Nancy, please, please impeach the evil creature

[Cyrano]

We already know that McConnell and the rest of the Republican cult won't remove him.

But enough will be made public during impeachment hearings to screw the GOP beyond repair.

Check out the reverse scenario. You do nothing. Dem voters get pissed. The creature gets reelected. American democracy is gone. -- Will this come to be? I don't know. And neither do you.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're right. However, doing nothing is very rarely the right thing to do.

Future history may prove you right. My fear is that no one will be around to write future history.

You have the power. A couple of million of us don't. Please, think about what you do next.

[Skittles]

1. she's playing chess or........something

[50 Shades Of Blue]

2. K & R!

[PSPS]

3. "You have the power" -- Um, no. She doesn't.

218 members have to approve impeachment. So far, 50 have indicated support. I wonder why are so many on DU are ignoring reality.

[Nevermypresident]

37. How many of those Dems in Congress will add to the 50 if she decides to go for it?

Quite a few...that's reality.

[Lunabell]

4. Impeach the motherfucker already!

I'm so sick of political games. He's practically getting away with murder!

[UniteFightBack]

5. You're sick of political games, well impeachment is a political process so I'm glad we have

politicians who are thinking with their HEADS, not their hearts.

[Thekaspervote]

20. It's not political games.. far from it

2 things: madam speaker does not have the votes to impeach. Secondly, the gopeeee senate has made it abundantly clear they don’t care what he has done, they will exonerate him, he then cannot be charged with those crimes and walks free.

That’s not what you want... is it?

[StarfishSaver]

24. He can still be charged with crimes, even if he's not removed by the Senate

It would have to wait until he's out of office, but he can still be subject to criminal prosecution then.

[StarfishSaver]

6. Actually, you have considerably more power than you give yourself credit for

One of the reasons the Speaker hasn't called the vote is that not enough Members of her caucus support it. And it's not the Speaker's job to force every Member of her caucus to do what she wants them to do when they're not ready. But it is OUR - as in the constituents - job to force them to get ready if that's what you want.

Speaker Pelosi isn't the problem or the holdup. The constituents are. Either too few of them support impeachment or too few of them have communicated to their representative that they support impeachment. That's on US, not her.

What are you doing to urge (or force, if necessary) your congressperson to support impeachment? What are you doing to encourage your friends, neighbors, family and co-workers to weigh in with their representatives? Are you helping to eduate people in your community about what's in the Mueller Report, the many other reasons Trump deserves to be impeached and removed, about how the impeachme not process works, etc.?

If you're already engaging in real world activity to help influence votes, that's awesome. I'd love it if you would share what you're doing so others can get ideas of what they can do.

If you're not, please consider doing so. Because, while railing at "Nancy" on online discussion boards might be cathartic, it's not going to change one Members position on impeachment from no to yes.

[Nevermypresident]

38. I'm not at all sure about that. Nancy is a pro at swaying and getting the support from

her colleagues.

Gambling is illegal in my state; otherwise, I would be willing to bet that number would increase dramatically if and when Speaker Pelosi supported Articles of Impeachment.

[StarfishSaver]

39. She is a pro at it. But she is not a wizard and can't be expected to sway 200 members on her own

Their constituents have to help push from below. I'm amazed and disappointed at how easily so many of them shirk their own responsibility and expect the Speaker of the House do everything for them.

If people want their Members to change their minds, they need to push them to do it and not sit back and tell the Speaker to do it for them.

I have a feeling that they wouldn't think too kindly of the Speaker unilaterally forcing their representatives to go against the will of their constituents if the issue involved something they DIDN'T want.

[Nevermypresident]

41. I never said "force". I stand by my opinion. Hopefully, we'll have the chance to see

which one of us is correct!

[EffieBlack]

7. I'm sure she'll take your instructions under advisement

[Captain Stern]

8. What you're saying just doesn't make sense to me.

You said:

Check out the reverse scenario. You do nothing. Dem voters get pissed. The creature gets reelected.

What does this mean?

Do you mean that some of us will be so angry about not having the guy we hate impeached, that we will then actually vote for that guy in 2020? I hope that's not what you mean, because that's just silly.

Or, do you mean that some of us that want trump gone, would stay home and not vote against him in 2020 if he's not impeached now. That really doesn't make sense either. That would essentially mean that there are a significant amount of Democrats that want trump out now, that would be willing to risk having him stay in office (by not voting against him) until 2025. I hope that's not what you're saying either, because that's pretty darn silly too.

[warmfeet]

11. Yes, I think it means some people may stay home and not vote at all.

Most of those may be swing voters, and not Democrats, however.

It does not seem silly to me that swing voters might stay home and refrain from voting. It seems all too believable. Swing voters in swing states elected Trump in the first place.

[Captain Stern]

13. I just don't get it.

That would mean there are people that hate trump so much that they want him impeached right NOW (those aren't swing voters), even though they know it means he won't be removed from office, or disqualified from winning the 2020 election, and that some of those very same people wouldn't dislike him enough to vote against him in 2020.

That just doesn't make any sense at all.

[EffieBlack]

15. You don't get it because it makes no sense whatsoever

[Bettie]

16. Actually, it does

what they see, as people who are not super into politics, is one party doing all kinds of shady stuff and the other party, lying down and accepting it as normal. Doing nothing to stop it.

[Thekaspervote]

21. No.. far from it. No one on the dem side is accepting this a normal

[Bettie]

25. By accepting that no one will give them documents

no one will testify before committees, they do normalize it.

I understand there is no way to enforce any of it, but it still gives the impression of them doing nothing. So, they'll keep asking for documents and none will ever be delivered. They will subpoena people to testify and they will decline to show up and go about their lives as if it never happened.

With W and Cheny, Nancy Pelosi said "Impeachment is off the table". That, unfortunately, set the table for this.

Wonder how awful the next criminal will be.

What warrants impeachment if not this orange idiot?

Next guy might hunt humans for sport and Democratic leadership would say "Well, that's not quite enough to warrant impeachment or even censure. But, a sternly worded letter will go to his file!".

Meanwhile, a Democrat in office can wear a tan suit or put a condiment on a hamburger in the wrong way and Republicans gin it up into a constitutional crisis.

I am frustrated.

It looks more and more every day like this is never going to end and that orange assclown will get people to accept his "SEE, I'm totally innocent, Nancy Pelosi recognized this by not even investigating me!"

Few who are politically active look beyond the headlines and sound bytes and that will be the one the media uses. Every. Single. Day.

And in the end, I have come the realization that what kept the system functioning was the assumption that there were rules, but when the rules only apply to one side, hope is pretty freaking hard to come by.

[StarfishSaver]

31. Who's accepted that "no one will give them documents {and} no one will testify"?

The House Democrats certainly haven't.

[JI7]

27. nope this is just bs. if they are actually upset with what is going on they will vote

for Democrats.

otherwise they are just self imporant attention whores who always want others to beg them for support. and will make any excuse for not doing what they claim to want.

[Bettie]

29. Or, their personal economy

is doing fine and there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to go to the trouble of voting.

I have voted in every election (except one primary when I was busy having a baby). I always vote for Democrats. I walk around and knock on doors, even though I have serious anxiety about talking to strangers. I make phone calls, I do what I can and it is never fucking enough.

And now, it isn't OK to hope that someone puts a stop to criminal behavior at the highest level of government because it might upset the apple cart? Lovely.

[JI7]

33. then it means they aren't as upset as they claim to be

the thing to put a stop to trump is to vote him And other republicans out.

impeaching him isn't going to actually get rid of him.

so these people are as i said. mostly self imporant attention whores who really don't care to get rid of him and probably actually want him to remain in office.

[StarfishSaver]

32. Precisely

[Nevermypresident]

40. Are you calling some Democrats "self important attention whores"? Really!?

I guess that the 8 out of 17 family, friends, and colleagues (Democrats all) I have spoken to in the last week and a half are now "self important attention whores".

The 8 said they worked their butts off for the mid-terms for the main reason to have a shot at impeaching trump. They are frustrated, becoming disillusioned and expressed an apathy setting in for they feel the 2020 election with be tampered with in trump's favor. That as well as the fact trump is controlling the narrative and will probably continue to if we don't try to impeach him. They really fear he could be reelected if we continue down the path we are on now.

[JI7]

42. yes, if they aren't going to vote for Democrats they are self imporant

attention whores.

[Nevermypresident]

44. That name calling is reminiscent of a president I know. LOL FYI, they would never vote

Republican, they just might not vote at all. You and I might not like it, but that's what I'm hearing as I stated in my previous post. They are regular every day people, certainly not "self important attention whores".

[JI7]

45. if they don't vote at all they are still attention whore

assholes.

[pdsimdars]

9. Not only will Dems be dampened, but Trump will say, "See they could find nothing to impeach about."

That will be his theme. "If they would have found something, they would have impeached because it's all they wanted."
And, fact is, for the vote on Nixon impeachment, all Dems voted for it and NONE of them from the south lost their seats. That is what Elizabeth Holzman said on AM Joy.

[zentrum]

10. Nancy, please please keep

...doing it just the way you are.

Do not yet impeach.

By televising public investigations the people themselves will start demanding impeachment.

Investgations, on television, first. Get the information out there. Then let the majority demand impeachment.

She's doing it the right way.

[Poppy9159]

12. Impeachment hearings are the way to go

Most opponents of beginning impeachment hearings in the House say that it would be futile because the Senate will never convict. That's correct, but think of this. In effect they are saying that impeachment will never happen in a divided government because the days of Nixon are gone and will probably never return. The result is having negated a part of the Constitution that is integral to checks and balances..

[Thekaspervote]

22. Again, madam speaker does not have the votes to impeach. Secondly the senate will exonerate

And he will walk free. He then cannot be charged later for the terrible crimes he has committed.

Is that what you want?

[Bettie]

30. He'll never be charged anyway

if he ever leaves office, they will all say "Well, he is a former US president, it would be unseemly to charge him with crimes".

[humbled_opinion]

14. While she does nothing

he gets to claim the narrative, the entire GOP is gearing up to promote this insane rhetoric that somehow the entire Mueller investigation was an illegitimate partisan witch hunt. When they start indicting Strozk, Page, McCabe and Comey they will win the narrative war and rRUMP will appear the victim. The only thing that will counter this is an active impeachment investigation that proves he obstructed justice.

[JoeOtterbein]

17. You are correct. We should be much more willing to fight.

I'm starting thin our leadership is getting too tired. They seem slow and uncomfortable taking on the Trump/GOP.

They need to wake up and smell the coffee. Before it's too late!

[smirkymonkey]

18. +1000

[Thekaspervote]

23. Stop!! Bashing our leadership without facing up to the facts of this mess is wrong

[JoeOtterbein]

28. The fact is they are not helping. It is not our fault. nt

[Thekaspervote]

34. Not everyone feels like you do .. that they are not helping

Bashing our leadership doesn’t help

[JoeOtterbein]

35. 73% of Dems want Impeachment now. How much do you need? 80? 90? 200% ?

[JI7]

46. most of their reps already support impeachment

the ones that need to be convinced are those who represent districts where most of those Democrats don't live.

[JoeOtterbein]

48. Exactly the Dems reps we need to get out front on impeachment. It will make them seem brave. Which..

...the "regular" voter actually wants to see. Many indie voters are on the fence ready to follow any leader who seems strong and makes the voter feel stronger.

Frankly, what we are doing now seems like our leaders don't want to face the really tough issues like impeachment. Like just wait long enough and maybe one day we will have a better chance, is a lazy response. I want our voters to feel like we do have hope. We just need to fight like hell to get it.

[JI7]

49. no, it's about individual districts. People in Justin Amash district

would not have given a shit what any Democrat had to say.

people in districts of those who opposed Pelosi for speaker are not going to care what most Democrats say. the individual member from that district would have to convince them.

[Nevermypresident]

43. No, everyone here has a right to their opinion. What "facts"? Every option involves

risks... you decide you position and the rest of us will decide ours.

[watoos]

19. So we must impeach by polls

Maybe I’m wrong but I am under the impression that the #1 duty of Congress is to uphold the law, uphold the Constitution. After that it is the duty of Congress to represent their constituents.

As far as I’m concerned the people who represent our base are blacks and Hispanics. So let’s impeach using polls: black favor impeachment now 70%, Hispanics favor impeachment now 68%.

In 50 years if there are any historians left, they are going to ask why we didn’t do something.

IMO it may already be too late.

[JoeOtterbein]

36. That is what terrifies me. It may already be too late. nt

[AllaN01Bear]

26. the entire executive , republican wing of the senate and the judiciuary should all be impeached.

[PatrickforO]

47. A lot of people on this thread seem to be jumping from point A to point Z before taking

some necessary in-between steps.

Here's something from the NYT, published May 30, 2019.

What is an impeachment inquiry?
Before the House decides whether to impeach a president, the House Judiciary Committee first can hold hearings to investigate whether that step is warranted. This can include calling witnesses, collecting documents and debating whether the behavior in question constitutes an impeachable offense, which the Constitution only ambiguously defines. The inquiry would culminate in the panel either voting to recommend that the full House approve one or more articles of impeachment, or deciding not to make any such recommendation.

What is the process for opening an inquiry?
The full House voted for resolutions directing the House Judiciary Committee to open the inquiries into Mr. Nixon and Mr. Clinton. But it is not clear whether that step is strictly necessary, because impeachment proceedings against other officials, like a former Federal District Court judge in 1989, began at the committee level, congressional aides say.

OK, so let's pull this apart. Several of you are saying Nancy does not have the votes to impeach. However, the House Judiciary Committee can hold hearings to see whether they would be justified in drawing up Articles. See, just saying that is NOT impeachment. And certainly no Articles of Impeachment, for which Nancy does in fact not now have the votes, would be drawn up before taking this necessary step.

Get it? STARTING the impeachment process is quite different from simply drawing up Articles and then calling the question.

The reason I, and so many millions of other Americans are calling for impeachment is because we are appalled at Donald Trump and his utter lawlessness. His treason. His obstruction. And so on.

But I'm NOT calling for a vote RIGHT NOW. That isn't how it's done. FIRST we need hearings. Televised hearings. This will serve to actually educate Americans who aren't aware how much of a dirt-bag Trump really is, and how deserving he is of impeachment.

See, if we were using flow-chart logic, it would look something like this:

1. Speaker and Whip lobby for enough votes to officially begin impeachment HEARINGS by the House Judicial Committee.
2. Conduct the hearings and televise them.
3. The public, based on the televised hearings, will begin to believe that a constitutional crisis exists.
4. When public opinion changes sufficiently, THEN
5. Draw up articles of impeachment, and
6. Call the question.

Why is this politically wise? Well, Pelosi has said that there is 'a school of thought' that believes the Senate refuses to remove the president, then he cannot be charged with crimes after leaving office.

McConnell will NEVER allow the Senate to vote even on a cut-and-dried case, BUT the impeachment hearings won't be trying the president for a Senate vote. THEY WILL BE TRYING THE PRESIDENT BY PUBLICLY TELEVISING THE JUDICIARY'S IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.

What this means, then, to all of us is that Trump will lose big time in 2020. If the people know he committed crimes, they will vote against him, and vote against any Senators who held up the impeachment. McConnell is up for reelection this time around, too.

We have to cut through the right wing propaganda, and the way to do this is the impeachment hearings.

NO ONE who is astute about the political machinations of the US Congress is saying we need an IMPEACHMENT VOTE now. What we need now is to have the House Judiciary Committee officially BEGIN impeachment hearings.

That's ALL people are calling for, you know? That's all I'm calling for. But I AM calling for it because it is the right move - politically and morally.

IDEALLY, I see these impeachment hearings as vital in educating, in awakening the American electorate. I refuse to believe that common decency has become as uncommon as some think it is. In fact, I'm betting on the innate decency of most Americans, who, when exposed to the truth about Trump, will be as appalled as you and I.