Laurence Tribe: Nancy Pelosi is wrong

[melman]

Link to tweet

[Celerity]

1. They should have opened an enquiry as soon as Barr fingered the scale, they should have went

ballistic. That was the inflection point of of pure usurpation and the discarding of the rule of law.

[uponit7771]

4. +1, Barr's input really hurt ... they should've went ballistic and called for his impeachment the

... second it was known he lied.

[honest.abe]

2. I love Nancy and she is brilliant but in this case I agree with Tribe.

She is wrong and it might cost us dearly for the rest of our lives.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

56. Wrong as can be, but as long as we nominate Bernie, tRumpy is still toast, impeachment or not.

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

[Tertullian]

68. I agree that it should be Bernie and Warren.

But I fear that it will be Biden who defeats Trump.

[uponit7771]

3. I disagree, **IF** her goal is to build a solid narrative that Trump should be REMOVED. 2 MAGA

Last edited Thu Jul 25, 2019, 07:40 AM - Edit history (1)

... Cult members I know understand Red Don is a crook.

They don't think the crookedness is worth removal, if even 10% of the MAGA Cult is won over for removal then that means impeachment is a go and the senate reThugs who vote against it are going to pay.

After this narrative is built ***IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY DURING 2020 ELECTION YEAR !!!***

[watoos]

6. Impeachment is a duty,

not something that is done by polling.

[democrank]

12. Yes indeed, watoos.

Sad what inaction we’ll excuse nowadays. A thug President is destroying our country and we’re making political calculations instead of defending against this criminal onslaught. We should stand up and do what’s right.

[uponit7771]

13. +1, I agree NOT impeaching is not an option ... The narrative has to be built though and I can ..

... understand people not trusting that impeachment wont happen relative to what happened with BushCo

[Perseus]

16. The narrative is in front of us, on video, we get proof of crimes by the creature every day

The moment he opens his mouth we have proof, one single instance should be enough, that of the interview with Lester Holt, that is obstruction of justice, right in front of our eyes. He confessed that he fired Comey because he wanted to stop the Russia meddling on our election investigation, that one instance should be enough.

[uponit7771]

19. We agree, the narrative is in front of **US** ... the politicos in the US not the average voter...

... which less than 50% are even knowledgeable of the Mueller report and Barr didn't help.

I agree with Pelosi to continue building the narrative that Trump needs to go and do such ... DURING ... and election year.

He confessed that he fired Comey because he wanted to stop the Russia meddling on our election investigation, that one instance should be enough.

The average voter doesn't understand even in this CLEAR case that Trumps actions were illegal

[oldsoftie]

48. Its amazing how his own mouth really is his worst enemy. And he doesnt care.

Imagine what his poll numbers would be if he never tweeted or spoke off the cuff?

[StarfishSaver]

76. I don't know

I wonder how many people he actually draws for everyone he repels with his tweets. There sure seems to be a lot of people who love that stuff.

[Crunchy Frog]

70. I believe that an impeachment inquiry is a part of building the narrative.

I'm not sure how you go about effectively building one without it.

[CaptainTruth]

22. Let's do our duty in a way that does maximum damage to the GOP.

So many folks seem to just want impeachment "NOW" & don't seem to care about doing it in a way & at a time that produces the best possible defense of our country & Constitution by inflicting the maximum possible damage on the GOP.

It seems like there are 2 crowds on the issue, the "rush & do it NOW" crowd, & the "do it in a way that produces the best possible outcome" crowd.

Personally, I want to burn the GOP to the ground in 2020, so I'm focused on the outcome that makes that happen.

[onenote]

71. No. It's a political act.

At least when it comes to presidential impeachment, it always has been and always will be.

[Perseus]

15. My suggestions to you

1. Read Laurence Tribe reasoning for Impeachment
2. Buy and read "Impeachment, A citizen's guide" by Carr S. Sustein. In it you will find the creature misdemeanors spelled on every page.

Nancy Pelosi, if she continues in this path, she will cause a lot of damage to the Democratic party, at this time Democrats are being seen as weak, cowards, and this is by many of their own base. and of course by republicans, the creature, Putin, and all in the gang.

The long plan will not work because it is going to take us to the election on 2020, and if we think a lot of cheating was done in 2016, and I believe they changed the votes and that is why the creature won with such a small margin, we have not seen anything yet.

If you don't put the reigns on a spoiled child when he/she is doing wrong, the spoiled child will not only continue to do what he/she is doing, the child will go further to test the waters to see if he/she can get away with more, that is what is happening with the creature, and with Barr.

Chavez, in Venezuela, did that, he saw that there were no consequences for his actions, he then changed the constitution to fit his agenda and now the country is destroyed, it happens fast, the waiting game doesn't work, it never does, evil doesn't pause they move fast. Once amendments to the constitutions are made, everyone is screwed, no going back until those in charge are out (maybe 20 years later) or gone from the earth, but they leave a trail of ruin and despair. There are today, 15 states in Venezuela without electricity, that is more than 1/2, there are 24 states in total, even the capital is without electricity, it has been going for three or four days, the infrastructure is collapsing, all these happens faster than most people realize.

Impeachment inquiries must begin now, they should have started a few months ago, yesterday's appearance by Muller should have been part of the impeachment proceedings.

[uponit7771]

20. I do agree with impeachment beginning this year but it should be coordinated with the 2020 election

... to inflict maximum damage to Red Don's campaign ... DURING the election!!!

We start now and it fizzles in 2020 we're not helping anything.

"...it is going to take us to the election on 2020"

Which is should, I 100% agree with this !! Investigations and impeachment during the election is a death nail to any candidate in US history.

[ehrnst]

40. Speaker Pelosi knows FAR more about what is going on than Tribe does.

Or you, or me.

She's also far more qualified to make the call than you, me, or Tribe.

[StarfishSaver]

47. I love and respect Professor Tribe

But he's an academic who never worked in the legislature and was never a trial lawyer. He's brilliant in his field, but that doesn't make him an expert on legislative and impeachment strategy.

I, too, trust Pelosi on this.

[ehrnst]

55. +1000. (nt)

[oldsoftie]

46. Trump cannot change the Constitution. Or simply stay in office like Chavez.

He can be tossed in Nov 2020

[lastlib]

18. Nancy P. and the Democrats in Congress took an oath...

...to uphold the Constitution, NOT to hold up a finger in the wind! Imoeachment MUST proceed!!

[uponit7771]

21. We agree, impeachment should proceed. I think it should proceed during the 2020 election year

... to inflict maximum damage to Red Don.

[ehrnst]

41. In what way are they "holding a finger up in the wind?"

All over DU, people are wringing their hands that Pelosi isn't "listening to the public."

What would impeachment right now accomplish?

[lastlib]

67. By letting opinion polls dictate whether or when to begin impeachment.

Impeachment now would, first and foremost, uphold the checks and balances of a constituional government. If there is a "blowback" against the Democratic party as a result, it would have some time to pass over before the next election.

[ehrnst]

69. No, she said that there needed to be "hard evidence" along with "bipartisan support"

Impeachment now would, first and foremost, uphold the checks and balances of a constituional government

In what way? It won't shorten his time office, and it won't convince his supporters of anything - they are fact resistant when it comes to him. Investigating him for two years didn't change the "checks and balances of a constitutinal government."

You could say the same about impeaching Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. Do you think that would be a good idea right now?

If there is a "blowback" against the Democratic party as a result, it would have some time to pass over before the next election.

No, the blowback would be the next election... You do know that the 2020 election would come before impeachment proceedings would conclude, right?

[uponit7771]

61. We agree, when to proceed with them should be considered for most effectiveness

[Bettie]

33. I tend to believe that

an inquiry during 2020 would be a good thing, but I also think that when they come back from recess, there will be a statement made by the Speaker that we're too close to the election to begin such an inquiry, so it will have to wait and see how it all turns out.

I agree with Prof. Tribe, but I'm also not one of the people who matter. I'm not important, I'm not rich, so ultimately, my opinion means nothing.

[watoos]

5. Be careful folks,

just asking to do the right thing can get you an alert.

Fuck it, waiting is what Trump/Barr want Democrats to do then they can stall until after the election. Vacation is coming, Steve Kornacki is here, elections start in February. "proceed in the courts" means stall until the election is upon us.

I voted in 2018 to hold Trump accountable. We now have someone in office who may be worse than Trump; Bill Barr. The only way to "gather more information" is through a judicial hearing, an impeachment hearing. Bill Barr is putting his thumb on our current legislative hearings.

Speaker Pelosi, cancel vacation, call Corey Lewandowski and Chris Christie, they should have no claim for executive privilege. We are in a Constitutional crisis now, it's time to use our powder.

[spanone]

7. K&R...

[ElementaryPenguin]

8. I couldn't agree with Tribe more!!

On all 3 counts!

[Lonestarblue]

9. I agree with Tribe.

But I fear it’s too late. The only way to bring the public along on impeachment is to build a case. Democrats can’t build a case when no one in Trump’s orbit will testify without being forced by a court, which will take months to get through the system. By that time, the election will be approaching, and it will truly look partisan at that point and that risks sympathy votes for Trump by independents who lean Republican but might have voted for a Democratic nominee.

[dem4decades]

10. The country is in grave danger. And a 5 week vacation?

It doesn't add up.

[ElementaryPenguin]

14. Nancy P. seems to know nothing about MOMENTUM!!

[Perseus]

17. Everyone around her seems to want to start impeachment proceedings

Has she been threatened? What is going on?

[honest.abe]

28. I think everyone who is in a position of power to take Trump down is being threatened.

I hope I am wrong but those threats might be having an impact.

[oldsoftie]

42. You REALLY think people at the level of Pelosi & others would not speak out if that were true?

I expect this stuff from the other side, where everything is a conspiracy.

[honest.abe]

57. I think it would encourage more of the same if she spoke out publicly.

I suspect when this happens they are being advised to report it to the appropriate authorities, take precautions and then ignore it.

[oldsoftie]

59. Current polls show less than 40% support impeachment. But go ahead, give him the win.

Spiting yourself to prove a point achieves nothing. Hollering "we impeached him!" at his next inauguration is meaningless.
BEAT HIM IN NOVEMBER.

[ElementaryPenguin]

29. I don't know. That's as good an explanation as any.

The members should be pressuring her to the point where she believes she's going to be replaced as Speaker if she's not willing to at least move to an impeachment inquiry.

The dems do most of their fundraising on stopping Trump - and it's really deceiving if they aren't really going to try to stop him in the most effect way they can - and protect our Democracy! They also stand to lose a lot of credibility with the voters who came out in droves to support them in this past mid-term election.

[Autumn]

63. In 2006 she took flack for saying "Impeachments off the table" this time she won't say it.

[Locrian]

25. it's just one more thing

It's just one more thing that diminishes the importance and severity of the issue.

The take away for pretty much everyone is going to be:
* well if its so important why aren't they doing anything?
* they know they don't have evidenced (witch hunt) that's why they aren't doing anything
* it's all political - dems just want to use this
* it might hurt elections - (translation: fund raising)

etc etc - and it all plays into trumps narrative and media spin.

Way to go democrats - way to show leadership and strength. You continue to bring a butter knife to a gun fight

[emulatorloo]

82. It isn't a "vacation". They go home to talk w their constituents and hold town halls

Talking with the people they represent most certainly does add up.

[NRaleighLiberal]

11. Agreed.

[DeminPennswoods]

23. Her caucus will go home and take the temperature of their

constituents in a few days. They'll report back after Labor Day. Meanwhile the court cases will continue to work away.

Reportedly Nadler also told the caucus that an impeachment inquiry could begin with just the vote of the Judiciary Committee. That certainly will help assauge the fears of those Dems who feel they are vulnerable in 2020.

Imho, there will be an impeachment hearing beginning sometime after Labor Day. By then Dems will have a good idea how long court cases might last and how their constituents feel about impeachment.

But all this can't just be on Pelosi. WE need to do our part, too, by making our views known to our representatives and senators either by attending townhalls, emailing, writing, calling or visiting their local offices.

[StarfishSaver]

49. You're awesome!

[bucolic_frolic]

24. Timing and public opinion is everything

You maximize your case in the Senate and with the public if you have all the facts. It really is that simple.

[ehrnst]

30. GOP Senators are scared to even call his tweets racist. You really think that they're going to vote

to remove him?

Trump supporters will never abandon him, and they will turn on any politician who criticizes him.

There will be no removing him with impeachment.

It's really that simple.

[bucolic_frolic]

36. I'm choosing

not to say anything about your reply. It deserves to be ignored.

[ehrnst]

43. And yet you responded to it... to say that my post 'needs to be ignored.'

Make total sense.

[StarfishSaver]

50. And yet, here you are not ignoring it

[lapucelle]

52. Didn't you just say something about it?

[oldsoftie]

39. Apparently a lot of folks dont understand what wins elections.

Trump leaves when he is VOTED OUT. He will NOT be removed by impeachment. Like you said, it really is that simple. Yet you get insulted

[Crunchy Frog]

74. Some people on here believe that impeachment,

Or an impeachment inquiry, will maximize the likelihood that he will be voted out.

There can be legitimate, good faith, differences of opinion, and it is possible to engage in respectful dialogue rather than demonizing those with alternate views.

That's what my Democratic party used to stand for.

[renate]

66. I think you are 100% correct

But I’m not sure why an impeachment *inquiry* can’t be held to get the facts out there and on the evening news every night like Watergate.

There is literally too much wrongdoing to fit into any number of campaign commercials. So it has to be spelled out over time, methodically, in detail. Of course the Senate will never vote to impeach, but this isn’t about a blowjob. These crimes matter. The general public will care even if the cult members don’t—this wouldn’t backfire like they did with the Republicans and Clinton. I just don’t get the reluctance to inform the public about the depth of the corruption.

[Gothmog]

26. I stand with and support Nancy Pelosi

[ElementaryPenguin]

31. I don't. I stand with and support the Constitution.

And according to it - the remedy for a rogue President who threatens our Democracy is IMPEACHMENT!

Whether it's politically convenient or not!

[ehrnst]

34. How is impeachment a 'remedy' if it won't remove him?

I stand with Speaker Pelosi, who has a much deeper understanding of the Constitution that you do, apparently.

Whether it's politically convenient or not!

What do you mean by impeachment being "politically inconvenient?" That sounds like anti-choicers who dismiss pregnancy and childbearing as a matter of "inconvenience" for women who face unplanned pregnancy.

If you can reduce impeachment and all the potential negative consequences in terms of 'political convenience' then you really don't understand impeachment.

Perhaps you would call not impeaching Clarence Thomas in the same terms? Impeachment would indeed be 'a remedy' for his activist decisions. But anyone with any understanding of the consequences of removing him while Trump could appoint another would tell you that timing where impeachment is concerned could be the difference between getting what you want, and increasing the damage for the future of our country exponentially.

[oldsoftie]

38. +1

[ElementaryPenguin]

78. How about politically ADVANTAGEOUS

Jesus - this has nothing to with bloody anti-choicers! WTF?

[ehrnst]

80. In what way is it 'politically advantageous?"

And how would it be "politically inconvenient" for Pelosi in particular? You implied that she was talking about the timing of impeachment as though it would harm her politically somehow if impeachment proceedings started immediately.

If it's so OBVIOUSLY advantageous, then why ever would she not be aware of it? Or be standing it the way?

BTW - I compared referring to impeachment in terms of 'convenience" to those referring to childbearing in terms of 'convenience.,' as both too huge and complicated to be described in terms of 'convenience.'

Is that clearer?

[ElementaryPenguin]

81. Well, I'm not sure Nancy Pelosi, whom I actually admire...

"Has a much deeper understanding of the Constitution" than Lawrence Tribe does (who, in this case, happens to agree with me).

[ehrnst]

84. She certainly has decades of daily experience with it in action, at her job. As a Lawmaker.

Last edited Thu Jul 25, 2019, 03:34 PM - Edit history (3)

The Constitution is what she references daily - along with putting it into action as Speaker of the Congressional arm of the legislative branch of government.

Lawrence Tribe has none of that experience. He is an academic. Look it up. That doesn't mean he knows nothing - he just isn't a practitioner of lawmaking. He doesn't work immersed in lawmaking, let alone for decades. Constitutional law professor is nowhere near the same in terms of hands on understanding of congress itself as veteran lawmaker.

Speaker Pelosi has been elected actual House Speaker many many times, and understands procedure backwards and forwards. In many actual situations, with real people, real republicans, in real time, not imagining hypotheticals.

If you needed your roof fixed, would you ask an architect to troubleshoot and give you an estimate on what it would cost to fix it, and how long it would take? Or would you go to an experienced professional roofing contractor? Would you refuse to believe any estimate a roofing contractor gave you that was more expensive or would take longer than the architect's?




And before you get upset, no, this isn't about roofing. That's called a "metaphor."


Now Lawrence Tribe is saying that it was wrong for congress to even subpoena Mueller..... You agree with him now, too?

Link to tweet

Pelosi knows her job way better than Tribe, or AOC.

[Gothmog]

60. A impeachment without 20 GOP Senate votes may lead to trump's reelection

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[ElementaryPenguin]

77. Impeaching Trump will NOT HELP him politically!

That's absurd. It will put a stain on his presidency - and the GOP senators who support him in the face of so many impeachable offenses - aired out for public consumption - will be the ones who will be damaged politically.

Bill Clinton was an entirely different matter - the majority of Americans saw it for what it was - lying about a consensual sexual affair. This is the biggest scandal in history - straight up TREASON (if not in the technical legal sense. Helping Russia steal control of the federal government of the most powerful country in history - the United States! (They control Trump - and by extension the Senate and McConnell).

What do you suggest? Never impeaching a Republican president - no matter what heinous crimes they commit - as long as Republicans control the Senate?

As Lawrence Tribe has suggested - we need not even worry about what the big bad turtle McConnell will do. The House can actually hold an impeachment inquiry and even find and announce a guilty verdict - if that's where the evidence leads (and probably few on the planet are guilty of as many crimes as Trump is) - without even sending it to the Senate. They just can't remove him from office without holding the trial in the Senate.

They don't have to even give the Senate a chance to acquit Trump.

WE CANNOT SET THE PRECEDENT OF ALLOWING A PRESIDENT TO COMMIT SUCH CRIMES WITHOUT BEING PUNISHED!

[Gothmog]

83. No you are wrong, impeachment without removal will be vindication for trump

Impeachment without 60 GOP senate votes is a stunt that will be used by trump to claim vindication and help him be re-elected

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[ehrnst]

86. Indeed. (nt)

[ElementaryPenguin]

87. Trump would claim VICTORY if handcuffs were slapped on him and he was carted off to prison!

We can't worry what the ULTIMATE BULLSHITTER IN THE UNIVERSE is going to claim!

Impeach the shit out of him - now (or soon).

Begin an impeach inquiry.

Lawrence Tribe is right - and so is AOC!

[ehrnst]

90. So, you still haven't told us what is "politically adventageous" about impeaching him now.

What are the benefits - other than you being happy? You still haven't answered that.

Here are some some cons...

1. It won't stop him from doing anything, since he knows he won't be removed by the Senate.

2. It won't "force him to resign" like you were mistakenly claming earlier. Mueller stated that he can be indicted once out of office, so he's going to stay in as long as he can in order to run out statutes of limitations on his crimes... No one can 'force him out" without the cooperation of McConnell or Pence, and they're not going to cross him. They won't even call his tweets racist..

3. He may lash out to deflect attention, perhaps a military strike or Reichstadt Fire- he always said that a terrorist act gets people scared and behind a president, like it did Bush.

With an unstable man like that, we need to be very, very concerned about what he will do.

4. His supporters will be very angry and protective, and anyone who's still with him isn't going to abandon him.

5. Dem Senators in red states will be forced to choose keeping their seat or voting with Democrats...

6. Impeachment won't put a "stain on his presidency" that would not otherwise be there because his presidency is one big stain.

Not seeing the positives here - other than you will be very happy.

Speaker Pelosi is right. It would be a mistake to impeach, at least right now.

[Gothmog]

93. The major effect would be to help reelect trump and cost the Democrats control of the House

[ehrnst]

95. Yep. Or trigger him to stage a Reichstag Fire type incident to create fear and distract.

[ehrnst]

85. So why do you think Speaker Pelosi says it's not the right time or circumstances?

What do you think her motivations for waiting are, if it's SO OBVIOUSLY CLEAR THAT WE NEED TO IMPEACH RIGHT NOW.

It will put a stain on his presidency

Do you really think that will be the first and only stain on his presidency? You sure haven't been keeping up with him. You think that unless there is a failed impeachment, there will be no "stain" on his presidency?

And how does impeachment "punish" the POTUS if it has no real bearing on his job, or shortens his term by a single minute? And he gets to tell his supporters that it was a witch hunt, since they couldn't remove him... He gets emboldened. They get riled up. And they buy all his cheap made in China crap, and harass brown people even more.

And how does impeachment "stop" him from doing anything? It's not Speaker Pelosi "allowing" him to get away with crimes - it's Mitch McConnell doing the enabling.

Google it if you don't believe me.


You seem to be confused on who controls what... and you are demonizing the people who are resisting, not the one's who are enabling.

What do you suggest? Never impeaching a Republican president - no matter what heinous crimes they commit - as long as Republicans control the Senate?

Now there's a great big False Dillema... EITHER one agrees with you and Lawrence Tribe OR YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU NEVER WANT TO IMPEACH A REPUBLICAN POTUS EVER NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO!!!!

False Dilemma is a fallacy based on an "either-or" type of argument. Two choices are presented, when more might exist, and the claim is made that one is false and one is true-or one is acceptable and the other is not.

If one needs to deploy a logical fallacy to defend one's point, perhaps that point needs to be reexamined.

[OKNancy]

27. Let's see: If they do start hearings it would be in September

So for the next 14 months until the election, news stations will be obsessed over the spectacle. All media love a show, not just MSM.
And what do the Democratic candidates do? What will our eventual candidate do? Will he or she be inundated with a fruitless impeachment with no removal, or will he or she be able to talk about the things that matter to most people.

Clinton's impeachment in the House lasted a year, then to the Senate. Clinton's case was a lot less complicated than the one on Trump.
So if right before the election, Trump is voted not guilty by the Senate.... that's bad news.

It's not just the race for President. House and Senate races will be clouded as well.

Impeachment will not help Democrats politically. In fact it may hurt. I'm with Nancy on this question.
Winning the House and maybe even the Senate is more important. Beating Trump is most important.

Oh, and if the worst happens and Trump is re-elected, the House can impeach in his 2nd term.

[StarfishSaver]

32. Correction

First, impeachment hearings wouldn't last 14 months. Not even close.

And I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but Clinton's impeachment hearings didn't take a year. They took two days.

Ken Starr presented his report to Congress in September 1998. The impeachment inquiry was opened in October. The hearings were conducted over two days - December 8-9. Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate the following February.

The entire process from the launch of the investigation to the acquittal took just over a year. The impeachment inquiry took less than two months and the impeachment hearings took two days.

[oldsoftie]

37. The rest of her post is still accurate. It would be a gift to trump at the wrong time.

[spanone]

44. Reason for the quick Clinton impeachment was that the Judiciary committee conducted no investigation

Since Ken Starr had already completed an extensive investigation, the House Judiciary Committee conducted no investigations of its own into Clinton's alleged

wrongdoing, and it held no serious impeachment-related hearings before the 1998 midterm elections. Nevertheless, impeachment was one of the major issues in the

election.

[watoos]

53. You are comparing apples and oranges

The House judiciary committee conducted no investigations of its own and it held no serious impeachment-related hearings before the 1998 midterms. The impeachment committee hearings were perfunctory, but I will say the floor debate was spirited. I am going on 72 years old but my memory still works.

Clinton was basically impeached from the Starr investigation and then a vote. There is no comparison between this and a Trump impeachment committee hearing.

[StarfishSaver]

54. I suggest you read the post I was responding to before commenting on what I wrote

And how are you coming with the answers to my questions?

Since you want to argue law and legal strategy, do it like a lawyer ...

Test your argument by playing it out as lawyers are trained to do:

1. If the House opened an impeachment inquiry tomorrow, what would be the next three steps the Judiciary Committee would take to get these people [Hocks, McGahn, Lewandowski, etc.] to testify?

2. How will your "more clout with the courts rule" play into each of these steps to ensure they will testify?

3. What would the timeframe be for each step and how long would it take to get from the first step to their testimony?

4. Compare it to the processes and time-frames for proceeding outside of impeachment and explain how much faster each step would be if done within an impeachment and the legal basis for the expedited timeframe

And please show your work . . .

[oldsoftie]

35. I support the Speaker & her knowledge of reality & the long game.

[VOX]

45. Mueller's performance yesterday now makes impeachment imperative.

Will impeachment proceedings be damaging to Democrats in the 2020 election?
HOW DO WE EVEN KNOW IF THERE’LL EVEN BE AN ELECTION? Let alone a free-and-fair one, especially since Russia practically has an open invitation to meddle and hack away.

Zero guarantees = Impeach.

[ananda]

51. Agree

And btw Mueller did NOT flop.

Just the opposite.

[CrispyQ]

58. Pelosi knows impeachment will be fought in the swamp & there will be poo flinging by Trump/cult45.

I could see why you wouldn't want to spend the end of your career with Donald & his cult flinging shit at you, but this isn't just any career, or any job. Our government's at stake here.

I think just the word impeachment will make more Americans take notice & pay attention. How many Americans even know about all the other investigations? Network news & Sinclair stations will have to cover an impeachment inquiry.

The dems should be less worried about impeachment firing up the GOP's base, than not impeaching & dampening dem enthusiasm & turnout. I'm not one who has to be enthused to vote, but by the number of non-voters, evidently a huge number of people have to be.

[Vinnie From Indy]

62. IMPEACH!

The fate of the country now rests squarely on Pelosi's shoulders.

[Hotler]

64. How dare he take sides against madam spearker....

[triron]

65. So is Schiff. WTF is wrong?

[onenote]

72. I guarantee you that Tribe hasn't counted the votes in the House

It's easy for him (and some here) to take potshots at Pelosi for not forcing a vote on a resolution to commence an impeachment inquiry.

Maybe its because Pelosi can and does count votes. She knows what her caucus wants and doesn't want. So even if 90 percent of the caucus would support such a resolution, she's not going to pursue it because the 10 percent that doesn't want to vote on such a resolution have the power to kill it.

Take a look at the votes in the House on matters where Pelosi had the ability to control the timing -- she wins every time with more than 90 percent support from the Democratic caucus. Now consider the one time she couldn't control the timing of the vote: Green's impeachment resolution. It failed miserably, with less than half of the Democratic Caucus voicing any sort of support.

It's easy for Tribe to sit on the sidelines and declare that Pelosi is "wrong" when he doesn't bother to consider that if there are as few as 10 percent of the House Democrats who don't want to move forward at this time, her decision isn't merely right, it's the only decision.

[StarfishSaver]

75. Former VP Biden: Nancy Pelosi is right

Biden Praises Pelosi Going Slow on Impeachment

Joe Biden endorsed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s handling of the debate in the House over whether to start impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.

“I think Nancy’s going about it the right way,” the former vice president said on Urban One Radio’s Tom Joyner Morning Show.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-25/biden-is-one-democrat-to-top-trump-in-ohio-poll-campaign-update?srnd=politics-vp

[AncientGeezer]

79. Tribe also said just hours earlier...Now he's blaming Speaker Pelosi? Which is it?

Link to tweet

[melman]

88. Where's the contradiction in these tweets?

Why can't he believe both of these things?

[AncientGeezer]

91. Tribe doesn't know what he believes....

[ehrnst]

92. I think he just gave us a preview of impeachment hearings.

And clearly thinks that some styles of testifying are capable of setting back the case against Trump....

[Gothmog]

89. Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Have The Votes To Impeach Trump

Link to tweet

Pelosi’s majority includes 31 members who represent districts Trump carried in 2016 and could face electoral danger. Impeachment might accomplish little more than energizing Trump 2020 voters.

Close Pelosi allies insist she couldn’t gain majority support for impeachment even if she tried, not to mention the two-thirds of a Republican-run Senate needed for conviction and removal from office. “There will never be 218 in the House,” a leadership aide told me.....

The votes aren’t there. The 31 Democrats who represent districts that Donald Trump won in 2016 can see that impeachment is not popular with voters in general. If these nearly three dozen Democrats want to win second terms and keep the House in Democratic hands, they feel the need to stay far away from impeachment.

Blaming Pelosi is both easy, and it displays a fundamental ignorance of the dynamics of this Democratic House majority.

Robert Mueller’s testimony was an important step, but unless public opinion changes and a whole bunch of House Democrats change their minds, impeachment won’t happen in the House before the 2020 election.

[ehrnst]

96. When Lawrence Tribe spends decades actually serving in Congress, and then elected leader

by her peers in Congress for several terms in a row, then maybe he'll have the cred to declare that she's "wrong."

Until then, she's, objectively speaking, far more qualiifed to make that call than he is.

Perhaps he'll learn something by observing her.