Push to impeach Trump stalls amid Democrats' deference to -- and fear of -- Pelosi

[brooklynite]

Washington Post

Prominent liberals in the House, impatient with Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s opposition to impeaching President Trump, seemed on the brink of a major breakthrough one night last month.

The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a key Pelosi ally and the man who would preside over the hearings, was preparing to buck his party’s leader and join the pro-impeachment movement.

Pelosi moved swiftly. She summoned her top lieutenants to a late-night meeting and hatched a plan — that six party leaders, speaking in unison, would make clear to the chairman why impeaching Trump was a terrible idea.

“Republicans are stewing in their own juices,” Pelosi told Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), arguing that the majority of the Democratic caucus didn’t support impeachment and that the party should devote its time to calling out Republicans for siding with a president trampling the Constitution, according to Democrats and other senior officials who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely describe what transpired.

I'll go with Pelosi's judgement over that of the blogosphere.

[empedocles]

1. Perhaps lil more knowledge filtering down to the blogophere . . . and voters.

[redstatebluegirl]

2. I trust Speaker Pelosi, she is a very savvy political mind.

[Gothmog]

3. I trust and respect Speaker Pelosi

[Caliman73]

4. Framing is important on this issue.

Do they really "fear" Pelosi, or are they deferential her because of her skill and leadership. I don't see Pelosi as a vindictive person. She certainly didn't go after those who challenged her Speakership, in any meaningful way. I don't think that impeachment is a "terrible idea" either but I do understand that it cannot be done lightly.

I too trust Pelosi's judgement. I do hope that she is not making the decision not to go after Trump with impeachment based solely on politics.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. I'm not clear on her reasoning here

I guess her argument is, basically, that the Republicans are "hanging" themselves? Are they really, though? Making the calculus that voters will hang the albatross around the necks of every Republican in 2020? That seems like a huge risk. If Republicans survived George W. Bush and spent 8 years of trashing Obama, stealing a Supreme Court seat, and winning the Presidency and both chambers of Congress (keeping in mind Russian interference) in 2016 against a way more qualified candidate, I'm a little less than certain that 2020 is a shoo-in for us. Once the right-wing smear machine cranks up to a fever pitch next year and (probable) Russian interference starts in earnest without any additional protections, our candidate may find themselves running neck-and-neck with Trump again. This may come off as alarmist to some but I'm pretty certain that it's entirely probable. Maybe attempting to impeach Trump may change this calculus and maybe it won't but, frankly, if any President needs to have an inquiry it's Trump, even if for no other reason than gross incompetence and corruption. If the Republicans in the Senate want to ignore everything and vote to acquit in the Senate, that's on them, but, aside from a single Republican in the House, it's hard to count on the Republicans really ruining things for themselves.