NYT - Goldberg "Democratic Voters Want Impeachment. The House Dawdles."

[NRaleighLiberal]

Despite what party leaders say, ordinary people care about Trump’s lawbreaking.


By Michelle Goldberg

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/opinion/impeachment-trump.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Until quite recently, Democratic House leaders justified their refusal to begin an inquiry into impeaching Donald Trump by saying that it wasn’t something their rank-and-file voters cared about. “I can tell you I never hear somebody bring up the Mueller report,” Representative Cheri Bustos, chairwoman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in Chicago last month.

After the Memorial Day recess, that argument is no longer tenable. Across the country, Democratic voters have begun demanding that their representatives take a position on impeachment. “At virtually every town hall, round table, or even, today, a kaffeeklatsch at a senior center, people want to know what we are going to do about this guy,” Mary Gay Scanlon, Democrat of Pennsylvania, told me. Scanlon is vice chairwoman of the Judiciary Committee, which would oversee an impeachment inquiry, and two weeks ago she came out in favor of starting the process.

“There’s been a shift,” said Madeleine Dean, a freshman Democrat from Pennsylvania who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, and also wants to begin an impeachment inquiry. At a town hall last week, one of the first questions she was asked was about impeachment. When she visited local stores and barbershops, she told me, constituents approached her and said, of Trump, “You cannot let the behavior stand.”

On Friday, Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat who is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes that he’d come around to supporting an impeachment inquiry after speaking to people in his district: “To the person, everybody said, ‘What are you all going to do about President Trump?’” Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, told me, “I had about a dozen events this weekend, and there was an overwhelming sense that we have been presented with abundant evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors and we need to launch an inquiry.”


snip

As this drags on, it will be ever more difficult for Democrats to corral public attention. Opening a formal impeachment inquiry would put the question of Trump’s lawbreaking at the center of national life, and could give the House an edge in court. “It is very likely that the courts will regard our investigative powers as being at their zenith in the middle of an impeachment investigation,” said Raskin, who was a constitutional law professor before he got to Congress.

snip

[spanone]

1. K&R...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

2. Thank you... been sayin this for awhile now. Just impeach that POS already!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Me.]

3. And Just Who Is Michele Goldberg

Her stamping her foot and accusing the Dems of possible cowardice is beyond tiresome.

[NRaleighLiberal]

4. Well...I for one completely agree with her. Is our powder dry enough?

[Me.]

6. I Will Never Forget Her Recent Rant Against Dems

and can't remember her holding the Cons responsible for any of this. But to each our own thoughts.

[treestar]

61. It's not cowardly if it's common sense

"Courage" does not always pay off.

[Fullduplexxx]

8. Well she's not the only one and we arent "stomping our feet"

Some are tired of hiding behind one excuse after another

[NRaleighLiberal]

10. THIS.

[Me.]

12. You May Not Be

But she was on a full on rant and as someone who has a venue I ask what has she done to help?

[Thekaspervote]

26. Indeed!!

[redstateblues]

5. Sadly not enough people. Impeachment is under water. Even then, it ends with

a Trump exoneration parade when the Senate refuses to convict.

[Fullduplexxx]

9. The goal of impeachment is impeachment . The senate can refuse to do it's job

But he still gets impeached

[StarfishSaver]

40. Actually, the point of impeachment is to remove an unfit president from office

in between elections. It hasn't resulted in removal yet but the first time came close (within one vote) and the second time it was pursued, the president resigned before surely being removed. The third time was a political stunt launched despite their being no chance of removal.

There's a reason that the Constitution links the House's impeachment power to the Senate's power to try, convict and removed - and makes impeachment the mandatory prerequisite to removal.

This doesn't mean that impeachment can't or shouldn't be pursued unless conviction is assured. But it does suggest that it's incorrect to assume that "the goal of impeachment is impeachment." It was created to be part of a process leading to removal.

[Hoyt]

11. I agree. Mueller's "Our Office did not identify evidence" of collusion/conspiracy

makes successful Impeachment difficult. Obstruction will not take trump down. Really sad.

[mopinko]

13. that's not what it said.

it found evidence, it laid it out, and said that it didnt reach the standard required for criminal prosecution for conspiracy.
and it specifically pointed out that collusion is not a thing in the law.

[Hoyt]

20. Read it. 21 times Mueller said we or our Office "did not find evidence." Further

Last edited Tue Jun 4, 2019, 12:01 AM - Edit history (1)

he excused Kush and Don Jr. for the June 9, 2016 trump tower meeting.

I understand people not wanting to admit impeachment/removal is not going to work. I don’t either.

I don’t get why people can’t admit Mueller wimped out and must of spent most of the 2 years contorting his findings to give trump all the cover he needs.

[StarfishSaver]

15. Perhaps you should read the actual report and not the Trump/Barr abridged edition

[Hoyt]

21. I suggest you read or reread it. 21 times Mueller said they "did not identify evidence" of

collusion, conspiracy, cooperation with Russians, or whatever you choose to call it.

Obstruction will not get trump and that is all Mueller left us. He even “acquitted” those at the trump tower meeting and Manafort’s giving polling data to Ruskies. If you need it, I’ll give you quotes from his wish-washy report tomorrow when I’m on my computer.

I don’t like it, and am quite disappointed in Mueller, but thems the facts.

[Nuggets]

23. Yep

and it’s about time people face those facts instead of defending his every move.

[StarfishSaver]

45. The report DIDN'T say they didn't identify evidence of collusion, conspiracy, cooperation with

Russians" - not 21 times. Not at all.

The report doesn't mention "collusion" at all because they didn't investigate collusion and collusion is not a crime.

And nowhere does the report say they "did not find evidence of conspiracy or cooperation with Russians." This is what it actually said:

1. The investigation did not identify evidence that any US. persons conspired or coordinated with the
IRA {Internet Research Agency}. (Executive Summary)

2. The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the {IRA's} interference operation. (p. 14)

3. The investigation did not identify evidence of other communications between {redacted} and Guccifer 2.0. (p. 44)

4. The investigation did not identify evidence of a connection between the outreach or the meeting and Russian interference efforts. (p. 62)

5. The investigation established that Smith communicated with at least and Clovis about his search for the deleted Clinton emails, but the Office did not identify evidence that any of the listed individuals initiated or directed Smith's efforts. (p. 64)

6. The investigation did not identify evidence that any such meetings occurred. (p. 65)

7. The investigation did not identify evidence that Cohen brought Klokov's initial offer of assistance to the Campaign?s attention or that anyone associated with the Trump Organization or the Campaign dealt with Klokov at a later date. (p. 74)

8. The investigation did not identify evidence that the Campaign passed or received any messages to or from the Russian government through CNI or Simes. (p. 120)

9. The investigation did not identify evidence connecting the events of June 9 to the hack-and-dump operation. (p. 121)

10. The investigation did not identify evidence of the transition team following up. (p. 127)

11. The Office did not identify evidence in those interactions of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian government. (p. 129)

12. The investigation did not identify evidence that Gordon made any other arrangements to meet (or met) with Kislyak after this email. (p. 135)

13. The investigation did not identify evidence that the two men met at any point after their September 8 meeting. (p. 137)

14. The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort?s sharing polling data and Russia's interference in the election, which had already been reported by U.S. media outlets at the time of the August 2 meeting. (p. 131)

15. As described further below, investigators were unable to obtain the content of these or other messages between Prince and Bannon, and the investigation also did not identify evidence of any further communication between Prince and Dmitriev after their meetings in the Seychelles. (p. 155)

16. The investigation did not identify evidence of or Kushner meeting with Ushakov after being given his name. (p. 160)

17. {T}he investigation did not identify evidence that Kushner and Gorkov engaged in any substantive follow-up after the meeting. (p. 163)

18. Although transition officials at Mar-a-Lago had some concern about possible Russian reactions to the sanctions, the investigation did
not identify evidence that the President-Elect asked to make any request to Kislyak. (p. 167)

19. {T}he investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. person who coordinated or communicated with the IRA knew that he or she was speaking with Russian nationals engaged in the criminal conspiracy.(p. 175)

20. {T}he investigation did not identify evidence that any Campaign official or associate knowingly and intentionally participated in the conspiracy to defraud that the Office charged, namely, the active-measures conspiracy described in Volume 1, Section II, supra.(p. 181)

Source: Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election (The Mueller Report) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report.html

(Here's a suggestion: If you're going to use CTRL-F to find a phrase in order to try to make a point, you should make sure that the words you're searching for actually say what you claim before you post misleading information).

[Hoyt]

47. Looks pretty clear to me what they said. Mueller knew what he was doing giving trump cover.

As far as "collusion, conspiracy" that is WHY I DIDN'T PUT IT IN QUOTATIONS. All of those 20/21 statements above revolve around collusion, conspiracy, cooperation, illegal activity, etc. And all of them say blunt enough for just about anyone to comprehend, Mueller didn't identify evidence trump did the crap.

Mueller also said that Kush and Trump Jr., did n

Can you imaging taking someone to trial, or even Impeachment, and having the chief investigator blow you case by testifying that, "Well, to be honest, I didn't identify any evidence he did it."

In any event, Mueller sure didn't say he couldn't make a determination, he gave trump cover. He did say he couldn't exonerate trump on Obstruction, but he also knows Obstruction alone isn't going to take trump down.

[StarfishSaver]

48. "Looks pretty clear" that nowhere in the report did Mueller say what you claimed

End of discussion.

[Hoyt]

49. LMAO -- I see a lot of "We did not identify evidence," even in your post.

[StarfishSaver]

41. Mueller didn't say that.

Please stop.

[Hoyt]

43. Yes he did, 21 times. Pull up the report and search.

Try this for some examples:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12158492

[StarfishSaver]

46. No, it didn't say that at all

I know this because I actually read the report.

If you want to talk about "examples," let's start with these - every reference in the report to "the investigation did not identify evidence ...", one of which say what you claim.

1. The investigation did not identify evidence that any US. persons conspired or coordinated with the
IRA {Internet Research Agency}. (Executive Summary)

2. The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the {IRA's} interference operation. (p. 14)

3. The investigation did not identify evidence of other communications between {redacted} and Guccifer 2.0. (p. 44)

4. The investigation did not identify evidence of a connection between the outreach or the meeting and Russian interference efforts. (p. 62)

5. The investigation established that Smith communicated with at least and Clovis about his search for the deleted Clinton emails, but the Office did not identify evidence that any of the listed individuals initiated or directed Smith's efforts. (p. 64)

6. The investigation did not identify evidence that any such meetings occurred. (p. 65)

7. The investigation did not identify evidence that Cohen brought Klokov's initial offer of assistance to the Campaign?s attention or that anyone associated with the Trump Organization or the Campaign dealt with Klokov at a later date. (p. 74)

8. The investigation did not identify evidence that the Campaign passed or received any messages to or from the Russian government through CNI or Simes. (p. 120)

9. The investigation did not identify evidence connecting the events of June 9 to the hack-and-dump operation. (p. 121)

10. The investigation did not identify evidence of the transition team following up. (p. 127)

11. The Office did not identify evidence in those interactions of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian government. (p. 129)

12. The investigation did not identify evidence that Gordon made any other arrangements to meet (or met) with Kislyak after this email. (p. 135)

13. The investigation did not identify evidence that the two men met at any point after their September 8 meeting. (p. 137)

14. The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort?s sharing polling data and Russia's interference in the election, which had already been reported by U.S. media outlets at the time of the August 2 meeting. (p. 131)

15. As described further below, investigators were unable to obtain the content of these or other messages between Prince and Bannon, and the investigation also did not identify evidence of any further communication between Prince and Dmitriev after their meetings in the Seychelles. (p. 155)

16. The investigation did not identify evidence of or Kushner meeting with Ushakov after being given his name. (p. 160)

17. {T}he investigation did not identify evidence that Kushner and Gorkov engaged in any substantive follow-up after the meeting. (p. 163)

18. Although transition officials at Mar-a-Lago had some concern about possible Russian reactions to the sanctions, the investigation did
not identify evidence that the President-Elect asked to make any request to Kislyak. (p. 167)

19. {T}he investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. person who coordinated or communicated with the IRA knew that he or she was speaking with Russian nationals engaged in the criminal conspiracy.(p. 175)

20. {T}he investigation did not identify evidence that any Campaign official or associate knowingly and intentionally participated in the conspiracy to defraud that the Office charged, namely, the active-measures conspiracy described in Volume 1, Section II, supra.(p. 181)

Source: Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election (The Mueller Report) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report.html

[Hoyt]

50. Your own post includes a whole lot of We "did not identify evidence." Sorry, you can't accept it.

Mueller let us down and makes Impeachment on these issues very tough. Now, there are other things trump has done, but Mueller has really mucked all that up.

[StarfishSaver]

51. And your post repeatedly misstates what Mueller report he "did not identify evidence" of

Your post is false and misleading in that it blatantly mischaracterizes what's in the Mueller Report.

Fortunately, I'm among the many people who actually read it, know what it says, know it doesn't say what you claim, and are able to correct you so that people reading your post aren't fooled into thinking you've accurately depicted the content of the report.

[Hoyt]

52. Look, would love for trump to be impeached for being a racist if nothing else. But Muel' wimped out.

[deist99]

58. Past each other

I think you guys are taking past each other. The summary of part I clearly states “...the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities”.(pg 2)

To get any repukes to vote for impeachment we needed Mueller to establish that there was a conspiracy. Obstruction charges alone will not get the Repukes in the senate to convict and remove him.

Now the house should still investigate, but if Mueller and his team couldn’t find any evidence I don’t think the they will.

[uponit7771]

31. Impeachment for Trump higher than Nixon post Saturday night massacre

Don't need Senate to follow constitution and hurt Trump and republicans politically

[lapucelle]

7. The press and media want the clicks, the ratings, and the revenue.

They're pushing this narrative hard, at least in part, in the service of their own agenda.

They missed the biggest story in a generation in 2016. I take what they say with a grain of salt.

[StarfishSaver]

14. You are right

They have their graphics, chryons and music all set to go and they're itching to push the buttons.

[Nuggets]

24. They will help Trump help the 1%

because they are the 1 %.

[oasis]

55. Goldberg pushing her own agenda. She's not particularly aligned with

the goals of the Democratic Party.

[StarfishSaver]

56. But she does think she's more in touch with the Democratic Party and ordinary people than the

Members of Congress are, so that's something right there.

[Me.]

57. Yes Here She Is Again

The great know it all about the Dems in Congress and impeachment. I saw she was on Ari tonight and turned when I saw her, as I didn't want to hear her accuse the Dems of possible cowardice again

[Nevermypresident]

16. CNN poll: 79% of Democrats FAVOR Impeachment. I am one of them.

BTW, what about the Democrats who are constitutional attorneys, were in the Obama administration, etc. that are calling for impeachment? Have their opinions been pushed because the media wants the ratings of an impeachment inquiry?

[NRaleighLiberal]

17. Yup.

[Nuggets]

25. What has Obama said?

[RoadMan]

30. Well

there are plenty of lawyers, constitutional scholars, and top-level dems right here on DU!

THEY certainly would get a case of the vapors at the very least if you even just mention the word "impeachment."

[Bettie]

32. But people keep telling me that

the majority of Democrats are against even opening in inquiry. That doesn't seem to be the case.

And that's the thing. Open an inquiry, that's not asking him to be removed from office right not, it isn't even the business of the Senate at that point, it is INFORMATION GATHERING with the force of a constitutional power behind it.

[UniteFightBack]

18. Yeah that's all I hear people talking about is impeaching rump...NOT. nt

[Nevermypresident]

19. Considering he is the most dangerous and incompetent president in my lifetime, the fact

were are in unchartered waters, and you wonder why the media is talking about impeachment?

Like it or not, 79% of us are in favor.

[pazzyanne]

22. The fact is that Nancy does NOT have the votes in the House

to pass impeachment. The last I heard there were 51 House Democrats willing to sign on the Impeachment proceedings. Pretty hard to pass the Impeachment with only 51 votes. What would be the outcome if House Democrats could not pass Impeachment. Something to think about!

[Thekaspervote]

27. Sad but true. And an exonerated dotard could not be charged later for his crimes

Think about it. He could be charged on January 21st 2020 via the criminal justice system. State charges too. It’s the better outcome

[pazzyanne]

33. That is what I believe also!

I hope there are more DUers that have this outlook. I want tRump's hide nailed to the wall and will do what I can to make that happen. Jumping on the "impeachment now" bandwagon is not a good strategy in my book.

[Nevermypresident]

35. This is not accurate. Impeachment vs. state criminal/civil charges are 2 different things.

Secondly, there is no double jeopardy attached to Impeachment.

If you research, you will find many attorneys, etc. were scratching their heads wondering why Speaker Pelosi said that.

[Kurt V.]

28. it is within the structure of a republic to become a plutocracy. That's what we're seeing here.

[DeminPennswoods]

29. My represenative was getting increased

comments for impeachment after Mueller gave his press conference according to one of his staffers. He's a moderate/centrist and is supporting investigations and oversight. It's not a far move to get to impeachment.

[pazzyanne]

34. Absolutely!

As the old saying goes, "Haste makes waste".

[Nevermypresident]

36. You do realize that "if the Speaker assigns the House Judiciary Committee to

investigate, there is no time limit placed on their investigation and a likely public hearing would be scheduled at the discretion of the committee chair to vote on the articles of impeachment."


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/impeachment-process-works/story?id=51202880

So, no need for "haste". They can take as long as they so choose.

[pazzyanne]

37. You do realize there is more than one solution to every problem.

The House is now at 58 Democrats signed on for starting impeachment inquiry/ proceedings, not enough to pass in the House. Nancy knows that she cannot pass this through the house with the numbers she has supporting impeachment. If she tried and it failed, think about what that would do for tRump and his run for a second term. As for the impeachment process, I have been politically active for my entire adult life. I lived and learned during the Clinton impeachment. You are schooling a member of the choir @nevermypresident.

[Nevermypresident]

38. Pazzyanne - I was addressing your comment "haste makes waste" by pointing out the

Judiciary Committee has no deadline to investigate/hold hearings under Articles of Impeachment.

That's all...

Maybe I misinterpreted your "haste makes waste" comment? Can you clarify what you meant?

[pazzyanne]

39. I understand and I trust Jerry Nadler to do his job.

The Judiciary Committee understands the need to acquire pertinent data as quickly as possible. Just today I heard a member of that committee say that they need to put data together so that the impeachment inquiry/ process is started in 2019.

[Nevermypresident]

42. Sure - but I still don't see how this relates to your "haste makes waste" post which I

initially responded to in light of the fact that there's no time limit imposed on how long Nadler and his Judiciary Committee can acquire pertinent data, investigate, etc. after Articles of Impeachment are formally initiated.

[pazzyanne]

44. Done playing this game!

Have a good evening.

[Nevermypresident]

59. I thought this was a serious discussion, not a "game". You have a great day as well.

[pazzyanne]

62. I thought it was serious but it became obvious it was not.

Ergo, game over.

[Turin_C3PO]

53. We don't have the votes yet.

The last thing we want is for impeachment to fail in the House due to Democrats voting “No”.

Call and write your representatives, even if they’re Republican! When Pelosi has the votes, I firmly believe she will open an impeachment inquiry, leading to impeachment.

One thing we can all (I think) agree on is that Trump deserves impeachment so let’s make it happen!

[emmaverybo]

54. From the newspaper that brought us the Iraq war.

[treestar]

60. These are people who care

But the average voters - those who vote without much information - who may personally be doing OK economically, and therefore think Dotard is a fine POTUS - may see him as being picked on. And may well decide Pence deserves a chance if he ends up in office only a few months.

[bdamomma]

63. I wish they would begin

the impeachment process, it takes about 6 months to conclude. Do we really want this POS to continue to destroy this country and us?