Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
5. I'm both disputing the story and questioning the motives.
Fri Jul 26, 2019, 11:57 AM
Jul 2019

Last edited Fri Jul 26, 2019, 12:54 PM - Edit history (2)

The story itself is bs. It's obvious that the "source" either wasn't in the room or doesn't understand how the impeachment process works - and probably both.

For example, the impeachment process isn't started by "drafting articles of impeachment." Articles are drafted and voted on AFTER the inquiry. Every Member of Congress knows or should know that. Nadler definitely knows that. So the idea that he would suggest "that several House committee chiefs begin drafting articles of impeachment against Trump" in order to start the process is not only specious, it's laughable. That's the kind of frame that would be made by someone who doesn't understand the process - and anyone who was in the room in a position to leak what was said would understand the process and know that Nadler didn't say any such thing.

Moreover, even if the committees wanted to draft articles, perhaps as an internal document to frame or focus their investigations, they don't need Pelosi's permission and Pelosi couldn't stop them if they chose to do it. They can just do it as part of their regular committee processes - staff draft things all the time for committee consideration and don't ever need the Speaker's permission. This would be no different if the chair wanted them.

This story was "leaked," reported on and written by people who aren't directly involved in this but obviously have a spin they want to sell.

So, yes. I'm disputing the story.

What would it be like in this country if Trump wins in 20? And maybe he gets the house too...I Demsrule86 Jul 2019 #1
Arguments have been made ad nauseum why a majority of Nevermypresident Jul 2019 #4
What is advantageous about losing the house? We need to retake the Senate too...and those Demsrule86 Jul 2019 #12
You're assuming we would lose the House majority if we impeach. I don't agree that Nevermypresident Jul 2019 #16
I wonder when Politico will start to cover the Republicans? StarfishSaver Jul 2019 #2
Are you disputing what this article is reporting? Or, just shooting the messenger? Nevermypresident Jul 2019 #3
I'm both disputing the story and questioning the motives. StarfishSaver Jul 2019 #5
You do realize this isn't the first time this has been reported, and not by Politico. Nevermypresident Jul 2019 #7
The fact that it's been reported before doesn't make it true StarfishSaver Jul 2019 #9
I'm for impeachment hearings to begin but reject your portrayal of Pelosi putting party over country eleny Jul 2019 #6
I've supported many of the actions Speaker Pelosi has taken over the years. However, Nevermypresident Jul 2019 #8
Until that motivation comes from her lips you have no idea what motivates her eleny Jul 2019 #10
What has come from her lips: "He's just not worth it." Nevermypresident Jul 2019 #11
She fears she might lose the house while Trump wins re-election...then he has it all ...the Demsrule86 Jul 2019 #13
This OP didn't age well... StarfishSaver Jul 2019 #14
Pleased with today's action. Maybe Speaker Pelosi was influenced by all the pro-impeachment Nevermypresident Jul 2019 #15
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"House Judiciary Chairman...»Reply #5