party continues to protect Trump. We should stop blaming ourselves for their sins. It may be a mistake not to impeach, but it is not a "scandal."

[NurseJackie]

203. Oh good GOD! It may be *frustrating* for her... but it's NOT a "scandal". GMAFB!!

Oh good GOD! It may be *frustrating* for her... but it's NOT a "scandal". GMAFB!!

What good purpose does it serve for anyone to smear and denigrate the Democratic party and party leadership with lies like this?

Nobody has "refused" to impeach Trump. It's wrong to characterize it like that.

[Ferrets are Cool]

204. As unhappy as the truth of the matter is, I must rec this. nt

[Bettie]

207. She's not wrong

not even a little bit.

What will it take? At this point, I don't think there is anything that will move Pelosi and some of the others. Apparently, they are OK with any and all corruption.

[brutus smith]

214. It's Pelosi job to rally the "troops" . Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[Thekaspervote]

237. And lose the house majority in the process... you okay with that??

Last edited Sun Sep 22, 2019, 08:32 PM - Edit history (1)

[brutus smith]

250. Prove to me we will lose the House majority.

Fear and running scared will lose the House majority.

[Thekaspervote]

265. What makes you think they are running scared? Ever stop to think they were the ones elected

Last edited Sun Sep 22, 2019, 08:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Not you!

[ehrnst]

307. The Speaker's job is to lead the "troops."

The troops chose her to lead through January 2021, and as such, she answers to them, just like she's done for the many years they've tasked her with leading them.

The "American people" didn't "give her another chance to impeach" her Democratic peers, who know her, and what the job requires, are the ones who charged her with doing her job. Her job is not a popularity contest, and any good leader knows. Women especially know that they are going to get evicerated by men when they do their job in a way that men don't agree with.

A good leader doesn't leave or abdicate their position when the battle gets tough, or people disagree with them.

Obama thought that the ACA wouldn't pass. Pelosi said that she could do it. She delivered.

That's why the GOP especially hates her. She's good at what she does.

The GOP isn't banging the drump against impeachment.

Think about it.

[brutus smith]

313. A true leader leads

[ehrnst]

315. Indeed, she does. And that's why Pelosi's been chosen by her peers so many times to do so.

And why she has so many haters on the far right, in GOP leadership, and amongst the uninformed.

[wendyb-NC]

233. Good for her!

[TwilightZone]

241. That's a hilariously laughable assertion.

It's also intentional hyperbole, because she can't possibly believe that.

I'm surprised that so many people agree, however. I guess people haven't been paying attention the past couple years.

[Lib 4 Life]

248. hell yeah. he's only going to get worse with no accountability

[Celerity]

323. much worse nt

[George II]

254. I guess while she has been touring the country she's missed the hearings that have been held....

....and the subpoenas that have been issued.

You can't win an impeachment and conviction until you've built your case. The case is being built as we speak.

[pnwmom]

256. I like AOC but she is WRONG. Trump's criminal behavior is light years worse

than the Dem's efforts to be strategic in their efforts to remove him from power while retaining the ESSENTIAL majority in the House.

AOC comes from a safely blue district, so her statement indicates she has no empathy for her peers in red districts, or understanding of what kind of pressures they are dealing with.

[pbmus]

284. I'm not sure the blue-red argument is going to stand much longer...

We are slow walking ourselves into an environment where neighborhoods are becoming war zones and autocracy is becoming acceptable to the elite because there walls will not be tall enough...

[pnwmom]

285. And what would we accomplish by impeaching tomorrow, and then the Senate doing nothing?

If that is going to be the scenario, then I think it would be smarter to wait till closer to the election.

We have already begun impeachment hearings -- Corey Lewandowski's was an impeachment hearing, and that's why the staff attorney was able to question him. The only question is when we will have an actual impeachment vote. And I don't see the point of having one prematurely.

[pbmus]

286. The longer the wait, the more destruction of democratic norms...

And that destruction promotes the anarchy that destroy democracies...

The elite have funded the Con and his cronies to the tune of many more times our Democrats...

If we do not start hearings very soon, I foresee the Con going on weekly rallies starting in March, television ads starting in June and print the entire year...and all of his campaigning will be very divisive...

[pnwmom]

287. WE HAVE STARTED IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.

https://www.apnews.com/04ac3771d88a47a1b10e4081646e871c

Lewandowski, House Democrats spar at 1st impeachment hearing

WASHINGTON (AP) — The first impeachment hearing held by House Democrats quickly turned hostile as their sole witness, former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, stonewalled many of their questions and declared they were “focusing on petty and personal politics.”

Lewandowski, a devoted friend and supporter of President Donald Trump, followed White House orders not to discuss conversations with the Republican president beyond what was already public in the report by former special counsel Robert Mueller. Trump cheered Lewandowski along as he testified on Tuesday, tweeting that his opening statement was “beautiful.”

SNIP

Lewandowski was a central figure in Mueller’s report, which the committee is examining as part of its impeachment probe. The report, which said Trump could not be exonerated on obstruction of justice, detailed two episodes in which Trump asked Lewandowski to direct then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit Mueller’s investigation. Trump said that if Sessions would not meet with Lewandowski, then Lewandowski should tell Sessions he was fired.

SNIP

And under questioning from a lawyer for the Democrats, Barry Berke, Lewandowski acknowledged that he had possibly lied in a cable interview about his interactions with Trump when he said he didn’t remember the president asking him to get involved with Sessions. New rules approved by the committee last week for impeachment hearings allow staff questioning at the end of the hearing.

[pbmus]

288. Inquiry...I apologize...Sorry...please excuse my error

Here's a little "primer" I posted a few months ago that you might find helpful.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212150822
Let's define our impeachment terminology

Impeachment = a vote by a simple majority of the House of Representatives agreeing there are sufficient grounds to determine that a federal officer's actions warrant trial and removal from office for the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors. An impeachment does not remove the official from office. Only the Senate can remove and only after a trial and vote of 2/3 of the body.

Impeachment Inquiry = a process used to determine whether a federal officer should be impeached.

Impeachment Investigation = a part of the inquiry that gathers evidence to be used as part of the determination of whether a a federal officer should be impeached.

Impeachment Hearings = proceedings in which the committee conducting the impeachment inquiry takes testimony from witnesses. The witness can be fact witnesses, legal and constitutional experts, special interest representatives (civil rights groups, etc.), and others with information or advice relevant to the inquiry. Hearings can be conducted in public or in private.

Although the terms are often (and inaccurately) used interchangeably, impeachment, impeachment inquiries, impeachment investigations, and impeachment hearings are not synonymous. Hearings can be part of an investigation, but investigations do not require hearings. Investigations and hearings can be components of the inquiry but an inquiry can be conducted without them. In other words, investigations and hearings are specific subsets of an inquiry.

Impeachment is the actual vote that a federal officer's actions warrant trial and removal from office.

There is no such thing as "starting impeachment." At this point in time, Congress is considering whether to open an impeachment inquiry that will likely include an investigation and hearings and could lead to impeachment.
...
Impeachment inquiries can take different forms. For example, in the Clinton impeachment inquiry, the Judiciary Committee conducted no investigation, but merely accepted the Starr Report and its deliberations concerned only whether the information in the Starr Report was sufficient to justify impeachment. The Nixon impeachment inquiry was broader, however it, too, relied primarily on evidence and findings elicited in previous investigations and hearings.

At the conclusion of the inquiry, the committee prepares and votes on Articles of Impeachment. The approved Articles are then sent to the House floor for a vote. If the full House votes to approve one or more of the Articles, immediately upon and by operation of the vote, the officer is impeached.

It will then be up to the Senate to decide whether the official is removed from office.
...
For those who would like sources, I refer you to the U.S. Constitution; HR 581 (105th); H. Rept. 105-795 (105th); H.Res.803 (93rd);
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3/html/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3-5-5-2.htm
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-105hhrg52320/pdf/CHRG-105hhrg52320.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/us/donald-trump-impeachment.html

[pnwmom]

289. Yes. And SS agrees we've begun impeachment hearings. Also, when I posted

that AP story about having begun impeachment hearings, she replied:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12487090

[Chemisse]

260. Coercing a foreign government to get reelected is a far greater scandal than not impeaching.

Her comment is disingenuous, but I see the point she is trying to make.

She might want to wrestle control over her impulsivity though. The whole story is not out yet. She should hold the outrage for a week and see how things develop with this new crime. It could finally be the turning point!

[EndGOPPropaganda]

270. Argument about who gets held to what STANDARDS. Well put here

Link to tweet

[Arazi]

274. +1

[radical noodle]

272. BS

The biggest scandal is that the Republicans allow this.

[Caliman73]

276. I think AOC is right to keep pressure on, but on this, she is very wrong.

The worse crime, hands down, no argument at all, is the president's law breaking. You can be frustrated with the process, the pace, the rhetoric, etc... but to say that because Democrats aren't right where you want them to be that this is somehow worse than actually selling out the country, is hyperbole that is not helpful.

[peggysue2]

280. x1000!

The grandstanding is not helpful at all. Trump will not be impeached on twitter. And IMHO, Nancy Pelosi is about 1000 miles ahead of AOC.

Bank on it!

[tirebiter]

277. Hang on grom, it's about to get big time

Time to learn Ukrainian.

[John Fante]

283. I understand her frustration, because I'm frustrated as well.

But yeah, she could have worded that better to say the least. I don't think AOC meant to equate the house's inaction with Trump's traitorous criminality however. It's more a poor choice of words IMO.

[Scurrilous]

290. ...

[Luciferous]

291. She's right. He continues to flout the law and they write sternly worded letters.

Pelosi needs to grow a spine. If she continues to do nothing there will be Democrats who are so disgusted that they just stay home again.

[ehrnst]

299. Are you going to be one of those democrats that will "stay home again" at election time? (nt)

[Luciferous]

317. No but that doesn't mean there aren't others out there who won't bother voting.

[ehrnst]

320. You said "stay home again" like in 2016. (nt)

Last edited Tue Sep 24, 2019, 08:17 AM - Edit history (1)

[Luciferous]

321. Yeah, a lot of people didn't vote in 2016 because they didn't like Clinton. I didn't

say I would stay home again.

[ehrnst]

322. Stay home "again?"

[Luciferous]

324. I'm not going to keep explaining this to you. And frankly, even if I did stay home

last time I still wouldn't owe some random person online an explanation. Have a good day.

[ehrnst]

325. No one was saying you owe anyone anything. I just asked if you skipped voting in 2016

because that would be the only way your response "skip voting again" makes sense.

I personally don't think that many real progressives would have skipped voting. It's the antithesis of progressive activism.

I also apply that to any politicians who state that one could be both progressive and refuse to vote in an election unless they were a candidate.

[NurseJackie]

305. You can't be one and do the other.

Democrats who are so disgusted that they just stay home again.

There's no such thing. The two are mutually exclusive. You can't be one and do the other.