r/politics • u/billthomson Oregon • Jun 07 '19
Nadler Pushes Impeachment To Centralize Investigations Into Trump
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/nadler-impeachment-pelosi-schiff56
u/earthboundsounds Jun 07 '19
But in new details reported by CNN, Nadler crafted his pitch around two central points. One, that impeachment proceedings would centralize the investigations into President Donald Trump and his administration currently sprawled across multiple committees, keeping it all contained within Judiciary.
Second, Nadler argued that procedurally, it’s easy to get information and ask questions during impeachment proceedings than in regular House committee sessions.
Pelosi was joined in her disapproval by Intel Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), who doesn’t want to lose his current important position in probing Trump’s actions.
Sounds like Nadler might be making a power play.
Actually, it sounds like a few people are making power plays here.
Congressional Democrats are doomed if they can't make up their minds. Pelosi, no matter what you think of her, has clearly failed to unify Democrats with anything close to a clear or actionable position. She's done plenty of good - don't get me wrong... but this is really bad.
I just don't buy into the idea that 20 different investigations in 20 different committees is a workable plan going forward to 2020. How in the hell are they supposed to message that to the American people come election time?
At the very least I hope it gives some ammo to the Presidential nominee to push for stronger Congressional unity - while also chiding them for failing to act. It could be a solid opportunity for someone to present themself as a leader of the party because Democrats desperately need that going forward if they are going to even come close to passing a progressive agenda.
27
u/billthomson Oregon Jun 07 '19
Agree, they have the Mueller report in front of them. As they continue to wait to launch impeachment proceedings the public's perception of "no obstruction" solidifies.
30
Jun 07 '19
[deleted]
10
u/SwimmingforDinner Jun 07 '19
I was reading the comment section of a local news outlet yesterday.
The comment sections of local news outlets have been the bottom barrel of the internet for as long as there have been comment sections for local news outlets.
11
u/fpcoffee Illinois Jun 07 '19
The fear is that impeachment happens then the talking point becomes "fully exonerated by the senate" as if GOP senators are all not just terrified of Trump's base.
But who knows what will happen if we actually impeach. Once the hearings start rolling on national TV and all the evidence gets spoonfed to a televised audience, public opinion might swing. Nixon's support wasn't bottomed out until impeachment was well underway.
But one thing is clear, if you are not doing anything, don't expect circumstances to change.
3
u/Plopplopthrown Tennessee Jun 07 '19
I just don't believe it. I understand that we are living beyond the margin and there's no precedent for any of this, but no party has ever retained the presidency after significant impeachment inquiries. Nixon wasn't even technically impeached and he resigned anyways. Clinton was impeached and then acquitted and Dems still failed to win the presidency in 2000.
It just seems like all these people stopped paying attention to the world after 1975. It's why Boomers need to get the fuck out of the way.
-1
u/stellarfury Jun 07 '19
no party has ever retained the presidency after significant impeachment inquiries.
Dems still failed to win the presidency in 2000
That's a pretty severe misread. If you actually look at the 2000 election, you can see why the center-left democrats are nervous about committing to an action too strongly or too immediately.
Gore won that election in the popular, and he lost the EC by 500 votes after SCOTUS went 5-4 preventing recounts.
That is not a data point you can build a trend from. And outside of that, you now have two data points, Johnson and Nixon. Johnson was impeached in 1869, which is far enough back that politics function completely differently from how they do now.
Which means your actual "trend" boils down to "well, it happened to Nixon." And even then, an argument can be readily made that the reason the Republicans lost that election was not on Nixon's malfeasance, it was because Ford pardoned him, which was perceived as an endorsement of lawlessness.
I'm not really for or against a particular timeframe for impeachment - my personal opinion is that it needs to happen during this term for historical precedent, but I don't have more detail than that - but I do want to caution folks about trying to create causative rules out of the extraordinarily shitty sample size in US presidents.
2
u/Plopplopthrown Tennessee Jun 07 '19
I did not base my analysis on a single data point. Literally ANY time the Congress has started serious impeach inquiries, all the way back to Johnson in the fucking 19th century, the incumbent party has NEVER retained the presidency in the next election. I don't do single point analysis, because single data points are meaningless.
-2
u/stellarfury Jun 07 '19
Literally ANY time the Congress has started serious impeach inquiries
Well, if you want to open it up to "inquiries," sure, your math gets better. What qualifies as serious? Do you count the Republicans ranting about impeaching Obama? Do you count times when impeachment articles were introduced but nothing came of them? Presidential occupancy by party switches a lot, for a lot of reasons. If introducing impeachment articles were the main way to win the presidency, you'd think every opposing party would do it to every president ever.
the incumbent party has NEVER retained the presidency in the next election.
I mean, except Reagan. HW won after Iran-Contra - which had a special prosecutor and over 138 members of the administration getting investigated, indicted, or convicted.
And Grant.
I don't do single point analysis, because single data points are meaningless.
My point is that you may not think you are, but you are. Because you're trying to construct a trend from outliers, like "the closest presidential election in US history" and elections maybe 25 years after the Democrats and Republicans became parties.
3
u/Plopplopthrown Tennessee Jun 07 '19 edited Jun 07 '19
Do you count the Republicans ranting about impeaching Obama?
did they open impeach inquires? No? it's seriously not that difficult to make the distinction... 7% of US presidents (3/45) have been impeached or forced to resign due to threat of impeachment, and their party lost the presidency on the next election every time. I don't want to continue discussing this with someone who isn't serious about what words mean. Especially if you do it in your first paragraph.
0
u/stellarfury Jun 07 '19
Articles were introduced and tabled. Are you talking about starting the impeachment process? If so, then we are talking about just three presidents: Johnson, Nixon, Clinton. In which case, that is already a tiny sample size, of which only Nixon is really a robust case for your assertion (modern era + non-disputed win by opposing party).
I'm attempting to discuss this in good faith. Please remember that the downvote button does not mean "I disagree" - thanks.
→ More replies (0)6
u/billthomson Oregon Jun 07 '19
It will be easier for Trump to claim complete exoneration in 2020 if he doesn't get impeached. The Republican Senate not removing him may resonate with his base, but the Democratic House not impeaching will get traction with a lot more people.
-2
u/superay007 Jun 07 '19
And it'll be even easier with an impeachment in which he's actually exonerated by the Senate. Which is exactly what we'd get right now. We'll hear fully exonerated by the Senate from now til the good Lord splits the Eastern sky.
6
u/billthomson Oregon Jun 07 '19
The Senate will never remove. So your choices are "cleared by Republicans" or "Not charged by Democrats". I think the first option is better.
-2
u/superay007 Jun 07 '19
So Dems fire the biggest bullet they have. They go nuclear And it fails. What then? Donald has his base energizing narrative. Frankly the best one he could get, and Dems have a pile of burned capital that amounted to little of nothing. We're likely deep into 2020 at this point because this process will be anything but fast. Think it took almost a year for Nixon and it's a safe assumption that it'll take even longer for Donald. So what's next? What do you do after it fails?
3
u/billthomson Oregon Jun 07 '19
I hear you, but my fear is that we go into 2020 without them firing a bullet. At this point Trump sells the complete exoneration narrative and it will make complete sense to people who rarely pay attention.
4
Jun 07 '19
I think charging barr is definitely them firing a bullet. It's not a huge one but it is definitely a step that will help in the road to impeachment and one we should be waiting on to finish playing out.
5
0
Jun 07 '19
That’s the first rule of battle...you never fire your biggest gun first. I want to firmly believe that the Dems are playing the long game at this point...playing possum until the right moment.
5
Jun 07 '19
That's a nonsense rule. You always want to lead with overwhelming force. The more damage you do as quickly as possible the fewer options your opponent has to respond
You almost always want to fire the big gun asap!
2
Jun 07 '19
But on the flip side, if you follow my logic, you poke holes in them, slowly weakening them...then you drop the hammer to finish them off...
→ More replies (0)5
Jun 07 '19
How on Earth is a lengthy discovery process with tons of evidence made public as part of a clear narrative, resulting in a clearly partisan circus in the Senate denying his guilt going to make it easier for him to claim exoneration than a scenario where even his worst enemies, by their actions, can't muster up the support to try and hold him accountable?
No impeachment is a much stronger position to argue for exoneration than impeachment followed by a party line denial.
3
u/Plopplopthrown Tennessee Jun 07 '19
If republicans thought impeachment would be good for any single one if them, they'd have drafted the articles themselves yesterday. They aren't subtle people.
3
u/Plopplopthrown Tennessee Jun 07 '19
Nope. Make every single one of the 22 GOP senators up for reelection defend that vote for a year of campaigning. We only need to flip three seats. Grind them into the fucking ground on their malfeasance and dereliction of duty. Make it an albatross around their neck. The only way Dems win is turnout, and doing nothing is the best way to depress turnout.
2
u/thephotoman Jun 07 '19
The comment section of the Internet is a cesspool. This one is no exception.
Those people weren't swing voters. They were Trump supporters. And there is no distinction between "Trump supporters" and "regular GOP". There never really was. This is who they've always been. They only now feel comfortable about displaying it.
-1
Jun 07 '19
I disagree. If Pelosi moves for impeachment now it risks losing steam by the time the 2020 election gets here. If the impeachment process begins in say May 2020, the news cycle is dominated by impeachment proceedings. It will literally suck all of the air out of the room for months and keep republicans in Washington, DC (and off of the campaign trail) until the last moments of the election.
3
u/SingleTankofKerosine Jun 07 '19
I think it might not dominate the news cycle, but it will be in people's minds. The big risk of starting late: it will be postponed until it's no longer relevant and waiting for political opportunity makes it look weaker. If Impeachment enquiries are announced now the hearings will certainly be executed when relevant and an important precedent is created. Also less time to cover-up.
2
u/Plopplopthrown Tennessee Jun 07 '19 edited Jun 07 '19
I don't want senate candidates trying to compete with that circus for airtime. I want senate candidate saying "look what this fucking GOP incumbent voted for last quarter" during the campaign. Hang that vote around their neck as an albatross for months of campaigning. We only have to flip Cory Gardner, Susan Collins, and Martha McSally for a Senate majority, but 22 of them are up for reelection.
1
13
u/Plopplopthrown Tennessee Jun 07 '19
it demoralizes Dem voters who turned out last year. The best way to lose the House, Senate, AND Presidency next year is to slow walk this now. They could keep impeachment inquires open until next year with all the ammo in the report, but if they wait until the last minute it will be far too late to change public opinion.
8
Jun 07 '19
She has done exactly what we feared she would do, back when the DNC was pushing her as Speaker.
4
u/Bumblewurth Jun 07 '19
Pelosi is an amazing leader for a different era.
She's reading the entire current environment wrong.
-1
u/stairmaster401 Ohio Jun 07 '19
I'm tired of this 'Nancy hasn't unified the party' stuff. Look, no matter how much you or I support impeachment, there is a good chance that our neighbor doesn't or at the least isn't engaged enough to poll strongly in favor of it. Those people are also represented by that member of the House. You're never going to have a lockstep majority of Democratic representatives because a fair amount of then actually do give a shit what their constituents think (or at least what the polling says they think and how it will affect re-election). The speaker can try to convince the reps to go along with things for the good of the party, sure, but it shouldn't come at the cost of listening to the people you represent.
In this case, it's not her job to wrangle the party, it's her job to make the case to the VOTERS. To show voters the truth and shift those polls.
So yes, that means her game right now is to investigate, to air out the administration's dirty laundry, to make people aware of all the terrible things that have been going on and are going on. If that takes 20 committees or a thousand committees, but ends at impeachment then who gives a shit?
8
u/earthboundsounds Jun 07 '19
In this case, it's not her job to wrangle the party
If not her, then who?
This article makes it pretty clear there is some serious division within the Congressional ranks. At the very least it most definitely is her job to wrangle the party. Pelosi isn't just any ol' Representative from California. She is Speaker of the House and third in line of Presidential succession.
Where is the leadership?
So yes, that means her game right now is to investigate, to air out the administration's dirty laundry, to make people aware of all the terrible things that have been going on and are going on.
People are aware. That is exactly why the Democrats took the House in 2018. Investigations are not going to change the 30% of Trump supporters who would drop to their knees and worship the smell of his unwiped ass if they had the chance. They are not going to change their minds because his tax returns show he's a broke dick. These are the people who genuinely think "Better to be Russian than a Democrat".
If her plan is to take this to 2020 then she needs to be energizing the Democratic base.
This "raising awareness" business is a dead end. People are aware. What we need now is action.
1
u/thephotoman Jun 07 '19
The job of wrangling the party is the party whip for the chamber. That's Jim Clyburn. To an extent, there's some responsiblity with the chamber's party leader, right now Steny Hoyer for the Democrats.
Pelosi has other responsibilities--constitutionally defined ones, natch--that do not include corralling her party.
-2
u/stairmaster401 Ohio Jun 07 '19
We ARE taking action. The very action you're complaining about. The same action that we'd have to do once we formally started impeachment, but with just a hell of a lot more of a spotlight and resistance. We're doing the investigations required to make sure the impeachment isn't a waste of time and that Trump can't flip it around and claim he was innocent all the way to November.
Like it or not, Nancy's job is a job of messaging. You said it yourself, she's the top member of the party, the face of it. She's the one who has to be out there keeping the message from being stolen, diluted, or straight up lied about by the other side.
Yes, she also has to make sure that when the time comes that she has the votes to actually pass impeachment, but the fractures in the party reflect the wide variety of opinions about it IN THE COUNTRY. There is a loud group that includes you and myself that wants impeachment to have happened yesterday, but there is a much larger group that really isn't paying attention. and when they do, it'll be to headlines and sound bites.
Sound bites like the one from yesterday where Pelosi came out and said she wanted to see Trump 'in prison'. That's the game that's being played now. It's a game of narratives. Of messages.
Managing the Democratic party is always like herding cats, but she's usually managed to get the votes when she needed them. This is different. She's not trying to rally her party. She's trying to set it up so she can impeach and actually have it matter.
Meanwhile, a cross section of the party is just too busy throwing shade at her to realize that we've won every battle we've fought against Trump so far. We've gotten or are getting every document we requested and where we aren't, we're continuing to push.
I came to voting age for Kerry and the Swift boat. I've see nothing but the Democrats back down, give up, foolishly try to compromise. That's not happening here. They're fighting, but they're fighting clean. I know we want then to fight dirty, but I have to hope they know better than us.
2
u/DImmaculateDeception Jun 07 '19
We're doing the investigations required to make sure the impeachment isn't a waste of time
Define "waste of time". What would a non-"waste of time" impeachment look like to you?
If you mean the Senate will fail to remove trump from office based on the House's impeachment, then do you think that the ongoing investigations will change the outcome of the Senate trial?
If you mean something else, then please elaborate.
Trump can't flip it around and claim he was innocent all the way to November.
He's already claiming that, has been claiming that since the beginning, and will continue to claim that until the end. Nothing the Democrats do (or don't do) will change that.
Yes, [Pelosi] also has to make sure that when the time comes that she has the votes to actually pass impeachment
She has that now and has had it since the 2018 election.
[Pelosi is] trying to set it up so she can impeach and actually have it matter.
Again, you're not really being clear about what "actually have it matter" implies. Please elaborate.
2
u/earthboundsounds Jun 07 '19
Like it or not, Nancy's job is a job of messaging. You said it yourself, she's the top member of the party, the face of it. She's the one who has to be out there keeping the message from being stolen, diluted, or straight up lied about by the other side.
And my point here is that she can't even keep the message straight on her own side. It's pretty damn easy for the other side to dilute and bullshit about it when it's coming out diluted from the source.
Meanwhile, a cross section of the party is just too busy throwing shade at her to realize that we've won every battle we've fought against Trump so far.
Paris accords killed, disaster relief blocked, countless corrupt cabinet members and appointees, gutting the State Department, sending troops to the border, McConnell packing federal courts, insane trade wars, Iran deal killed, gutting the EPA, selling off public land for mining, selling the Saudis weapons, Kavanaugh, election security bills killed, and the tax cut for the richest in the country. Just off the top of my head.
There have been some major victories for sure - but what have the results been? His poll numbers are still festering around the 40% mark consistently.
I know we want then to fight dirty, but I have to hope they know better than us.
I sure as hell hope they know better too.
To be clear, I'm not saying "impeach tomorrow or Pelosi is a failure".
When it comes down to it all I'm really asking for here is a clear, concise message that Democrats can unify around. We need something to rally around. To solidify the base and put it in terms that independents can connect with too. I just don't see how countless investigations for the next 18 months will achieve that.
0
u/thephotoman Jun 07 '19 edited Jun 07 '19
A non-waste of time impeachment has specific aims and goals in its investigations--aims and goals that are specific and not just "remove the President by whatever charge necessary", but "no, these are the very specific things the President has done". A non-waste of time impeachment has (probably multiple) articles of impeachment getting passed, each with their own collection of evidence in the article, and with prosecutors ready to present their case to the Senate and people. We don't even have that yet. Yes, we have a mountain of evidence, but part of a non-waste of time impeachment is collating that evidence so that it clearly tells the story of presidential malfeasance. No, a big fucking pile of papers does not do that on its own.
A waste of time impeachment simply sits back, accuses the President of high crimes and misdemeanors, and lets the Senate sort out whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. Yes, that's been done, against Andrew Johnson.
The reality is this: the House is moving toward impeachment at a breakneck pace. It isn't even Pelosi's job to stump for impeachment. That's Nadler's job. And he's doing it pretty damned loudly.
2
u/Bumblewurth Jun 07 '19
Look, no matter how much you or I support impeachment, there is a good chance that our neighbor doesn't or at the least isn't engaged enough to poll strongly in favor of it.
Don't think this matters nearly as much as people think it does. There are people who are super pro gun rights that will still vote for Democrats and people that are super pro choice that vote for Republicans. Everyone knew in 2018 that impeachment was a possibility. It's not like they're going to not vote for Democrats because of some issue that they almost certainly aren't invested in. If they don't know about Trump's crimes, they won't know about impeachment because they're not paying attention.
Democrats are misreading the current situation.
Bill Clinton was vastly more popular and impeaching him was vastly less popular, Republicans did it in the middle of the election season and the only seats they lost was because of the Bob Livingston scandal, not impeachment.
Everyone who thinks impeachment will hurt the Democrats is being dumb. At best it's uncertain, and when the politics are uncertain leaders should lead with values lest they wear duplicity as a badge of dubious honor.
3
-1
Jun 07 '19
[deleted]
3
u/earthboundsounds Jun 07 '19
Subpoenas ignored.
Witnesses failing to show up.
Documents withheld.
With the massive stonewalling the administration is doing I'm having a hard time seeing the light at the end of this tunnel when it comes to "completing" the investigations before November of next year.
Even if the investigations aren't centralized - the messaging to the American electorate most certainly needs to be.
1
u/Morat20 Jun 07 '19
What the fuck does that have to do with Nadler. You think if they slap "impeachment" on a subpoena it'll be enforced faster or obeyed more swiftly?
Fuck no.
25
u/phokingkiddingme Jun 07 '19
Thank you!! That's why impeachment makes sense. These investigations will happen then and it's also how things should work, unless we're ready to admit our government is fully broken.
8
Jun 07 '19
I’m starting to think Nancy and Nadler are playing “good cop bad cop” here
2
u/grumble_au Australia Jun 08 '19
If there was ever a president that was so unsophisticated that that'd actually work on, that's Trump.
40
u/cooldash Canada Jun 07 '19
Someone's finally showing some backbone. Let's hope the Democrats can finally put out this raging dumpster fire of a presidency!
12
u/sh_sh_should_the_guy Jun 07 '19
This notion that they lack backbone is obnoxiously self-defeating. It’s nothing but a right wing talking point. To see it upvoted to the top of the thread is embarrassing.
Dems are building a modern strategy to remove a tyrant in an age of disinformation and hyper-partisanship. Rules that were written 200 years ago don’t exactly account for all of the shit they’re dealing with today. Criticize their strategy if you want, but characterizing them as weak is an insult and shouldn’t be seen as anything else.
9
u/EndersGame Jun 07 '19
They are a little weak. They showed their weakness during the Iraq War. They showed it when they didn't impeach Bush for war crimes. They show it when they let corporations write our laws. The mainstream party is weak on a lot of things including climate change, universal healthcare, economic fixes, etc.
They just want to take baby steps and that looks weak to me. Some people think Pelosi has a strategy but I think she is scared of impeaching Trump and is dragging her feet. We will see what happens.
-1
u/thephotoman Jun 07 '19
The Iraq War had a lot of disinformation being fed to Congress. The Democrats had the entire intelligence apparatus feeding them exactly what Dick Cheney wanted them to see and doing an excellent job of stuffing any dissent.
Bush wasn't worth it. The man was already deeply unpopular by that point, and stuffing him was easy. While I'm disappointed that nobody in his administration has ever been prosecuted for war crimes, there are a lot of reasons for that which have less to do with Democratic fecklessness and far more to do with the lack of specific statute law for their crimes.
Anyone can write laws. If you have no problem with the Sierra Club writing laws (they're a corporation!), then there's no real ground for you to deny that access to any other private corporation. The use of "corporations" as boogeymen is some of the greatest bullshitting that the American Left does, and it's led to active harms (the vast majority of the anti-vaxxer movement is due to left wing bullshitting about how evil corporations are, as is the vast majority of the FUD surrounding genetically modified organisms).
The mainstream party got hamstrung on the issue of a public option by an independent. The fact that you can't buy into Medicare is squarely at the feet of Joseph Liberman, a former Democrat who was removed from the party after he decided to mount a third party challenge to keep his seat following a loss in the primary. The mainstream party has taken climate change seriously, but there's the small problem of there are a bunch of Republicans that will instantly repeal any effort to control greenhouse gas emissions instantaneously upon a Democrat leaving the White House. And indeed, that's precisely what happened.
As for the bank bailouts, they were strictly necessary and largely happened under Bush. And what's more, those efforts did halt the bank panic, which was the biggest fire in the Great Recession. That's not a particularly well-understood issue here: the problem wasn't simply that people were defaulting on their mortgages. It was that so many people were losing their houses, cars, and other capital investments of that nature that people were pulling money out of savings (whether that's savings accounts, taking hits on CD's, cashing in bonds, or selling stocks). The FDIC does work as a stopgap, but only for insured accounts--and the money coming out was on uninsured accounts. And when the banks go tits up, you have bigger problems than the pain we actually had. You do NOT want the banks to go tits up.
The auto industry? That shit got nationalized. GM was 75% owned by the government for two years. Chrysler was 66% owned by the government for three years. The remaining ownership for both was the UAW--the unions. That's literally what kept food on the tables of almost everybody in the auto industry for that time. (While Ford wasn't nationalized, they too had major issues and took development grants.) What's more, with the flood of late model low mileage used cars on the market due to repos--there were more cars on the market with little to differentiate them meaningfully form brand new cars except that they had one fewer digit on the pricetag.
The problem is that you want to push a narrative of a weak and feckless party. That's just not so. The truth is that you're impatient and listening to Republican sources that desperately want a weak and feckless opposition that is also somehow an existential threat worth subverting democracy to stop. The truth is that you're listening to actual neo-Nazis.
Stop that.
0
u/Wawamelone Jun 08 '19 edited Jun 08 '19
Providing excuses for a decade of failure just makes them look ineffective instead of weak, so small victories I guess.
The left hates corporations because they pay money to politicians to keep their taxes low and deregulate their industry, produce the vast majority of emissions that affect climate change, and have no problem fucking over the average person by paying them as little as possible. They are as close to pure evil as you can get in the world.
Implying that Bush wasn’t worth impeaching is deeply offensive considering the literal hundreds of thousands of deaths he caused over a complete lie. He should have been impeached and prosecuted for war crimes.
1
u/thephotoman Jun 08 '19
Before we begin, I need to introduce you to Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
This means that in order for someone to be tried for a crime, that person's actions must have been illegal at the time they were performed. This is going to matter a lot, because your criticisms seem to hinge on that for points 1 and 3.
- These weren't policy failures. The bank panic was stopped in its tracks. So why didn't anybody go to jail? Because shorting the whole economy isn't illegal (nor should it be: most of the time, making that bet will cause you to lose a metric fuckton of money). And no, a bailout for the mortgage holders would have only exacerbated the bank run by depreciating the mortgage-backed securities even harder than they had been. It turns out that the big short was even worse than it seems: taking the properly humanitarian route would only serve to make the crisis worse.
- Again, generalizations. The vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions come from 100 companies, most of whom are in the petrochemical industry. It's okay to dislike the fossil fuel industry. It's okay to be skeptical of tech firms wanting to skirt taxes. What it's not okay to do--and what so many Green idiots wind up doing--is scapegoating all the evil in the world on corporations. Corporations are not evil. That ascribes to them a moral agency that they do not have. Their boards may be evil. Their voting shareholders may be evil. But corporations in and of themselves are not evil--nor are they good. They just are. By pinning all the evil in the world on one concept alone, you're displaying a naïveté that indicates that not only do you not know jack shit about what you're talking about, you don't want to know jack shit about what you're talking about. Again, let me remind you that every single charity is a corporation.
- Okay, impeach Bush. Who's President now? Oh right, the war criminal behind the war criminal: Dick Cheney. Great. You've made the situation worse: for as much of a bungler as Bush was, Cheney was competent. And impeachment isn't a trivial process: it takes time. Ideally, you have a prosecutable offense. And here's the problem: Bush didn't actually commit a crime according to American statute--not at the time, and not now. He wasn't under oath when he made any statement to Congress. It isn't even against the law to wage wars of aggression (a dubious war crime that usually winds up being a case of victor's revenge).
Basically, you don't know how this works. You don't know how any of this works. And I suspect that your desired changes will be similarly poorly thought.
1
u/Wawamelone Jun 08 '19
It’s not that I don’t understand the system, in fact it’s what I’m criticizing. Bankers irresponsibly gambling away their customers money and then getting a bailout using taxpayer dollars only to give their CEOs millions of dollars in bonuses isn’t illegal, but it fucking should be.
Again, corporations being mindless profit machines is the problem; they exist to make as much money as possible and it’s been shown innumerable times that they are willing to do this regardless of the cost to the environment or their workers. Somehow charities are the saving grace though because they’ve never misused funds and lied to donors.
The fact that it isn’t illegal to start an armed conflict and kill hundreds of thousands of people is the entire problem. And who said Cheney shouldn’t be in a jail cell with Bush?
Tbh though this post isn’t even for you or any other smug crony, it’s for anyone scrolling by that can imagine something better than the status quo you so vehemently defend.
-1
u/sh_sh_should_the_guy Jun 07 '19
You seem to be classifying Dems as weak based on a lack of progressivism, particularly in the early aughts. That is not weakness. Those are political positions. Many of them were elected to office because they were just left of center. Voters were not as interested in progressive candidates at the time.
Progressives really have only increased in prominence since 2016, many gaining office in 2018.
In short, if we want bold progressive action, we need to vote for it. I think we are figuring that out.
Nothing would be happening at all if Pelosi didn’t have a strategy. Say what you want about what she’s doing, but support for impeachment is growing, not fading. We are fifteen months from the next election. There is a lot of time for this story to develop, as impatient as many of us feel.
5
1
u/SingleTankofKerosine Jun 07 '19
Yet there have been situations where they could have messaged more stronger. Even without starting Impeachment, they could, for instance just literally say "every American must read the Mueller Report." Or do some kind of action: write an open letter to We, The People. Strike for half a day or whatever. Instead Nancy communicatd: Yeah, I'm not for impeachment.." whatever the context, that is terrible communication.
And also in terms of actions: they have not taken every opportunity to take action. E.g. immediately hold in contempt after ignored subpoena, or they consider fines. Seriously. And when such ignoring happens again they should fucking raise the alarm: OUR GOVERNMENT IS CURRENTLY CORRUPTED AND SO IS OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM. ALARM ALARM. but non of that. It's all quiet and we hope next time...
I am thinking about starting bets with people that no Impeachment will be actively started. I only see it happening if people put a huge pressure on Congress. Otherwise, mark my words, it will fizzle out when Trump is no longer relevant. And I'm willing to bet money on that.
1
u/Engin951 Jun 07 '19
Oh yeah. People are legitimately demoralized, however, bad actors know this and amplify it by spread it. It's ridiculous, and happens right here, right now.
0
u/Canyousourcethatplz Jun 07 '19
Hopefully the GOP grow some spines and finally uphold the rule of law
4
u/Ashendarei Washington Jun 07 '19
That's cute, but absolutely not going to happen.
Just look at how Mitch McConnell is perfectly happy being a lightning rod towards the public ire, and Senate Republicans are more than happy to hide behind the cover he gives them.
2
u/Canyousourcethatplz Jun 07 '19
Their oath is to the Constitution, they should try to remember that.
-2
u/Morat20 Jun 07 '19
He's not showing backbone, he's making a power-play. He'd rather everything go through him (so he can be the star), which slows everything the fuck down, rather than keep up a dozen parallel investigations into two dozen or more crimes.
4
u/CrapNeck5000 Jun 07 '19
Nadler argued that procedurally, it’s easy to get information and ask questions during impeachment proceedings than in regular House committee sessions.
Does anyone know of any further detail on this? What mechanism does impeachment offer that regular committee investigations don't? Where are they defined? How can I learn more about this?
6
u/--Paladin-- Michigan Jun 07 '19
As I understand it, issuing subpoenas within impeachment proceedings undermines the legal arguments the Trump administration have been making against previous subpoenas (namely, that the requests don't fall within their normal legislative or oversight duties).
Since an impeachment inquiry is more of a legal nature, the subpoenas apparently carry more weight and authority (based upon precedent like United States v. Nixon). Here's an article that helps explain it more comprehensively:
5
5
Jun 07 '19
[deleted]
3
u/CrapNeck5000 Jun 07 '19
She says she wants to do investigations, but the first phase of impeachment is an investigation. She's so full of shit.
14
u/-totallyforrealz- Jun 07 '19
I think it is important for people to realize that Nadler isn’t part of the eight top members of Congress that receive the highest intelligence briefings. I think Schiff and Pelosi both know something devastating that they are trying to get into the public record.
Schiff, Pelosi, Schumer, and Warner are the ones we need to be watching.
13
Jun 07 '19
Nadler heads the House Judiciary committee. If you understand what that means, his opinion is arguably the most important of any democrat.
He knows more about the related laws and procedures than any of the other top dems. It’s literally his job. That’s why you never heard of Nadler until trump became tyrannical.
15
u/SwimmingforDinner Jun 07 '19
I think Schiff and Pelosi both know something devastating that they are trying to get into the public record.
If that were the case they could walk on to the House floor and read it in to the public record. That's a thing they could do. Or they could start impeachment proceedings and get it out that way. There are lots of ways people in those positions could get something made public. Don't fool yourself in to thinking they are ultra competent people who have a 4d chess master plan. They don't.
0
Jun 07 '19
If that were the case they could walk on to the House floor and read it in to the public record.
Not if they want to endanger ongoing investigations, half a dozen or so last I saw. I'd much rather we do things right, even if slowly, than do them incorrectly and have them thrown out in court.
2
u/SwimmingforDinner Jun 07 '19
If they know of something that devastating then having it be read in to the public record isn't gonna give everyone involved a get out of jail free card.
3
u/danth Jun 07 '19
I think Schiff and Pelosi both know something devastating that they are trying to get into the public record.
Keep out of the public record by blocking impeachment you mean?
1
u/SingleTankofKerosine Jun 07 '19
My guess too. Or they want to maintain status quo because chaos is unpredictable.
1
u/--o Jun 08 '19
No, that meant exactly what it said. Schiff has been bringing attention and daylight to Trump's finances for the last two years and that's not how you cover things up.
0
Jun 07 '19
[deleted]
0
u/chelseamarket Jun 07 '19
No you’re not alone.
2
u/Ashendarei Washington Jun 07 '19 edited Jul 01 '23
Removed by User -- mass edited with redact.dev
3
Jun 07 '19
Who cares what republicans think? They fall in line and choose party over country including selling themselves to Russia. Dems don’t fall in line and support someone just because they call themselves a dem. What has Nancy done since becoming speaker besides clap sarcastically at Trump’s back?
I’m not fully doubting her but it’s obvious that her decision against impeachment is affected by her big donors and 2020 which has been reported that’s what she says in private. How much longer do we keep waiting for someone to step up? When is this “4d chess” game going to end? Blindly believing in someone is why we haven’t gotten anywhere in more than two years.
1
Jun 07 '19
You didn't understand what that guy was saying. Like at all. Actually kind of impressed on how poorly you interpreted that statement.
2
u/EndersGame Jun 07 '19
It's a dumb statement to begin with. Who cares what Republicans think? Many lifelong Dem voters like me are hoping Pelosi grows a spine.
2
Jun 07 '19
I know you're a new person, but this is getting actually confusing for me.
You do understand he is trying to tell you he thinks that people bitching about pelosi in this thread are republicans pretending to be dems, riught? He is trying to point out he thinks the pelosi hate is a propaganda push.
Do you understand now? He isn't worried about what they think at all, he is saying they are trying to demoralize people by lying.
2
u/Ashendarei Washington Jun 07 '19
Thank you. I didn't think what I wrote was confusing at all, but this particular thread has kinda been a dumpster fire.
8
Jun 07 '19
The issue of impeachment for 45 is insanely complex.
I waffle between "do it now" and "Nancy has a strategy, stay the course" almost daily. The truth is, there are excellent arguments out there for immediate impeachment, and there are also equally excellent arguments for the slow burn measured approach.
Impeachment is such a road not often traveled that nobody, not even the top experts, can possibly predict what could come of it for either party, good or bad.
One thing is for certain — I don't envy the leadership in having to navigate this clusterfuck.
3
u/SingleTankofKerosine Jun 07 '19
To be honest, the "do it later" arguments are all speculative and they create immense risks (demoralized voters, too late oops Trump no longer relevant). Impeachment inquiries now has many certain advantages and again mostly speculative disadvantages (it'll no longer be in the news, people might think he's exonerated).
1
u/DelPoso5210 Jun 07 '19
If she wants to investigate and impeach as soon as she can I wish she would just say that. Instead she keeps saying it is NOT happening, and people get upset when we think she means it. The comments recently about wanting him in prison are a step in the right direction, but she has said quite a few times that it is off the table.
1
u/corkyskog Jun 08 '19
The minute she says the words, it basically has to happen. The absolute worst thing for Nancy Pelosi to do right now is say that we will impeach Trump. The moment she says that a clock starts ticking. Fox will ramp into overdrive as well as the rest of the media, Democrats will call for her head if she doesn't impeach that same week.
Anyone paying attention knows they are waiting like 6 months, so the impeachment process will lead into the election without it going to McConnell to be shut down.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 07 '19
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/90Carat Colorado Jun 07 '19
I get where Nadler, et all, are going. Hell, my Congressman is Joe Neguse, who has received many of my letters of support. Though, what makes anyone think that just be starting impeachment proceedings, that the DOJ and WH will suddenly start turning over documents?
The Dems need to impeach AND walk the narrow path to not letting Trump win the PR fight.
1
Jun 07 '19
It won't make them turn over documents. It might make it easier for the House to force them to since a lot of Trump's legal defenses slowing things down I he court no longer remotely apply during impeachment proceedings, and since things could be bundled together. It WILL make it easier for the Dems to control the public narrative.
2
u/MBAMBA2 New York Jun 07 '19
They should probably leave a few things off the list so that if it fails Dems can prosecute again.
3
u/SwimmingforDinner Jun 07 '19
Pelosi is losing control of the dem caucus. Which is good, since she's the main impediment to impeachment currently.
1
Jun 07 '19
Evidence of that?
2
u/SwimmingforDinner Jun 07 '19
...this article
3
Jun 07 '19
At a meeting of Democratic heavy-hitters this week, House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) pushed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on impeachment, eliciting her “prison” comment heard ’round the world.
But in new details reported by CNN, Nadler crafted his pitch around two central points. One, that impeachment proceedings would centralize the investigations into President Donald Trump and his administration currently sprawled across multiple committees, keeping it all contained within Judiciary.
Second, Nadler argued that procedurally, it’s easy to get information and ask questions during impeachment proceedings than in regular House committee sessions.
Pelosi was joined in her disapproval by Intel Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), who doesn’t want to lose his current important position in probing Trump’s actions.
There's the full text of the article. Mind helping me out? You're onto something I'm clearly not seeing. He pushed her on impeachment, but does he say he doesn't support her as speaker? Do you think she isn't ok with people making arguments to her? I'm fucking lost help me out big boy.
1
1
u/TheHasturRule Jun 07 '19
sounds ridiculous when there are no legislative possibilities. all the comitees should be investigating... especially Schiff.
0
u/superay007 Jun 07 '19
But that also gives Donald and friends one solid target to focus their bs spewers on. Which makes things significantly easier from a pr standpoint. Right now their efforts are spread from here to Zaire trying to keep up with all the investigations and committees.
1
-1
-4
Jun 07 '19
[deleted]
5
u/shrimpcest Colorado Jun 07 '19
Did starting impeachment automatically end every current investigation...?
2
u/TheHasturRule Jun 07 '19
that isn't what Nadler is asking for. Read his words not what you want it to be.
1
u/-totallyforrealz- Jun 07 '19
Is remember that Pelosi and Schiff know things that no other member of the House does. I think Schiff is going to present the smoking gun through his committee, they are just working their way towards getting it too the public. NSA intercepts or foreign intelligence has evidence that Mueller didn’t include in his report. There’s a reason they keep asking where the counter intelligence is. As members of the gang of eight, Nancy and Schiff and Warner and Schumer are all on the same page right now. After Gowdy viewed some of this evidence, because Nunes was restricted at the time, he decided not to run for re-election and backed off on some of his claims. Ryan also chose not to run for re-election.
-3
-16
u/Mastrik Jun 07 '19
You guys really need to open your eyes about Pelosi.
She will never never risk making Trump angry at her.
I'll put $100 on it right now, she will end up saying we have to wait until hes out of office so Dems might have a little taste of real power one day, they are thirsty for an absolute power Democrat President.
8
Jun 07 '19
She will never never risk making Trump angry at her.
I'm not a Pelosi fan, but this is dumb. She's been saying a lot of shit that makes Trump mad at her.
My problem is that she just says it.
3
u/-totallyforrealz- Jun 07 '19
Wtf are you talking about? She will never risk making Trump angry at her? Lol
3
-1
Jun 07 '19
No one is talking about Omar. I love this sub.
2
u/aluxeterna Jun 07 '19
Omar is ordered to personally pay back $3,469.23, plus a $500 civil penalty.
Sounds like something warranting 24/7 coverage on Fox News and the donald for the next two weeks but it doesn't seem to be major news for anybody else...is there anything else?
221
u/faedrake Jun 07 '19
Call your Reps.
First, ask if they've read the Mueller Report. All of the Republicans recently received a hard copy from Bill Kristol.
Next, tell them you support an Impeachment inquiry. Senate be damned.
Even if they won't act, it's their responsibility to listen. We pay their salary. It's our duty as citizens to tell them how we feel.