Thoughts on why Pelosi is handing over Articles now?

[OliverQ]

I'm seeing lots of criticism on other forums of her decision. Why did she hold them up to this point if she's just going to cave to Moscow Mitch? There still won't be witnesses or a fair trial, and Trump is guaranteed to get acquitted.

I don't understand her reasoning or the point of this.

[LakeArenal]

1. Because that's her strategy.

She’s handling things just fine.

[Siwsan]

3. No matter the reason, I do trust that she's doing everything she can

If there is anything left to do.

[rockfordfile]

69. No I think it's because of what the republicans want.

A republican said this would be the time and he was correct.

[Siwsan]

2. McConnell has predetermined the outcome, no matter what Speaker Pelosi does

Dealing with him is an exercise in futility. I actually thought I heard he was trying to change the rules so that he'd be allowed to dismiss the whole impeachment, if he didn't get the charges in a 'timely matter'. At least I don't think I imagined that scenario.

[Iliyah]

7. t-rump is impeached. Nothing that McTurtle does can change that. . .

[Siwsan]

8. Thanks. That's what I thought but my brain is starting to short circuit!

November can't get here quickly enough, for me.

[Doremus]

37. Tell that to Trumpers.

They swear he isn't impeached because Fox told them so.

[DetlefK]

4. Because she prodded turtle that he won't allow for a fair trial.

By passing the articles NOW, she's daring him to prove her accusations right.

Any attempt by turtle to mess with the trial can now be spun by the Democrats into an act of sabotage and malice.

[JustAnotherGen]

51. +10000

[Bonx]

5. I trust Nancy implicitly. This will turn out perfect.

[MineralMan]

6. Don't ask the critics. Ask Nancy Pelosi.

She knows why she is doing what she is doing. She'll explain it soon, but you'll have to listen to her. If you only listen to critics, most of whom know nothing much at all, you'll always have the wrong information.

Sometimes, in these matters, you have to let those who are responsible for doing things use their own best judgment. In Nancy Pelosi's case, she knows far more about congressional matters than her critics on random internet sites do, don't you think?

[Wellstone ruled]

10. You nailed it once again.

Just looking at the Calendar and the Congress Session days ahead,we are getting into that time of year where less and less Sessions are on the books.

Filing dates for Office should have passed. Secondly,if Moscow Mitch moves in a way that we expect and refuse to go to a trial,the Political Damage to Senators running for reelection is enormous.

Still will take McConnell a couple weeks to gear up pushing it further out and the Calendar plays into the Dems advantage .

The Speaker seems to have this all mapped out if she made the statements that she has today.

[kentuck]

9. Words like "caving" are loser talk, in my opinion.

I think she has played her hand extremely well with the cards she is holding. She held Trump accountable. The Senate is probably not up to that task?

A lot of pressure can be put on McConnell and Republicans in the next couple of weeks.

They have the Trump disease. They act like him. They talk like him. They have sunk to lows unimagined.

[Raven]

11. By waiting she smoked MM out and made him sweat in the spotlight. The more

he's exposed, the worse the Republicans look. People are beginning to wake up because MM's arrogance and Trump's ignorance are on display for all to see. I wish she'd wait longer but I trust her judgment on this.

[bluestarone]

12. I'm thinking Nancy has made her point about the senate trial.

ALL eyes will be on the senators OATH! and will the outcome prove Nancy right? THIS i'm absolutely sure of!!

[onenote]

18. I wouldn't put to much on the oath being a big issue.

No one really expects Senators to be "impartial" in an impeachment trial -- apart maybe from expecting that they won't act based on overt bribes.

Moreover, even if a Senator has made statements indicating that they have prejudged the case, there is no way to prove that, at the moment that they take the oath, they are pledging to be impartial.

Every Senator pledged to be impartial in the Clinton trial. But no one was surprised that every Democrat voted to acquit Clinton. And no one will be surprised when every Republican votes to acquit Trump. There simply is no way to enforce the impartiality oath.

[ewagner]

13. Let me walk through this....

Nancy prepared to send the articles to the Senate

McConnell verified that he was the President's man and would make sure that his 53 votes would acquit Trump..

Nancy stalled posturing that she wanted McConnell assure that there would be a fair trial

McConnel dug in...

Lenningrad Lindsey Graham introduces a resolution to change the Senate rules so they can "dismiss" the Articles of Impeachment before they are sent to the Senate.

Nancy heads off this attempt by announcing that she will send the Articles over to the Senate....next week...not immediately but next week so that Graham's resolution will be a moot point

The next move is to expose the "trial" as the farce that it is and get as many "one-liners" and sound bites of Mitch violating the constitution as she possible can to use against him and any Republican running for Senate or Congress in 2020 that we can.

The Senate was already a stacked deck...she's trying to use that stacked deck to poison the well of the 2020 elections

This phoney trial will be the Albatross that she hangs around McConnell's neck.

Thoughts????

[kentuck]

14. If they try to scam this trial and attempt to dismiss all charges...

They open the door to another impeachment, with more charges. They cannot escape that easy, in my opinion.

The targeted audience are the voters of 2020. An "unfair" trial will look and smell more rotten as election draws near, and Trump's crimes and mental illness become more and more obvious. Republicans will be walking on hot coals to keep from stepping in it.

[ewagner]

16. Yep....you've got it.

[ScratchCat]

19. Yes, and imo its important to keep this in mind:

Trump will not pick up a single voter - that wasn't already going to vote for him anyway - because of impeachment.

The idea that there are people sitting around who a)didn't vote for him in 2016 and b)now think he is doing a great job and will only go vote for him because the mean Democrats impeached him, is complete folly. There is no such person. He got every vote he could have gotten in 2016. I'd argue that the number of 2016 Trump voters who have passed or wont go vote this time far exceeds the people who have reached voting age and will vote for him in 2020(no poll shows Trump picking up significant support from the 18-21 age group).

Suppression of Democrat voters is the only way Trump could win in 2020, and I still contend he wont be the candidate.

McConnell has sealed their fate with a phony trial.

[coti]

26. This sounds like rationalization. nt

[regnaD kciN]

76. Agreed...

All this does is allow Mitchie to get Trump his “full acquittal” in time to turn the SOTU into a victory lap…and Democrats will have no choice but to sit there and take it on national television.

[onenote]

15. Because her caucus is getting antsy

Whatever benefits were gained from holding the articles initially are fading. McConnell isn't budging. Nothing to be gained by holding onto them any longer.

[kentuck]

17. She's going to squeeze the last drop of juice out of that lemon...

Before she gives them their lemonade.

[coti]

23. There's nothing to be gained by handing them over.

And after Moscow Mitch gets his vote against removal, if we haven't sent the articles we can call the vote out on its illegitimacy and argue with Trump when he tries to claim exoneration.

[onenote]

35. What is gained is an end to stories about how the caucus is beginning to divide over this

[coti]

48. Well, we're definitely getting divided now.

Maybe the nervous nellies calling for capitulation should be quiet.

[panader0]

50. I think her timing may have somthing to do with the State of the Union address.

It is Feb 4th I believe. The trial will not be over by then, hopefully.
If it was, Trump would turn the SotU speech into a victory lap.
I think Nancy knows this.

[former9thward]

66. It will be over.

[kelly1mm]

86. Agreed. The trial will not take a full week. Nt

[rockfordfile]

70. No gives a rats ass what McConnell is doing. Americans see him as a scumbag.

[pangaia]

20. Maybe she knows something really big that we don't know.

[DeminPennswoods]

21. A lot more information has come out, via FOIAs and reporting,

in the interim since the article were approved and now that strengthens their case. McConnell's got the votes to set up rules now and he might have gotten an agreement with Collins, etc, to back this for the moment, but that doesn't mean his majority will hold. Dems will still be able to call for witnesses and documents. And CJ Roberts may have more of an influence on how Rs vote than is generally thought.

While some Americans watched Mueller's public testimony and more watched the House Intell hearings, many more will watch the Senate trial. It's all that will be on TV every day for at least 2-3 weeks. If public opinion, already at 55-56% for impeach and remove, gets higher and turns against Rs in general, all bets are off the table as to what will happen. Nothing - not even saving Trump - is more important to McConnell than keeping his majority in the Senate. If that looks the least bit threatened, the big bus will be warming up ready to roll over whoever is necessary.

The other reason for sending the articles now is just the political calendar with the Iowa and NH primaries coming up in early Feb. Right now having to stay in the Senate only truly affects Sanders and Warren with Klobachar and Bennett to a much lesser extent.

[Phoenix61]

33. +1

[Zeus69]

22. I'll give her benefit of doubt

But the optics don't look great. Public supports witnesses and McConnell (the juror) announced he's collaborating with the defendant and defense attorney. The 53 are FULLY unified, but some Dems are getting sweaty palms...

My concern is that he'll be acquitted rather expeditiously, and then the Repubs will control the narrative (they are VERY good at this). Pelosi/Dems will be seen as the ones displaying extreme "partisanship" by stalling because they "didn't have a case to begin with!!". I know, I feel like I'm in the matrix typing that given the reality.

There may be nuance to her method I'm missing here.

[coti]

24. Yeah, she shouldn't be doing this. Just like she shouldn't have invited Trump

to his SOTU so easily.

This is why we need to be avoiding the hero worship around here. It clouds judgment.

[TheRealNorth]

28. I am afraid so

Moscow Mitch will hold his Kangaroo Court showtrial and at the end, Don the Con will say he was innocent and vindicated, and the MSM will splash whatever Trump says on all newspaper headlines and tickers.

[Phoenix61]

32. So you have all the information she has

plus some? It’s not hero worship. It’s appreciation for someone do a difficult job in difficult circumstances.

[onenote]

42. People can disagree on sending the articles. But inviting Trump to the SOTU was a no-brainer.

Absolutely nothing would have been gained by holding up Trump's invite to give his SOTU address to a joint session in the House chamber. McConnell could have countered by inviting Trump to address just the Senate. Or more likely, Trump would have sent a written copy of his address, but only after delivering it in person to an arena full of adoring Trumpers in a nationally televised broadcast.

[coti]

46. That would make more sense if it hadn't worked the first time, when Trump shut down the government.

[onenote]

52. Pelosi stated a valid reason for not inviting Trump while the government was shut down

When Pelosi first indicated that the SOTU should be postponed until the government shutdown ended, she specifically cited as her reason security issues related to holding the event while Secret Service and DHS personnel were furloughed.

Maybe that was a fig leaf, but there is no comparable fig leaf that would justify not inviting Trump. The fact that he has been impeached doesn't change anything about his powers and responsibilities. Keep in mind that Bill Clinton delivered his 1999 SOTU address while his impeachment proceedings were pending.

And, as I pointed out, not allowing Trump to deliver the SOTU to a joint session in the House Chamber would only have given him an opportunity to give the speech to as larger (or larger) a TV audience with an adoring crowd. He'd have jumped at that chance.

[coti]

56. Not allowing a traitorous, impeached President to speak in the House chamber

when he hasn't been tried in the Senate seems as good a reason as any to me.

You seem very tuned in to what the Trump cultists might say or think. I guarantee you their behavior won't be any worse than it would have been otherwise.

[onenote]

57. Not inviting Trump wasn't a real option

given the precedent set in the Clinton impeachment.

Pelosi is pretty astute. Moreso than the average DUer.

[coti]

61. As an average DUer, I'm astute enough to have figured out that "precedent" doesn't matter

at this point, in terms of political strategy. "The way things are done" got thrown out the window a long, long time ago.

[onenote]

62. you should send a note to the Speaker telling her how much more astute you are than she is.

[coti]

63. That is one drawn-out, exhausted appeal to authority you've got there.

Are you saying I'm not allowed to have my own opinion?

That I should just take "Dear Speaker's" word as the word of God?

Is she...INFALLIBLE?

Has Nancy Pelosi never, ever made a mistake in her life? Is she NOT to be questioned?

Was she somehow right both to hold the articles back weeks ago and to send them on now, after no real change in the situation?

[onenote]

64. The same question: Have you ever made a mistake?

Or more to the point: do you have the experience with political matters that she does or should we just assume that her experience and track record of success is somehow outweighed by your experience.

And while I was skeptical of how holding the articles would play out -- in other words, i wasn't sure what the endgame was -- I think in the end it was a useful exercise but that its benefit has largely played out and it is time to move on, if for no other reason that the Democratic caucus is beginning to get antsy about it.

As for what we were discussing -- not inviting Trump -- do you think that he would have just said "Yes Ma'am" rather than use it to attack Pelosi for deviating from precedent and as an excuse to give his "SOTU" to a mass gathering of adoring Trumpers on national television?

[coti]

65. How about we just argue the merits of the issue?

Or are you getting sick of talking about the actual situation?

Speaking of, why are you so damned worried about what Trump was or wasn't going to say afterward? Even if we gave him no complaints at all, he would make something up! That's what he does! He's going to attack us either way, and it will always be unjustified! Being so worried about something that is going to happen regardless seems....inexperienced!

WE are trying to save our democracy, and there's nothing wrong with not inviting a traitor and multi-time felon, who was just impeached, to address Congress in the House, until he makes some badly-needed concessions. This is a man who has no respect for our checks and balances. So we have to CREATE checks and balances.

PRECEDENT is honoring subpoenaes. PRECEDENT is not engaging foreign governments to interfere in our elections. PRECEDENT is understanding Congress has the sole power to declare war. PRECEDENT is HAVING AN ACTUAL TRIAL AFTER A PRESIDENT IS IMPEACHED!!

Make no mistake, Trump will NEVER do the right thing, no matter what it is, on his own. He has to be dragged to do it every. Step. Of. The. Way. Pelosi is going to need to recognize every opportunity that involves something that is important to Trump and USE it.

[onenote]

67. I worry about the political/media optics of treating Trump differently than Clinton

and of handing him a big splashy event. Why do I worry about that? Because winning the political/media optics is the only way we win. The underlying decision to hold the articles wasn't based on principle -- it was based on a judgment that it would create political/media pressure on McConnell or, at least, turn the narrative towards how McConnell was planning a sham trial. It has served that purpose, but the benefit is diminishing because the public's attention span is short.

In the end, your strategy (denying him the House chamber for his SOTU) doesn't end up hurting Trump, it probably benefits him. So why would he make any concessions.

[coti]

68. Differences like...having a trial? Shouldn't you be on my side then, to make sure that happens?

If your assumption is true- that the media will clearly call out and condemn any ridiculous, unprecedented actions by Moscow Mitch and Trump- then they should support Pelosi in any direct efforts she makes to ensure there is a trial. Right?

[onenote]

71. On your side with respect to the SOTU? Not a bit.

Because I don't think it will achieve what you think it will. And I don't think holding the articles any longer will achieve it either. Now the effort turns back to the Democrats in the Senate making a huge stink about not being able to call witnesses.

[AncientGeezer]

79. I have to ask...what is your field of expertise....

Constitutional Law(I know it's not that), Congressional procedure, Trial law(I know it's not that)....you second guess Speaker Pelosi...what is your credential to do that?

[coti]

80. My friend AG, you've clearly demonstrated you don't know the first thing about the law

or epistemology. Time to let it go.

[AncientGeezer]

82. You failed to answer the question...what in your CV allows you..

to question Spkr Pelosi.....
Shall I link our earlier interactions re: legal/Constitutional issues.....that will go poorly for you..
I'm willing.

[coti]

84. How about none of your goddamned business?

You don't go around asking strangers on the Internet personal questions about themselves. Nor do you try to leverage such inappropriate questions to gain a dishonest toehold in an argument.

But, while you're asking, what makes YOU such an expert in not knowing WTF you're talking about? Because you're damned good at it!


Beyond that- yes, please demonstrate your total lack of reasoning ability and familiarity with law concepts by linking to other conversations.

And we've never discussed the Constitution (other than it being written in English- you don't dispute THAT, do you?) (and though I can't be sure what you THOUGHT you were arguing about). We HAVE discussed basic English words and their definitions, though- I have to say you struggled a bit with the remedial vocab lesson.

[AncientGeezer]

83. See.. there you go again....not knowing legal or Constitutional.

"..a traitor and multi-time felon,"
Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution....you spouting it doesn't make it true....
"multi-time felon"...can you source the convictions for me?

"multi-time asshole/scumbag/moron...." absolutely...but none of your claims.

[coti]

85. You got me. He has admitted to many felonies, but he hasn't yet been convicted.

I'm dreadfully sorry. What would Trump do without people like you around to defend him?

[AncientGeezer]

88. I said...not defending.."multi-time asshole/scumbag/moron...." absolutely"

I have to ask though....Dumpster admitted committing felonies....when and why wasn't that an impeachment article?
I've been watching this asshole since the '80's when he was screwing over contractor friends of mine in the City and Jersey....I don't recall him confessing to felonies.

[treestar]

75. I would not say she cannot make a mistake

But this is a matter of judgment. So I would take her word over yours, given the complexity of the matter and its lack of precedence. She's been House Speaker, so she has funds of knowledge. I would tend to give her the benefit of the doubt.

[treestar]

74. He's still innocent until proven guilty

Do we really want to start that kind of thinking?

[treestar]

73. I don't know that our hero worship or our criticism

are of any real value. She was elected to use her judgment. Posting on DU that she's doing the wrong thing is not going to affect her decisions. If I were her, there are a lot of people I might listen to and take advice from. But I would not be looking at DU to make sure I was doing the right thing. I would be using my own judgment.

[pwb]

25. Wouldn't you mess with Moscow Mitch if you could?

It made trump squirm and be trump and now he has a 80 million dollar price on his head. So it was a great move i think.

[Grasswire2]

27. She didn't say she is handing them over now.

She asked her people to begin to prepare to do so.

Gotta always PARSE words that come from anyone in Washington.

[onenote]

39. She said Nadler should be prepared to bring a resolution to the floor next week.

A resolution to "appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate."

There's no walking back from that. There will be a resolution next week and it will appoint managers and direct that the articles be transmitted to the Senate." And having appointed managers, one of the reasons Pelosi has given for holding the articles -- that she can't appoint managers without knowing the Senate process -- will be gone.

Sometimes one can over "parse" language trying to avoid the obvious.

[Grasswire2]

45. "should be prepared" to hand over next week does not equal "We will hand over articles next week"

Gotta always, always parse for imprecise language.

[onenote]

59. When the Speaker of the House asks the Judiciary Chairman

"to be prepared to bring to the Floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate" there is really nothing to parse. What would be the point of telling him to be ready to bring the resolution to the floor and then not to do so?

The chances that this won't move forward, absent some bombshell development, are essentially nil. You can bet on it.

[Caliman73]

29. I am willing to accept that she knows what she is doing.

She has shown the ability to adapt to every situation so far in this Impeachment process. Either she is doing the best thing in a bad situation or she knows more than we do and is making a strategic move.

[Mike 03]

30. IMO, this is the "sweet spot"

She's moved the conversation in the Senate somewhat, just enough, and about as much as she could be expected to do. On top of that, John Bolton is willing to testify. Polls show people strongly support witnesses testifying and still support removal, so she hasn't lost support, apparently even gained a few points. So there's not much more she can accomplish, and to wait much longer is to risk people getting tired of the whole thing, forgetting, moving on to a new object of fascination.

EDIT: If tensions with Iran had blown up into further conflict, I think she would have held them longer.

[totodeinhere]

31. She is getting pressure from some Democrats in the Senate.

But I think no matter what she does she is caught between a rock and a hard place.

[empedocles]

34. It's McConnell who is caught, between a hard place and total insantiy

The pressure is on trump and McConnell.

[totodeinhere]

38. Not really. McConnell has the votes to make sure that this goes nowhere.

Nancy held out in an effort to get concessions from Mitch, but none were forthcoming.

[coti]

47. McConnell is running scared from the truth, and, for some reason, we're running from highlighting

that.

[totodeinhere]

58. You really think he cares one iota about the truth?

I don't.

[coti]

60. No, but we do. And we should act like it. nt

[empedocles]

54. The Impeachment of trump, increases trump's pressure on McC.

Time is the Speaker's ally, as trump's screwups, and, evidence against trump continues to pile up.

McConnell's votes are getting weaker, as some Senators, understandably, weigh using their collected power to allow witnesses, etc.

McC's current hardline is for trump's ego.

[Kingofalldems]

36. Got a link on that?

And when did she cave?

[jalan48]

40. A couple of hours ago.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/10/pelosi-to-send-impeachment-articles-to-senate-after-weeks-long-delay-097185

[jalan48]

41. This is reminding me of Mueller. Lots of optimism followed by a loud thud.

[FBaggins]

77. Yes... but that isn't her fault

The optimism (to the extent it included things like never sending the Articles over) was always badly misplaced.

[jalan48]

81. I don't understand why we didn't wait for the Courts to rule on subpoenas for Bolton and others.

[UniteFightBack]

43. Nope, perfect timing just heard that a group of pukes wants those witnesses. Withholding

also allowed for more shit to come out. This was well played.

[Louis1895]

44. My explanation: The State of the Union Speech!

Don't forget that Pelosi invited Trump to give the State of the Union Speech on February 4, 2020.

Forwarding the articles of impeachment to the Senate will mean that impeached Trump will have to give a national speech in the midst of all of the hullabaloo of the Senate trial preparations.

[kelly1mm]

87. The trial will be over by then. Count on it.

Trump will use the State of the Union as a victory lap.

[rainy]

49. I believe she now knows there's enough republicans that will demand witnesses!!!

Last edited Fri Jan 10, 2020, 08:47 PM - Edit history (1)

[getagrip_already]

53. words like caving are right wing talking points.....

She hasn't handed anything over yet. No vote today.

Possible vote next Tuesday that would set up a vote for managers the following week. Oh, and then we have the SOTU a few days later.

She is playing chicken with moscow, not caving. And she is dragging this out past the sotu if she can. If moscow votes now, while the process is moving, he will look even worse than he already does.

Now take your talking points and politely shove them.

[AncientGeezer]

55. Not complicated....Speaker Pelosi thought public opinion would go big our way....

..and make McConnell cave....it didn't.. he didn't... and won't.
Now it's a talking point R's are using.....so urgent, national emergency...but she won't transmit...it was never going to be removal.

November will be the removal.

[Jose Garcia]

72. She had no leverage

Last edited Fri Jan 10, 2020, 09:44 PM - Edit history (1)

McConnell is happy to continue confirming judicial nominees while the House sits on the impeachment articles.

[FBaggins]

78. She had rhetorical leverage

And she has gained whatever benefit that could provide. Much beyond this point starts to hurt.

[Generic Brad]

89. Because Congress's Recess Is Over

There was no reason to hand it over when everyone was on vacation. If she had, McConnell would have owned the entire narrative.

Nothing would have been done with the impeachment trial anyway over these past few weeks. But in this way, she kept the momentum during a period of inertia.