I see what you mean, but that assumes that we are just dying to impeach, and only hold back because we might be punished for doing it. That’s not the way I feel, and I suspect it’s not the way Pelosi and many other canny Dems feel. I think we should be happy to run against Trump next year, and less happy to run against some other nominee. I also think it would be less satisfying to get him out of office that way than to see him get rejected by the voters en masse.
As I’ve pointed out already, when the Nixon impeachment inquiry was authorized on 2/6/74, there was about as much support for impeaching Nixon then as there is for impeaching Trump now. Support grew substantially as a result of the inquiry and Judiciary Committee debate.
Similarly with bipartisan backing: it wasn’t there in February 1974. Republicans on the Judiciary Committee were persuaded during the process.
Now I concede that this time, the chances of persuading Republicans are slim and none, and Slim blew town ages ago.
But requiring bipartisan support assumes that the whole point of impeaching Trump is to remove him. But that’s not the argument that impeachment advocates are making: there may be some exceptions, but we’re pretty much all assuming that the Senate will not remove Trump from office. We’re saying it’s the right thing to do anyway, both morally and politically.
Saying there has to be bipartisan support for impeachment without addressing the arguments in support of those claims is a dodge.
Pelosi probably just made her first mistake. For one thing, it makes it harder for her to decline impeachment - after all, how can you say you want the president in prison and refuse to prosecute him politically? Instead, she should have simply said, I think the American people will vote against him, and I want to give them that opportunity.
That’s pretty much my view on impeachment. I think two conditions must be present for impeachment to proceed: 1) there needs to be a compelling case for it, which there absolutely is in the case of Trump; but beyond that, 2), there has to be a strong majority of people who want the president gone before the next election. I would define evidence of a “strong majority” as consistent polling that shows 55-65% of the country favors removing the president from office. Also consider that if the president is that unpopular, it’s also highly likely that the president’s party is also unpopular. It’s a LOT easier to remove the president when you have Republicans in the senate afraid of losing their majority.
The idea that impeaching the president in and of itself will make the president less popular is an assumption. I can’t say for sure that impeachment hearings would not make him less popular, but I can say for sure that, at present, there’s no evidence that impeachment by itself would do anything. We’ve already had the equivalent of a Saturday Night Massacre - twice. We’ve already had a 2-year investigation with damning conclusions. None of that changed Trump’s level of support. And the Clinton impeachment shows what can happen if a party pushes for an impeachment without popular support.
Yeah, I wonder if that comment is going to stick to the bottom of Nancy’s shoe to her ultimate detriment like Hillary’s “deplorables” comment. Still, I do want to hear how how thump flaps his arms (and his gums) in reaction it.
That’s probably how she’d defend her remarks in private: she said it knowing that he’ll flip out and either say or do more unhinged shit.
True. He cannot resist a properly (or clumsily) baited hook. One of her greatest strengths is that she can. But hey, that just means she’s a grown-up.
It won’t. She’s not running for President, and her district likely agrees with her.
She also doesn’t seem to attract the archetypal level of venomous hatred that Hillary is heir to.
Personally, I don’t think one person voted against Hillary based on the “deplorables” comment. Those who were offended by it weren’t going to vote for her anyway.
I get where Nancy comes from and I respect her greatly. The number one goal has to be defeating DT in 2020 and if impeachment makes that more difficult, then we shouldn’t do it. I agree that he belongs in prison. Nancy is right, continue the investigation, shine a light onto Donald’s crimes, and slowly move public opinion before impeachment.
It’s not the right thing to do- politically- if it means he gets re-elected.
I am absolutely sure that Pelosi knows more about the good and bad of a fruitless indictment in the House would do than any “impeachment advocate”. And remember- it is not a punishment if the Senate doesnt come thru. So, a indictment in the House without possibility of conviction will not really do anything morally either.
Soon as he flips out, we will see clip after clip of his ‘lock her up’ champagne. Didn’t he even say once that if he gets elected HE was going to throw Hillary in prison?
Imprison people Trump? Let’s show you how it’s done.
This is quite true, but it’s not just Trump and the presidency that Pelosi is concerned with. Her job as House Speaker isn’t to get Biden or a Democrat elected President; it’s to keep the House majority. I’m guessing that, more than most, Pelosi understands that a fair number of House Democrats come from districts that don’t lean that far to the left, and some actually lean to the right. Let’s not forget the fact that Republicans drew these districts in the first place - it took Democrats nearly 8 years to beat Republicans on what is essentially their home turf. The right-leaning voters didn’t just disappear; they’re still there. They’re fed up with Republicans and they’re giving Democrats the benefit of the doubt, but Democrats could easily blow it if Pelosi allows the party as a whole to hijack the political agenda. That hard-earned majority is not something you want to throw away just because you want to make a symbolic gesture.
He said that during a debate with Hillary, although he used the term “jail”.
Yesterday in Normandy, Trump gave an interview to Fox’s Laura Ingraham; and took the opportunity, with the American military cemetery as a backdrop, to throw personal insults at Mueller (“fool”) and Pelosi (“disaster”…“Nervous Nancy”). Later, Pelosi was asked to respond. She said, “I don’t discuss the President when I’m out of the country.”
Somebody who remembers the good ol’ days of decorum, and when a ceremony honoring veterans was non-partisan.
Nice.
Not to mention that they didn’t hear (or read) it in full. There was literally nothing for anyone to be offended by in those comments. At most, you embrace being a racist or misogynist, in which case you disagree that being such should be considered “deplorable”, but you can hardly be offended by something that shouldn’t in any way be surprising.
The absolute ‘worst’ part of her deplorables comment was that is was 100% true. She said half of Trump’s base are deplorable people.
And they are. If you look at opinion polls, about half of republicans believe the most evil, stupid, undemocratic things you can possibly believe.
52% of Republicans would support postponing 2020 election
‘Pizzagate’ theory believed by nearly half of Republicans
half of republicans supported child separation at the border
43 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim
45 percent of Republicans want the government to shutter “biased or inaccurate” media
Four in 10 Donald Trump supporters think Hillary Clinton ‘is an actual demon’
half of republicans think god wanted a racist, sexist serial cheater to be president
Half of Republicans Believe the Media Is the Enemy of the People: Poll
Almost Half Of Republicans Believe Millions Voted Illegally In The 2016 Election
Poll: More Than Half of Republicans Incorrectly Believe Trump Won the Popular Vote
Half of Republicans say increased racial diversity will be “mostly negative”
And it goes on. Just google the phrase ‘poll half of republicans believe’ and look at the evil, undemocratic, idiotic shit half of them believe at this point.
Calling half of Trump’s base deplorable was one of the most honest and insightful comments Hillary has ever made.
At first I too thought it was a mistake. On further thought, it may be a calculated move by her to send a message that there is enough evidence coming to put the guy in jail after he no longer has the protection of his office. So why waste time, energy and political capital on impeachment, when the far larger victory is within reach.
At least I hope that is her line of reason behind the comment.
Yeah, I get the impression that most Democrats feel that Trump does need to be held accountable for his criminal activity. Pelosi’s comment opens up a new strategy whereby Trump can be held accountable, but impeachment need not be involved.
Interesting discussion here on MSNBC between three different viewpoints: impeach now, impeach later, and don’t impeach.
But how do we know that impeachment will cost political capital? Maybe it’ll make low information voters less likely to vote for him in 2020.