Pelosi waves off impeachment. She says it would divide country

1. 94

   Readmikenowposted 5 years ago

   
   
   House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is setting a high bar for impeachment of President Donald Trump, saying he is “just not worth it” even as some on her left flank clamor to start proceedings. 
   
   Pelosi said in an interview with The Washington Post that “I’m not for impeachment” of Trump.
   
   https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor … -worth-it/

   replyreport
   1. 0

      promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That's a position worthy of respect by both sides, is it not?
      
      She also said she would act in favor of impeachment if Republicans took part as well.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         She will try for impeachment if she has the political power to pull it off, but try for political points if she can't.  And that's worth of respect?  Not in my book.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Is any Democrat worthy of respect in your book? 

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               None of those in congress, that I'm aware of.  Of course, that must carry the caveat that I'm aware of only those that hit the news; the most radical and powerful of the group.
               
               And yes, the same can be said for the Republican side of congress as well.  I do not respect someone, as a person, for playing the political game, though I DO respect their ability to do so well.  Clinton for example; a master politician, but a complete low life at the same time.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I agree about Clinton being a great politician and a lousy human being. Thought so back then and still think so today.

                  replyreport
   2. 65

      PhoenixVposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Once you get to the top, there are no 2 parties. She not gonna break ranks.

      replyreport
   3. 65

      PhoenixVposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      "Pelosi said in an interview with The Washington Post that “I’m not for impeachment” of Trump"
      
      Maybe Mueller should start investigating Nancy and the WaPo for ties to Russia?  Well, maybe not the WaPo, I'm sure the Russians have some standards.

      replyreport
   4. 71

      Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Its very simple Mike.
      
      After more than two years of nothing but lies, fabrications, and hate spewed by the 'progressive' media, all their efforts, have accomplished nothing.
      
      More Americans are in favor of Trump now, than in 2016.
      
      And despite all the hoopla that there was a 'blue wave' that ushered in an anti-Trump mandate... they know the truth, billionaires spent their money like never before to win Senate and Governor races in places like Texas and Florida, and they still lost... two years of screaming and false allegations... and the Republicans only gained seats in the Senate.
      
      Even some of the delusional are waking up and realizing that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar are the new faces of the Democratic Party, they represent what the Dems will be all about in 2020 and beyond... and are starting to realize the DNC is no longer the pro-American, pro-Workers, pro-Union party.

      replyreport
   5. 86

      Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Just my opinion... Pelosi is a political machine and has a political common sense. She realizes that there is no evidence to support impeachment. She may just be realizing how far left the party has gone. Her instincts tell her far too far left, and that the democratic party needs to cool their jets, and playing the impeachment card will serve to do nothing but lose them votes in the 2020 election.  I would imagine she would have hopes that the party would return to " go with the wind politicking". Tell them what they want to hear. The method Dems have used for many decades.

      replyreport
2. 62

   Live to Learnposted 5 years ago

   'Not worth it' translates to 'I see no grounds for it.'

   replyreport
   1. 94

      Readmikenowposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I agree.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Do you also agree her stance is worthy of respect by both sides? Innocent until proven guilty?

         replyreport
         1. 94

            Readmikenowposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I think Pelosi is an extremely seasoned politician.  I'm not naive enough to believe her motives are anything more than political posturing.
            
            The reality for the Democrat party right now is they are in bad shape.  The radical leftist have taken over the party and have quite a bit of influence.  This has resulted in many of their huge donors leaving.  They are struggling to get the moderate Democrats to stay with her party and support them. 
            
            So, in order to appeal to the moderates in the Democrat party, she has said she is not going to impeach President Donald Trump.  This is a way to disassociate herself and the radicals in the Democrat party and appeal to the rest of the party.
            
            The other reason Pelosi has done this is President Donald Trump's approval ratings.  Impeachment can only be successful if the president's approval ratings is in the low 30s or high 20s.  President Donald Trump's approval rating is consistently in the high 40s and some have him in the 50s.  This is huge considering everything that has been done to discredit him.  The Democrat party and the mainstream media have thrown everything possible at him and President Donald Trump remains popular.  The majority of the American public wouldn't stand for it.
            
            So, in this political climate, impeachment would seriously hurt the Democrat party, drive away more donors and alienate even more moderate Democrats. 
            
            This wasn't done out of a desire to be fair, but because of the Democrat party's political reality.  In politics, you always follow the money.

            replyreport
            1. 73

               tsadjatkoposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               You forget another reason Mike. There really is no legitimate grounds for impeachment and though she would never say that she knows it, she knows it and she also knows it is not likely they will find any - she also knows in that event if she commits to impeachment now she’ll have to base impeachment on something they trump (no pun intended) up which will be nothing but transparently political theater!

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I disagree.  "High crimes and misdemeanors" is sufficient, as is the emoluments clause.  Either could be twisted enough to give that "trumped up" cause sufficient for the task...in the minds of those that don't need a cause at all.  Which is pretty much every Democrat in congress and some of the Republicans. 
                  
                  But finding 67 Senators willing to twist reality that far?  Not likely, which is why she has come out against it ("Unless the Republicans join us!").

                  replyreport
               2. 0

                  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  "No legitimate grounds for impeachment" aren't possible when we have ongoing federal and state investigations.
                  
                  And one of them has already racked up 32 indictments.
                  
                  He is innocent of state and federal crimes until proven guilty. But if he is guilty, he is highly impeachable.

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     "And one of them has already racked up 32 indictments."
                     
                     Why is it that so many people point to that, but not a single one mentions that none of them are against the President? Is the House going to impeach Trump for what someone else did?
                     
                     "But if he is guilty, he is highly impeachable."
                     
                     Not unless they manage to twist minor offenses into "high crimes and misdemeanors".  As it is all about politics rather than reality or truth, they may well try.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Because the investigation ultimately is about Trump. The investigations are seeing what if anything points to him. So they aren't done yet.
                        
                        Collusion, money laundering and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors. They are highly impeachable and not minor offenses.

                        replyreport
                        1. 94

                           wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Again, not sure what indictments of other people have to do with Trump.  If the investigation is "ultimately about Trump" it has surely strayed far from it's purpose.  Something we all know, of course.
                           
                           But I DO understand keeping the forlorn hope of finding terrible crimes by the President alive.  I'm just not sure that constantly stating that there have been many indictments (without ever mentioning that they had nothing to do with Trump) is a reasonable method of doing that.  It certainly adds nothing to the idea of impeachment.
                           
                           Money laundering, obstruction; yes, these would be "high crimes".  Collusion - talking to a Russian about our election - is not, IMHO.  Not even if it turned out that Trump personally suggested putting faux news on FB.  That's exactly what I meant about twisting a minor offense into something the size of Mt. Everest.

                           replyreport
                           1. 94

                              Readmikenowposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              Okay, please provide the federal statute covering the crime of "Collusion."
                              
                              Waiting.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 Feel free to read.
                                 
                                 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story … ion-215366
                                 
                                 Also, please focus on the broader point. Clinton got impeached for a lot less than colluding with the Russians to get himself elected President of the United States.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 94

                                    Readmikenowposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    Thanks for the link.  I did read it.  This is what it said.
                                    
                                    "Collusion is not a federal crime (except in the unique case of antitrust law), so we should all just stop using “collusion” as a short-hand for criminality. "

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       Please don't cherry pick. The rest of the paragraph:
                                       
                                       "But that doesn’t mean that the alleged cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia is of no criminal interest. To the contrary, if true, it may have violated any number of criminal prohibitions."

                                       report
                                 2. 94

                                    wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    Clinton got impeached for lying to congress.  I'd have to put that a little higher on the list than talking to Russians - it's called perjury in similar cases, and can get jail time.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       How silly. Having sex with Paula Jones is a bigger deal than Trump getting Russian help with the election?
                                       
                                       Hardly.

                                       report
                           2. 0

                              promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              No, it's not something "we all know". The investigation has stayed true to the authorization letter from the Department of Justice.
                              
                              The fact that his:
                              
                              - Campaign manager
                              - Assistant campaign manager
                              - National security adviser
                              - Foreign policy adviser
                              - Longtime political adviser
                              
                              Have all been indicated easily raises suspicions about Trump's behavior and justifies an investigation.
                              
                              Denial is simply wishful thinking.

                              replyreport
                              1. 94

                                 wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 Make up your mind: either it was "ultimately about Trump" or it was anything they could dig up that might hurt him politically...such as connecting him in any fashion to a criminal.
                                 
                                 No need, by the way, for any further "suspicion" - that was there before he was ever elected.  Suspicion of everything under the sun, just no proof.  As we continue to see - wishful thinking, in other words.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    Denial and deflection.

                                    replyreport
                           3. 91

                              crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              I am perplexed by the notion that indictments against so many of Trump's associates exonerates him in some way or has nothing to do with him.
                              
                              He was in charge and he is in charge. He's the boss. Everyone has heard of "plausible deniability" right? Frequently employed by those in charge to make sure they're not linked to crimes. How could anyone be so naive as to think Trump had nothing to do with the various crimes occurring around him? That alone would seem to suggest authorities should continue to investigate.
                              
                              And then let's turn to Hillary Clinton. So many accusations lobbed against her with very little proof of anything. Imagine if roles were reversed and all these people around Clinton were being indicted. Conservatives would be going crazy. And they were going crazy, lobbing charges of murder and such with no proof. Pizzagate; etc.
                              
                              So, it seems we will be in this endless cycle. Tit for tat. Forever.

                              replyreport
            2. 0

               promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I don't see how the Dems are in bad shape when they had such a successful takeover of the House.
               
               Credible polls (not Rassmussen) consistly have Trump's approval rating between the mid 30s and low 40s.
               
               A recession next year will drag that number down. So will impeachable crimes if Trump is found guilty from the state and federal investigations.
               
               You have a lot more to worry about from the Republican establishment -- which can't wait to get rid of Trump -- than you do from Pelosi.

               replyreport
   2. 94

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Or, more likely, 'I see no way to make it happen.'

      replyreport
      1. 94

         Readmikenowposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with with you.
         
         I read an editorial today and someone made a very valid point.
         
         They said at impeachment of President Donald Trump right now would extremely energize his base of support.  Most moderate Democrats don't have a desire for it.  An impeachment would hurt the Democrats far more then help them.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            "An impeachment would hurt the Democrats far more then help them."
            
            And THAT is why she will not pursue an impeachment.  Not because he isn't worth impeaching, but because she can't do it and it would hurt the almighty party.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Not at all. She is much smarter than that.
               
               She wants to wait until 2020 during an election year. By then:
               
               1. The investigations will be over.
               2. Many experts predict the economy will sink into recession
               3. Trump's approval will drop.
               4. Republicans will gladly line up behind her.
               
               It's all about timing.

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I can pretty much guarantee that very few Republicans would line up behind Pelosi. Turn on Trump? Certainly possible.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     They will avoid the appearance of lining up behind Pelosi. It's about the survival of their time in office.
                     
                     If enough of their constituents turn against Trump, they will cooperate with impeachment procedings.
                     
                     And of course it won't take all Republicans to do so.

                     replyreport
                     1. 62

                        Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Oh. For sure. Politicians bend the way the wind blows.

                        replyreport
               2. 94

                  Readmikenowposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Donald Trump has been in office for two years.  Many things on the left have been predicted about what would happen during his presidency.  They all have one thing in common...they are all WRONG.
                  
                  So, these predictions are entertaining, but that is all they are...entertaining.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Such as:
                     
                     - Cutting taxes for the rich and skyrocketing the national debt.
                     
                     - One scandal after another.
                     
                     - Starting a trade war that is skyrocketing the trade imbalance.
                     
                     - Repeated attacks on the Constitution that get blocked by multiple courts.
                     
                     - Creating a fake crisis at the border.
                     
                     - Attacking our allies and disgracing our international reputation.
                     
                     I think he has pretty much acted the way I expected.

                     replyreport
                     1. 94

                        wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Can't you come up with something actually true?  Yeah, lots of "scandal"...manufactured by detractors.  Yes, starting a trade war...that has nothing to do with trade imbalance.  Yeah, getting blocked by liberal courts...and that the SCOTUS said was OK.  Yes, stating there is a crisis at the border (manufactured by decades of dong nothing)...which there is despite Democratic denials of one. 
                        
                        Etc. etc.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Denial and deflection.

                           replyreport
3. 75

   Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago

   She's trying to save face for her party full of socialist and Muslims. Well, it's likely too little too late. The nutjobs are upstaging her in the media. The media, clearly, is the enemy of the American people, and even the enemy of sanity in the Democrat party.

   replyreport
   1. 91

      crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Are you saying that Republicans are better because they don't have Muslims? Are having Muslims in your party a bad thing? What about Muslims being in a political party make it a bad thing?

      replyreport
4. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   Any excuse for waving.
   Its what she does.
   
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4A4Rq9TJP8

   replyreport