by some of the best constitutional scholars there are, I don't see her just throwing it all away now.

Last edited Sat Jan 11, 2020, 11:34 AM - Edit history (1)

She makes all her public statements with an awareness on how it will be viewed by DT, and what effect it will have on what is going on behind the scenes.

She does not have to explain it to anyone but the House Democrats.

Do you think that she should simply announce the Democratic strategy publicly, and take a poll to make a decision?

And so, given the evidence of the Senate situation, I ask here.

I don't have a problem with that, because she has an excellent career track record, and the confidence of House Dems.

an inkling of why she's doing this, so you can lay off.

You keep typing "constitution." What is is you feel she is doing that is outside of constitutional bounds?

"game-plan," but I do know that the only persons acting outside of constitutional bounds are 45 and his henchmen. To them, this is a game, and not a serious one, Constitution be damned.

I only asked because I thought I'd missed something.

I've since learned that whatever it is she knows now -- and people here are tuned in to finding out -- this move will be for the best outcome.

vis a vis her (and other of leadership's) conversations; we have no idea.

FOOLISH to say Speaker Pelosi has blinked.

It's foolish to say we just go along without reasons.

Who do "they" think they are?

This party needs to address the major media problem. I hope that it is addressed when we regain the WH and Senate.

a full report on what the Democratic behind the scenes strategy is.

Last edited Sat Jan 11, 2020, 02:33 PM - Edit history (1)

wants drama, conflict and confusion. Has been this way since this POTUS was installed. And partially the reason why he was installed and was because he was covered by a compromised media. This was because of the media need to be relevant to the American voting public to gain advertising dollars, specifically. Now, with all the information we have and that the American media ignored, Russia, their huge computer hacking facilities aimed directly at our election, Trump's predatory sexual personality. Not pursuing Trump's 'hangdog look' after secretly meeting with Putin(versus when President Obama met with Putin) all point to a media, its pundits and so-called journalists, governed by their RW owners. There are a few standouts that are not sellouts, I feel, Maddow et al.

Yet overall the media has been seriously compromised by its inability to serve the American public with the truth in its quest of garnering advertising dollars to the detriment of the truth about this predatory, lying ersatz Al Capone POTUS.

Speaker Pelosi, I believe, has not blinked, nor has our leadership in the House or Senate.

and making sausage in Congress is never a rapid rendering ..

patience is a virtue

✌🏼

about swearing to be impartial.

or just relying on msnbc ?

✌🏼

If you've seen her letter, please link it. I'd like to see her notice to the House in writing.

Off of that particular national stage.

airtime.

I misunderstood it's rhetorical nature.

Thx

Last edited Fri Jan 10, 2020, 10:40 PM - Edit history (1)

lets the Impeachment stand as it is, and the Articles can be sent when she has evidence that the "arena," as she calls it, is impartial.

So far, she's just going to let the House Judiciary resolve to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.

So far, she has not shown that she has evidence that this trial won't be the setup its participants said it would be.

So, for all the slow motion of this process,
for all that we don't know about what will happen,
for hearing Pelosi say that she does not expect this to be a fair trial,
the probability is that this will be 'done and over with,'
and written in history as the setup obstruction that the opposition party "winners" intended it to be.

I just want to know why she is suddenly willing to go along with all the pressures -- of a president, of election debates, of party handwringers, of threats by McConnell -- that in no way "protect and defend" the Constitution.

You seem to have a dim view of her strength and integrity.

consistent with Pelosi's constitutional priority of defense right now, because working around a party debate... etc, would subordinate....

Saying one thing isn't to imply an opposite. It is directed to clarify Pelosi's likely logic in reference to the other poster's logic.

Is that clearer?

Clearly.

angle for this! If she can tie his public statements into a corruption or obstruction charge against him...

And maybe Bolton has the goods...

I hope this letter is in the trial record, whenever the trial is held.

What makes this an extraordinary document is that she compels, with her bullet points, that emerging evidence must be considered even if no witnesses are called.

I'm hoping that Democrats in the Senate drag the trial days out with nonstop motions, each of whichmust be roll call voted on by all members of the Senate.

I just wish I didn't have to speculate at this point.

and demand integrity from the process before transmitting the articles.

She doesn't owe you or me a consult on why she makes these decisions. Just House Democrats.

But do let us know what experts with inside knowledge of the situation you have been consulting with.

If I did know such experts I wouldn't have posted the very opposite here. I wouldn't even want to ask why.

Don't hold back on the snark, though. It's such a clever look when applied to anyone but Trump.

I know bashing Pelosi's bad decisions are lots of fun here, but maybe, just maybe, she knows what she's doing.

Seriously I do not understand why this is a problem, or framing it as if Speaker Pelosi is "backing down" somehow.

The House impeached Trump, why not get on with it?

But wait, media isn't really important to some here.

Then campaign on it and jam it down voters' throats that we want the TRUTH.

I just don't see a potential future where those two things happen

They don't carry forward to the next one.

And articles of impeachment don't last past the congress that draws them up.

I think you may have a lot to learn about the process. Speaker Pelosi on the other hand, is as expert as there is.

Are you trying to cheer me up?

So, I don't know why the trend is towards releasing the Articles.
I say hang onto them until you get what you want.
John Dean says hang on till after the election.
I'm sick of Democrats caving.
I was going for what is supposed to be a "safe" choice like Biden.
If this is how Democrats are going to continue to act, I'm swinging more for the fences like Bernie or Warren.

The truths may be self-evident, but we need strong politicians to declare them, especially in the face of the relentless onslaught of propaganda from the other side.

Biggest thing we could do to save our democracy is require that the news be truthful, or news organization not eligible to be licensed.

But politicians should be seizing every chance they get to declare the values, principles, rules, and laws that are really true. And then to stick to them. Emerson said "the human heart resounds to that iron string".

For instance, we cannot support the false equivalency of running this trial like the Clinton trial when the rules of testimony have been slanted so drastically differently, differently enough to be even in the Articles themselves!!! C'mon people who represent us - fight!

out until the Senate is reconstituted.

There's not a realistic situation where we flip four Senate seats but lose the electoral college.

You're "tired" of Democrats "caving?"

Goodness, because Speaker Pelosi is making decisions that you don't feel validates and stokes your outrage, she's morally compromised?

Because she is pursuing a strategy of getting the most benefit for Dems out of this, instead of simply issuing a public statement of "Srew you, Trump, you can't make me!" or something else that that you think should make you cheer like the Trump supporters did at the taking out of the Suleimani, you think she's 'caving?'

Why do you think that she doesn't know what she's doing in this decision. How has her judgement suddenly failed?

Let's continue there.

I don't easily follow any particular leader. If she has to the goods to actually get something out of this deal, time will tell, or she could lay it out for us. In the meantime, I'm doubtful. There is no immediately obvious advantage to me in turning them over.

I like the suggestion this weekend of Neal Katyal and George Conway.
[link:https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/attorneys-george-conway-and-neal-katyal-advise-pelosi-on-how-she-can-trip-up-mcconnells-impeachment-plans/|

That sounds reasonable to me.

Yes, Speaker Pelosi has done a better job than I ever thought she would in all ways since she regained the speakership. I have, let's say, a fair amount of trust in her ways. But I also feel that Democrats do cave, do not message successfully, do not get the goods we need to have, give away too much, act too nice, think that the honorable and righteous message simply sells itself, have allowed too many things to bring down our society without making noise, etc.

So, those are the kind of things I'm sending to my representatives and to Speaker Pelosi herself, when I can.

Thanks.

best information and intelligence, the best track record, and the confidence of their peers.

I trust a licensed physician who has many recommendations and a good record to recommend the best path forward on a given health issue, more than I trust my own opinion, certainly more than that of an online discussion board when they diverge, but that's not because I "follow" that physician.

I'm not an acolyte of any public figure, if that's what you mean by "follow." I know that some people feel that's necessary for them to support any politician, and assume that anyone else who agrees with or trusts the judgement of another polician must be doing the same, but that's just not the case.

We'll see how it works out.

and clearly were determined to be less productive by the person most qualified, and selected to, make that decision.

nor to attack me and attribute things to me that were simply ridiculous, as you did in your first post.

I'm hoping that we can all work together to defeat Donald Trump.

That's what my comments were made in service of.

I'm glad that some on DU found some value in them. And to those who may not have liked them, or who disagree, like seemingly yourself, well, can't we just agree to disagree? We will all see in time how various strategies and decisions play out. I hope it all turns out well.

I'd like to see either something like a real and fair trial, or Republicans paying a price for not allowing one.

Sounds like a case of a shoe fitting more than any actual "attack" on my part.

I'm simply pointing out that Pelosi is far more qualified than you or I to make this decision. That is a fact. There is nothing to "defend."

Last edited Wed Jan 15, 2020, 09:13 AM - Edit history (1)

I think that once you have put in some time on DU, you too will be more informed.

There's no real leverage here to begin with, so I don't see how submitting it now is somehow worse than submitting it in a month.

worse than waiting until the next Senate is chosen. An impartial arena might never exist. In which case, the Impeachment Articles should stand as historical evidence of the People's indictment of a criminal president, trial or no trial.

Protecting and defending the Constitution shouldn't be on a consensual timeline just because some leaders apply the politics of pressure and/or concede to the timeline of human impatience. If 45 is exonerated on any timeline, democracy loses for The People. Rule of the Executive obviates the Constitution. For all time.

If a partial vote -- as in not impartial -- is taken to exonerate, despite all the evidence, Constitutional Law is abolished for presidents in the future. No laws will be made that any future president will sign. That will be the precedent for all time.

An exonerated president becomes the leader of a dictatorship, with other branches sidelined and the nation's people mere spectators. Elections might be held, but no one will want to participate in substituting one dictator for another.

There is no good reason, constitutionally, to give in to those whose power wants to rule over the First Branch of The People. None.

Oath takers who've proven themselves untrustworthy in commitment to constitutional law and to coequal branches of government should not be given a platform for establishing the Executive as above the law. Period. No matter how long this plays out.

A few months ago, people were demanding impeachment, regardless whether the Senate would convict. The Senate trial was seen, not as a vehicle to remove him, but merely as an opportunity to show the country how corrupt the GOP is.

Now some of these people are singing a different tune, accusing Pelosi, who just masterminded a near-perfect impeachment and set up weeks of scrutiny on McConnell and his caucus - of "blinking" by sending the Articles to the Senate.

That's a pretty drastic shift, isn't it?

I was one of them. Opportunists might say "blink" because it looks that way.

I don't use "blink" like an opportunist. I use it because it drives the media horse race frame to unfairly pressure her, which she should absolutely refuse. Feel free to tell me what word explains what she's doing, if you want to ignore what media says. But don't even think that my loyalty to protecting and defending the Constitution is to be conflated with loyalty to Pelosi.

I don't know who "some of these people" are who you see "accusing Pelosi" and "moving goalposts," except the drama scriptors of media.

I can trust her until I see her turn over the Articles to a NOT impartial arena.

Until then, I just want to know why. It's a legitimate question that serves the public's interest. That she's been near-perfect in keeping her oath doesn't mean she's infallible.

One version of the good or perfect should not rule over others.

Pelosi's strategy on this is? She was chosen by House Dems to lead them, and she's doing her job. She answers to them, not you or me, and that's how it works best.

That seems far more effective than simply taking a poll on what the Speaker should and should not do, which seems to be what you feel should happen.

Has it occurred to you that she doesn't want to reveal the Democratic strategy to the GOP?

because she didn't start impeachment and, when they were told the Senate would never convict, they said, "So WHAT?! It doesn't matter what the Senate does. She needs to impeach and not worry about what the Senate does."

Now she's impeached him and some of the same people who demanded she impeach are nickel and diming her about how she refers the impeachment to the Senate - as if, if she does it their way, somehow the outcome will be different.

I think some of these people who supposedly just wanted impeachment really weren't all that interested in impeachment, but just wanted to stir up crap among the Democrats and are intent on smearing Pelosi no matter what she does - and even though they're pissed that they're running out of ways to claim the Speaker doesn't know what she's doing, they're going to keep claiming it anyway.

any timeline of action with the Constitution's protection and defense.

Timelines and impatience do not protect and defend the Constitution in fact, when there exists NO "impartial arena" in fact.

Doesn't sound like you agree with her.

You said a few months ago that a Senate trial would remind the public if the GOP's dereliction of duty and display to the country how corrupt the Senate GOP is. Why do you now think a trial in the Senate somehow undermines the Constitution and should be delayed?

What changed your mind?

It's the new knowledge that McConnell revealed when he said there was no daylight between the White House and Senate Republicans, along with his and Graham's public claim that would not be impartial.

I don't know which thread you recall, but I thought that the Senate leader and Republicans would conduct a fair trial at that time. I would never want our speaker to believe anything they said after that, knowing they'd not remove 45.

Nothing has changed, that you or I know of. I don't think this trial in the Senate will undermine the Constitution;I've been outright told by senators that it will. The only protection for the Articles of Impeachment that honor Constitutional law, as I've seen it, is for our House leaders to not turn them over to a rigged Senate trial, to protect it from their nullification, which would privilege the Executive branch to "do whatever I want" and be "above the law," Constitutional law. I wanted, no matter how long it takes, for the Articles to reach an "impartial arena."

You just trust that something has changed, and what I wanted to know, as of 18 hours ago, was why it has.

I realize now that what Pelosi knows might tip off Republican loyalists, and so I accept that we'll find out soon enough.

If I asked, "Why are you wearing a red hat?" it would be rather foolish of me to later claim that I never said you were wearing a red hat.

she made the decision.

I wish I knew.

If I could fathom -- and I can usually do that -- why she'd proceed now, I'd never have brought this DU negativity upon myself.

Talking about how Pelosi "blinked" is what people are reacting to.

She has more resources than you or I do, as well as information on the situation.

Why do you think she suddenly scared and "blinked?"

Do you not even consider that stalling may have ceased to be an advantage, and may have become disadvanageous to Democrats?

The primaries are coming up, and we need all our Senators on deck for the trial. There has been no concessions from the GOP.

Also, Bolton has stated that he would testify if subpoenaed, and the WH has now played their hand by ordering him not to testify. That's good ammunition to show that the WH is covering up even more.

You don't trust her. Why?

Why do you imply that my OP is proof of distrust?

I legitimately worry that this constitutional crisis will end in an overturn of democracy and the elevation of one branch over the others.

Our leader is great. I'm still among her staunchest supporters. But the Constitution's rule of law is what matters more to me after she and I are gone.

The House voted on the Articles of Impeachment. They need to be sent to the Senate. She delayed that process to give McConnell more time to back himself into a corner, but there's no farther into the corner he can go now.

So, it's time to send the Articles over and get this impeachment trial started. Trump's unconscionable assassination has tripped him up. Bolton says he'll testify. All of the pieces are in place, and it's time for another move in the game. Sending the Articles to the Senate is that move.

We are outside of the process, and cannot see what is going on in any real detail. Nancy Pelosi has no such disadvantage.

In the end, it is highly unlikely that the Senate will vote to remove Donald J. Trump from office. That would be the biggest surprise of 2020 if it happened. So, before everyone forgets that an impeachment happened, it's time to force the Senate's hand on this. We need to see the betrayal of our Constitution by McConnell and the Republicans.

There is no better time to send the Articles to the Senate. Now is the right time for her to do so.

On the other hand, maybe you know something the rest of us don't. If so, please share it.

that you think we're outside it is a stance I won't agree to.

That there "is not better time" or "now is the right time" is exactly to my point in questioning Pelosi.

There will be historical, unmendable consequences for you and the rest of us if you think turning over the Articles of Impeachment will only be "forcing the Senate's hand," or that their vote will only be a "betrayal of our Constitution." Right now it sounds so clever. So political. This "timing" thing. I've already said what will be the structural consequences of seeing this as timing and a game. There are probably other consequences I can't bring myself to think about; examples of what could follow from presidential rule or one party rule from now on. But that was never my point.

My point is to let the Articles of Impeachment stand until there is an "impartial arena" -- Pelosi's words.

Doubt my questioning all you want. Play away. I don't accept that you would "play" my questioning why as meaning anything but my lack of knowing and my wanting to know. One thing I do know is what the Constitution says, and oaths The House and Senate have sworn to protect and defend it. What I think that means is that oathkeepers should not privilege or concede any oathbreaker "process," "timeline" or "game playing" that undermines the strength of the Constitution's establishment of coequal branches of government.

On the other hand, go ahead, try to make this about "you" and "the rest of us."

Not in this Senate.

Just "letting the Articles of Impeachment stand" indefinitely will only result in their being forgotten by the public.

Historically, the impeachment has taken place. That cannot be undone. It must go to trial, and there is only one Senate - the one we have. It must happen this year, because Trump will no longer be President in 2021. So, the trial will take place in a Senate that is lockstep-marching with Mitch McConnell.

Now, there is a faint chance that enough Republican Senators will vote with Democrats to have witnesses and documents presented as part of the trial. A faint chance. That, however, will not change the fact that the Senate will not vote in a 2/3 majority to remove Trump. That will simply not occur.

So, the trial might as well take place now. Nancy Pelosi knows all the things I mentioned, along with other things that I don't know about. She has decided, based on what she knows, to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate next week. I maintain that she, along with whomever she listens to, knows more than I do about what will probably happen in the Senate.

So, I think now is probably about the best time to do this. Trump is floundering over his stupid assassination and its aftermath. A few Senators are wavering toward voting for witnesses. Two weeks from now, they might not be. The news cycle marches on. We cannot know what will be in the headlines two weeks or a month in the future.

History demands that the trial happens. The Constitution demands it. Nothing will be gained by delaying the process now. It's time, and that's what Nancy Pelosi has decided. I accept her decision, since she knows more than I do about Congress. The public will see the trial, if they bother to watch it. They will see what happens. That may or may not affect how they vote in November. I hope it does affect their votes.

The trial must be held. It must be held in 2020. This is 2020. Now is as good a time as any. Of course it is a "move in a game." All politics is a game. All government is a game. A game with always changing rules.

In the next Senate.

History makes no demands. Only the Constitution. If we can keep it.

I argue that if nothing will be gained by delaying, what will be gained is less than nothing. A trial now will rewrite History as the failed democratic experiment.

This is not a test of our accepting, trusting or following Pelosi. I can do all those things as well as anyone here. My hopes are the same as yours, that the next few weeks will affect November voting.

I just don't know about the "must." The Constitution says "shall" and does not have a timeline or "must."

Questioning the consensus on "rules of the game" is part of this game.

have a new President to deal with. If Trump is re-elected, we will still have a Republican-dominated Senate. That's what the voters will decide if he wins. If he loses, we might possibly have a Democratic majority in the Senate.

However, if Trump is no longer President, the reason for impeachment and removal will no longer exist. We cannot remove someone who is no longer President. That is the situation we are all hoping for, a United States of America where Donald J. Trump is not President.

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, has been impeached by the House of Representatives in this Congress. The next congress will have a different number and, if we try hard, a new President.

The sole reason to impeach a President is to force a trial to remove that President from office. That is the function of it. We must do that within that President's term of office.

We cannot wait for the next Congress to do that. It must happen in this Congress. Now will be as good a time as any to take it to the Senate for trial, and that trial may very well influence the November election. Removing the President can be done by the Senate or by the voters. I think the only way will be through the voters and the November election.

So, let's have that trial. Let's do it now. That's what Nancy Pelosi is doing. Good for her!

Thanks!

Every time it’s the same questioning and making her seem like she has no clue what she’s doing. And I’m including most replies in that comment not just this post.

While the armchair quarterbacks here love to go after her she has masterfully handled the most corrupt senate and president in history. She is playing this the best she can given what we’re up against. She knows way more of what is going on in the background So we can only guess at what is coming at this point.

We all know McConnell will not allow trump to be removed from office, so she has to look beyond that. That is exactly what she is doing. To save our democracy those traitors need to be given the rope to hang themselves at this point and allow Americans to witness it before the elections.

If Pelosi wasn’t in charge right now that fascist wouldn’t even have been impeached.

"...she has masterfully handled the most corrupt senate and president in history. She is playing this the best she can given what we’re up against. She knows way more of what is going on in the background So we can only guess at what is coming at this point.... If Pelosi wasn’t in charge right now that fascist wouldn’t even have been impeached.

As for the rest, I have to say that you don't know me, or you'd know I have never bashed any Democratic leader, overtly or passively. I bash Republicans, bottom to top. If they ever came up with a good idea, or acted in good faith, I still wouldn't trust them.

That comes off as an insult.

I understand how echoing that word affects how people think about me, but I don't think she blinked and regret passing along that Todd stupidity. It won't happen again.

Taking a tone that she caved is another - and yes the use of the word 'blinked' set the tone even if the OP didn't intend it to.

WE have no idea what is going on in the background, what deals may be being made, any more dirt she knows that we don't etc.. She has proven to be a skillful politician and unfortunately we have to wait and see.

And save the MAGA comparison.. puhleeeeze.

As far as the Constitution is concerned, Moscow Mitch can start the trial whenever he likes, regardless of what Pelosi does.

Maybe she knows about procedures and strategies and alliances and weak links that we have no clue about. In fact, I'd bet on it. Blinked? I don't think so.

you mention here. And neither has anyone else on this thread, apparently.

There was such silence around here, I just had to ask.

So I appreciate your points that remind me of all her areas of expertise.

Thanks.

Because you can't think of what that might be?

Right now, that's been enough to help me think. The announcement hit me suddenly. I don't bother posting OP questions if I can think of reasons or tease out answers for myself. I'd been away on business for a day, and just thought there might be some fact/clues beyond what I've already followed.

DU'ers who've paid attention have seen that I'm one of the biggest Democratic Party cheerleaders around here. So I resent people here who say that asking why about leaders is coded criticism. That's bullshit.