Pelosi Admits There's Nothing Compelling, Overwhelming, Or Bipartisan Enough To Impeach Trump For

[Acadia]

I think the initial plan was to keep Mueller going into the 2020 election. AG Barr is not playing along. The witch hunt has gone on long enough.

As evidenced by Plan B: Throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

 

[Captain America]

God almighty....... that is one ignorant woman. :lamo

She doesn't have the mental capacity for any original thoughts of her own, and I seriously doubt she could articulate them if she had any.

Wrinkled up old **** for brains.

Thanks...

Spewed Mountain Dew out my nose...... Now I got a sticky keyboard.

Next time anyone asks me why my keyboard is sticky, I'm blaming it on you.

 

[Good4Nothin]

The only error in Pelosi's thinking is that "something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan" exists that could convince Senate Republicans to agree to remove Trump from office.

Pelosi's thinking seems clear: an impeachment process is an enormous drain on other resources and efforts, and would fail in the Senate anyway resulting in a feeling of defeat for the Left. So, per her thinking, what's the point?

That is the surface message. Obviously, if there were good evidence against Trump she would be for impeachment. She is admitting they don't have evidence, while pretending that they do. This is how politicians communicate.

 

[Acadia]

SDNY is just another partisan witch hunt. Investigate solely for the purpose of finding something. Every American would be in jail if we investigating everyone until we found something to get them for. That is not the American way.

You are correct.

"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime" (paraphrasing a bit I think)...now who said that again?

 

[Acadia]

If she doesn't support it then it's not going to happen as she'll pull enough Dems out of the process that they won't have the votes to make it happen.

I wonder if that's true, because if it's really true, it will stifle the likes of Tlaib and Waters. I think we'll know soon enough.

 

[Cardinal]

That is the surface message. Obviously, if there were good evidence against Trump she would be for impeachment. She is admitting they don't have evidence, while pretending that they do. This is how politicians communicate.

There are plenty of reasons to impeach trump, just none that could convince a Republican. I've covered this already.

 

[Grim17]

That was you making stuff up that she never said.

I guess the word "translation" didn't register... or it did and you're just being dishonest in the name of politics again.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

That was my "reading between the lines" translation. Nothing that woman says is motivated by truth... It's always about political posturing with her.

If the shoe was on the other foot, would you be for impeachment or would you be smart enough to know better and focus on the long game?

 

[Grim17]

If the shoe was on the other foot, would you be for impeachment or would you be smart enough to know better and focus on the long game?

Of course not... But I would have been that way from day 1 instead of waiting until just before the report came out... which is why I know Pelosi is only saying this now because she got a heads up that there is no collusion.

.

 

[RAMOSS]

No high crimes and misdemeanors. Will the left listen to her or not? Or, are they going to continue banging the impeachment drums just because they don't like Trump, even when their own leader admits there are no high crimes and misdemeanors?


Pelosi: ‘Not worth it’ to impeach Trump

Of course, that is with the current information. With the current public information, I agree with her. On the other hand, I am also going to wait for the Mueller report.

 

[RAMOSS]

Yes it does mean that. Pelosi knows what Mueller has and she knows that Mueller's got nothing on Trump. That's why she said she hasn't seen anything compelling or overwhelming and why the House had to start up new investigations, of which she also realizes they've got nothing on those either.

What evidence do you have that she knows what is in Muellers report?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

That is the surface message. Obviously, if there were good evidence against Trump she would be for impeachment. She is admitting they don't have evidence, while pretending that they do. This is how politicians communicate.

No, that's not what she's 'admitting', nor can you demonstrate otherwise. She's framing the issue. "He's not worth it" - now.

When new evidence comes out, like perhaps the Mueller report, she can go back and say she didn't think it was necessary, but in light of recent evidence...

Duh.

 

[haymarket]

It means a couple things. It means Pelosi just shot down all the loons who are looking to impeach Trump today. And it means Pelosi has seen nothing that merits impeachment in her mind. The truth here Mr. Haymarket is that it is YOUR wet dream that is collapsing around you. Hes not going anywhere.

Only in the willlful demented delusions of the right wing mind.

 

[haymarket]

She said there was nothing compelling or overwhelming or something that wasn't just partisan.

This was a pragmatic decision based on Republican denial in the Senate. Anything more than that is right wing wet dream nightmare fantasy.

 

[haymarket]

Yes it does mean that. Pelosi knows what Mueller has and she knows that Mueller's got nothing on Trump. That's why she said she hasn't seen anything compelling or overwhelming and why the House had to start up new investigations, of which she also realizes they've got nothing on those either.

That is all right wing nightmare fantasy. This is a purely pragmatic decision based on GOP refusal in the Senate to convict regardless of the evidence.

 

[haymarket]

I guess the word "translation" didn't register... or it did and you're just being dishonest in the name of politics again.

TRANSLATION did register large and loud - it means more of your bs that is the product of right wing delusionary thinking.

 

[Perotista]

No high crimes and misdemeanors. Will the left listen to her or not? Or, are they going to continue banging the impeachment drums just because they don't like Trump, even when their own leader admits there are no high crimes and misdemeanors?


Pelosi: ‘Not worth it’ to impeach Trump

Without a high majority of Americans in favor of impeachment, it won't work. Depending on the seriousness of the charges with visible proof of serious wrong doing, impeachment could backfire and gain sympathy for Trump. This is exactly what happened during Bill Clinton's impeachment trial. His approval/favorable numbers rose from 59% to 65%. A majority of Americans didn't want him impeached or removed from office. How a majority of Americans view the impeachment process, the reasons whether impeachment is for partisan political vindictiveness over a lost election or for real, easily understood reason is of utmost importance in either its success or failure.

Numbers also come into play, to be successful the Democrats need 20 out of 53 Republican senators to vote guilty. During Nixon the Democrats needed only 9 of 42. Had Nixon not resigned there were 9 Republican senators willing to vote guilty.

Now if I were a highly partisan Democrat wanting to win the 2020 election, I'd leave Trump in place. I'm not saying this is Pelosi's reasoning, I take her at her word on the divisiveness impeachment would cause.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Of course not... But I would have been that way from day 1 instead of waiting until just before the report came out... which is why I know Pelosi is only saying this now because she got a heads up that there is no collusion.

.

Think back, has Pelosi been calling for impeachment? No, she hasn’t. She hasn’t survived and excelled in D.C. for over 40 years by being stupid.

 

[Deuce]

You mean like the Democratic Senate wouldn't vote to impeach Bill Clinton?

I promise not to vote for Bill Clinton in 2020.

 

[Luckyone]

No high crimes and misdemeanors. Will the left listen to her or not? Or, are they going to continue banging the impeachment drums just because they don't like Trump, even when their own leader admits there are no high crimes and misdemeanors?


Pelosi: ‘Not worth it’ to impeach Trump

She may change her mind after the Mueller report but the reality is that with the Senate filled with Trump cult members that will not stand up against Trump unless he is personally raping their daughters (and maybe not even then), they will not vote to impeach and that makes it impossible to impeach him. Impeachment isn't about a crime being committed but about whether 60 votes can be found to impeach.

There are many other things that can be accomplished without wasting time trying to impeach someone that the Senate will not vote to impeach no matter what.

It is sad to see but then again it goes to prove that Pelosi is showing brains, common sense, and intelligence, which is and will always be more than Trump has or will ever have. He is still trying to get the wall built just to fulfill him campaign promise while he hopes that people will ignore the fact he promised that "Mexico will pay for the wall, "I will protect Medicare" and "I will drain the swamp". Just goes to show how dumb he is and how he thinks his supporters will believe him.

It is proven every day, over and over again. Trump is at the bottom of the intelligence chart.

 

[Luckyone]

That is the surface message. Obviously, if there were good evidence against Trump she would be for impeachment. She is admitting they don't have evidence, while pretending that they do. This is how politicians communicate.

Hey, good4nothing, let me ask you a serious question. Do you honestly believe the Senate would vote for impeachment if the Mueller report were to find out there was collusion? This is the person (Trump) that said he could kill someone of 5th Ave and the Republicans would ignore it and has proven that to be to be true over and over again. This is the Senate that has rubber stamped everything Trump has done, including separating kids from their mothers and not keeping records of where they are sent so they can be reunited in the future, the Senate that ignored Trump supporting white Nationalists, the Senate that did little to prevent the powers given to them by the Constitution from being taken away by Trump.

Do you honestly believe this Senate would Impeach Trump under any circumstance?

 

[Xelor]

No high crimes and misdemeanors. Will the left listen to her or not? Or, are they going to continue banging the impeachment drums just because they don't like Trump, even when their own leader admits there are no high crimes and misdemeanors?


Pelosi: ‘Not worth it’ to impeach Trump

Pelosi's remark as printed in the rubric article:

"I’m not for impeachment. This is news. I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it."​

In Mrs. Pelosi's comments, there is neither an explicit nor tacit claim that Trump committed no high crimes or misdemeanors. Inferring that is at all what she said or implied, though nobody'll stop one from doing so, one demonstrates one abjectly deficient critical reading ability.

 

[Bullseye]

Really bad move on the part of Pelosi. If not Trump and now - then who and when? Just because the GOP ran out the clock for the first two years and now we face and election next year is no excuse NOT to exercise your constitutional duties.

Your thread title is just plain fraudulent as that is NOT what she said.

Actually, didn't Mueller "run out the clock"?

 

[haymarket]

Actually, didn't Mueller "run out the clock"?

nope.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Since you seem to be a rather sane "slightly liberal" not infected with TDS, I'm curious to see the name or names of who you would like to win the nomination. I'm open to a moderate person. I vote for both parties in elections and voted for Obama in 2012. I'd like to see Joe Manchin run but I doubt he will. I'm interested to hear what John Hickenlooper says.

I could have voted for a guy like Kasich in 2016 but unfortunately we know what happened in the GOP primaries. Regarding the current crop, I'm very discouraged. I don't think a moderate candidate has any chance in the Dem primaries. The Democratic Party is now being taken over by an extremist fringe, like the GOP got taken over by the Freedom Caucus, ultimately resulting in the Trump phenomenon. Now it seems like the Dems will make the mistake of going with that moron Bernie Sanders again.

The Dems do have moderates, like John Bel Edwards (governor or Lousiana), the senators Doug Jones, Joe Manchin whom you quoted, Kyrsten Sinema, and Jon Tester, and a handful of House Representatives like Dan Lipinski, Vicente González, Jim Costa, Ron Kind, Henry Cuellar, Josh Gottheimer, Colin Peterson, and Kurt Schrader, among others. The problem is, if you read this list to anybody less informed, people will say, "who???" - which means, they don't have a lot of national visibility. Being a moderate is not sexy. Blue Dogs and the New Democrat Coalition, when do you see them grabbing the headlines? It's all AOC, these days...

Moderate Think Tanks like The Third Way are barely talked about.

Let's just think of recent Democrats, and women. What do we get?

That dumb, naive, and arrogant woman AOC who won in a blue district (big deal), is in the news all the time.
But a much more interesting person, Mikie Sherrill, who is much better educated than AOC (London School of Economics, Georgetown Law), won in a red district, and is a veteran to boot (Navy pilot)... nobody talks about her.

So, it doesn't look good.

Who would I like to see as the nominee? Hard to know. Somebody not named Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, for starters... Somebody with national appeal, but a moderate, willing to run, and able to mount a strong campaign with sufficient support (who? hard to find).

I don't think it will happen like I would like. It will be some radical, this time, since the Dems went with a moderate last time, and didn't win. Sure, Hillary was a horrible, horrible candidate... she shouldn't serve as a case-in-point that moderates shouldn't be selected, this time. But the extremists will make this case to death, and will milk the naive masses like all these Millennials who adore Sanders and AOC, who will fall for this idea.

But then, the silent majority, the moderates, the independents, who in this day and age of close elections are the real swing voters, will be turned off by too much socialism... Next thing, Trump might win again.

Basically, we're screwed.

I don't think I suffer from TDS. But no, I don't like him, because of his irresponsible tax cuts for the ultra-rich adding to the deficit, and the composition of the SCOTUS which is becoming unbalanced.

But I don't want to automatically see him fail in matters that affect all Americans and the world, such as North Korea, or the US economy. I'm not the kind who roots against the duly elected US president to see him fail just to score partisan points. But would I prefer a president more fiscally responsible, and more in tune with the nation's needs and wants rather than his own narcissism? You bet.