Pelosi believes there's enough evidence to impeach Trump: "We've had enough for a very long time"

[kpete]

Pelosi believes there's enough evidence to impeach Trump: "I do think we have enough," she said. "We've had enough for a very long time … but as long as there is corroboration, we might as well get some more. And then we'll see."



..............

...... She said flatly that she believes the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation has already accumulated enough evidence about Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine to justify such a decision. “I do think we have enough,” she said. “We’ve had enough for a very long time … but as long as there is corroboration, we might as well get some more. And then we’ll see.” She was equally unequivocal that the core charges against Trump—that he withheld congressionally appropriated military aid to try to force Ukraine to investigate a political opponent—reach the standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors” required for impeachment.

“If this president were to get away with this, forget about it all,” she said, sitting in a conference room in her suite of offices in the Capitol. “We might as well not even run for office. You don’t need this branch of government if he’s going to overturn the power of the purse, if he is going to overturn all of the other checks and balances, the power of inquiry.”



way More:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/10/nancy-pelosis-predictions-impeachment/601081/?utm_source=twitter&utm_term=2019-10-30T19%3A01%3A18&utm_medium=social&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_campaign=the-atlantic

[lordsummerisle]

1. I hope that

Pelosi and Schiff have food testers (tasters?)

[Goodheart]

2. Don't forget the TEN COUNTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, Madame Pelosi

I will be very, very, very disappointed if your only basis for impeachment is the Ukraine affair.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. +1,000,000. But how can you explain if they

weren't considered impeachable back in April? Seriously, how would you explain that?

[Garrett78]

9. It'll take a hell of a lot more than the Ukraine affair to get a bi-partisan impeachment and...

...Senate conviction.

Then again, I'm not sure what *would* get a conviction. Maybe some incredibly embarrassing audio of Trump swearing allegiance to Lord Vladimir in exchange for Putin not releasing salacious kompromat. But would even that get 20 Republican Senators to convict or push Trump to resign? I'm doubtful.

[Aristus]

3. The thing I love about her desire for more corroboration is that she

can drag out the impeachment inquiry as long as she wants to; preferably through the 2020 Election. Trump will have to campaign with it around his neck. She may be able to compel him to appear before Congress at crucial times, having to leave the campaign trail to do so.

The Senate Republicans are probably desperate for a quick end to this, not the least of which reasons is, Senate acquittal can give Trump a campaign boost.

So, Madame Speaker, request all the corroboration you want.

You got this.

[localroger]

4. She is also gauging the Republican resistance to conviction

The longer it drags out and the more evidence there is, the more likely it becomes that Republican Senators will begin to peel off to save their own asses. The threshold at which the party itself flips on Trump is probably not that high, and shrinking daily. If they had impeached last month the possibility of conviction would have been nil, even though sufficient evidence was there. By January the R's will probably be trying to tell Trump it's over themselves.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

7. Not sure I agree with that. Closer to the election with

still no trigger pulled? Sure to demoralize lots of Dems. "Been patient long enough"

[UTUSN]

5. K&R for, SO excellent!

[Nasruddin]

8. I think we've all had enough

....