I've been writing her for awhile now ... surprised I still get her emails. Every time she sends one, I reply and tell her to please start the impeachment inquiry. I'm sure she doesn't really appreciate my replies.
If anyone wants the email I reply to, let me know and I'll post it if it's okay w forum rules. It's a regular house email address.
Message to Pelosi...accomplished.
Thanks for the nudge, KB!
Hope I'm not being redundant...
I think the American people DO know what happened, but 61 million of them/us don't care and are fine with it.
I think that it is entirely possible that the Dems have been threatened (Welcome, Copper!), but I think that despite what we'd like to think, many of them are beholden to some of the same demons as the Rethuglicans. What they fail to understand is that it should be clear to them that no one cares. The Dems continue to bring origami paper swans to gunfights.
Turtle McConnell will prevent removal, that's crystal clear. Even so, I think it is incumbent on the Dems to show the public that they are doing the right thing and at least start impeachment inquiries.
I listen to the podcast "Pod Save America", and the title of the most recent one is "Half Past Handmaid's Tale". Yup.
And also - Done -sent email to Pelosi
For those of you who are represented by Democrats in Congress, do you happen to know where your reps stand on impeachment? I have searched the internet to see what the views are of my congressman and senators, all Democrats. I was only able to find their comments from April and early May, e.g. "we need more information, we're moving closer to impeachment," yada yada yada. The fact that I can find nothing recent tells me that they must be playing the waiting game. So I'm going to write to them, asking where their heads are, and stating what I expect from them. I know that it's up to Pelosi to get the ball rolling, but I'm hoping that pressure from the congressional body might sway her.
Deetoo, good thinking. I just checked my congressman's office and ended out on the phone with one of Joe Kennedy's aides. I gave him my thought which is that they just need to do the right thing which is to impeach. If they don't impeach, the Rethugs will argue down the road that the reason the House didn't impeach was because there wasn't a case for impeachment. But there is a mighty case for impeachment. And it's the House of Representatives' job to impeach in the case of a criminal president. So they need to just do it. I also pointed out that if a Republican congressman says there's a case for impeachment, then what is holding the House dem's back? Answer: they have other strategies for getting the Thump out. But there will be loses either way, so they should do the right thing - impeach.
I agree with everything you said, Jeanne. And why is Congress waiting for the public to tell them what to do? The public is ambivalent about impeachment right now because (1) Barr directed the narrative about the Mueller Report, and consequently (2) the public is confused because they don’t have the facts. Congress needs to lead the people by telling them the truth, through televised, sworn testimony -- Con Don’s worst nightmare. In my mind’s eye I see him pacing like a caged animal as televised testimony is going on. I see people tuning in, even at work. He doesn’t need to be actually impeached for a new narrative -- based on the truth -- to be written.
One thing you can say about the Rethugs: they have cojones. The Dems had better grow a pair before it’s too late for all of us.
There have been quite a few on here who have said they do not see an impeachment for 45 so far in their visions and I haven't seen it either in mine.
For the longest I assumed it would the fault of the Republicans blocking the impeachment process.
Now I'm starting to wonder if it will be at the fault of the Democrats instead.
Although many of us have not seen an impeachment in our readings, I’m wondering if that just means it would die in the Rethug Senate? Maybe as a group, we need to ask a clarifying question: will the Democratic Congress begin an impeachment inquiry? And will the inquiry be successful in swaying public opinion, even if it does not lead to impeachment?
If my understanding of impeachment is correct, the process is essentially a court procedure run by Congress where the House brings charges and the Senate holds the trial. Based on my reading, Federal judges have frequently ruled that Congress has a greater claim to sensitive government documents and personal information when it can point to an ongoing legal matter, instead of just a congressional investigation or legislative debate. But I do have a question: because we have a Rethug Senate, can they in any way stall or prevent a trial from occurring? Does anyone know?
Hi deetoo, I don't know for certain about the process on how the trial starts in Senate, but I do know that Chief Justice Roberts presides over it. So I don't think it would be just in Mitch's hands, since the judicial branch is involved in presiding over the trial. But with Mitch, he will certainly try to postpone it, even if that's not supposed to be how it goes.
On a related note, I watched a video last night of a couple of psychics who predicted impeachment would happen in the House, but that something would happen to T before he could be tried in the Senate (they saw a health problem of some sort). Whatever happens, it does seem it may not go according to plan. *shrug*
I imagine Ben Wittes will be posting about the process on Lawfare soon. I'll try to see what I can find when I get a chance.
Thanks, MB. So do you know whether Roberts' role would be an active one, or is it more ceremonial? I really like Ben Wittes, and will be interested in hearing what he thinks.
That's interesting about the predictions of T's health. I think that health problems were also predicted by a few people on this site. These health issues seemed to render him incapacitated in some way.
It's my understanding that it's a role of control, like the trial judge in a normal proceeding. The House selects prosecutors, the Senate is essentially the jury, Chief Justice Roberts makes rulings. We should be able to verify this fairly easily from what happened w Bill Clinton and Nixon. I know Jill Wine Banks has been posting and talking about this for quite awhile. I imagine that she'll have a series of tweets confirming or clarifying the process.
Just got off the phone with joe Kennedy’s office again this morning and the aide said they are waiting to hear mueller testify. I said, it is all in his report. Don’t wait. The more they wait the more time the enablers have to mount their counter attack.
I understand their reasoning though. They don’t want to start impeachment and then have mueller come out and contradict them. They want a clear case. I feel they have a clear case in the report.
Reading impeachment: our Prediction group had seen a year before the 2016 election that the question of impeachment of the president would come up in late 2017 but there would be no follow through. Then when December 2017 rolled around there was impeachment buzz in the air and many psychics were in fact predicting impeachment. But it did not happen, (just as we predicted.)
Now we are in a whole new impeachment discussion. And this one is more serious and likely, although I haven't seen it in a vision yet. A few people in our group have seen references to impeachment for this Spring and summer.
When I throw cards on Nancy Pelosi, I get she is stuck, and indecisive. Biggest decision of her life. She is holding meetings about it. She doesn’t want to do it unless it’s a slam dunk. It is true that the man is a criminal, a traitor, and should be impeached. The most seriously criminal in the history of the presidency. But in this political atmosphere, it is not a slam dunk. And they will not likely have solid evidence for conspiracy.
Nixon's wrong doing was about one percent of what thump has done, and he resigned because he knew he would be impeached and convicted. But even though his crime was not as great as this President, we have become numb to the offenses. Also they won't have the votes to convict in the Senate and then there's the media opposition that FOX will launch and has already launched..
Bill Clinton's wrongdoing isn't even worth mentioning although he did lie and cover it up.
The problem is that the Senate will not follow through. I don't think they will even hold a trial.
Another card showed that If she agrees to go forward with it, it will be because she is pushed and has no choice.
Using the cards, I ask Mueller what he is feeling. He is currently in the Hanged Man position - i.e., in an impossible position. He wants to walk away and become a private citizen. Does he feel Trump's offenses are impeachable? Yes he does.
Answering some people’s technical questions about the impeachment process:
At the federal level, the impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Pelosi would make sure she has the votes before moving forward. They would have to define exactly which crimes he will be charged with.
Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached".
Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, Chief Justice John Roberts would preside over the proceedings, not Mitch McConnell. The Senate then votes and only a super majority (2/3rds in favor) can find the president guilty.
Last two impeachments: Nixon resigned before he would have been impeached. Clinton was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury but acquitted in the Senate.
Jeanne: Using the cards, I ask Mueller what he is feeling. He is currently in the Hanged Man position - i.e., in an impossible position.
"The special counsel's team has conveyed the notion that Mueller does not want to appear political after staying behind the scenes for two years and not speaking as he conducted his investigation into President Donald Trump. One option is to have him testify behind closed doors. But the notion that Mueller would only answer questions in private has become a sticking point, according to a source, as Democrats believe the public needs to hear directly from the special counsel."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/21/politics/robert-mueller-testify-congress-negotiations/index.html
This afternoon I heard Congressman James Clyburn being interviewed about Mueller testifying. Clyburn acknowledged that Mueller doesn't want to testify in a public Congressional hearing because he doesn't want to appear political after being behind the scenes for two years. So for right now, he wants to testify behind closed doors. Clyburn said that concerned him, but he understood Mueller's concerns. He said that would work because Congress would still have Mueller's testimony that they could release to the public. That's not the same thing! The public needs to hear it from Mueller.
Sigh ... I think I see a chocolate bar calling my name ...
I just heard someone on the news speculate that Mueller could be hampered because he still reports to Barr, hence his reluctance to testify publicly. The Hanged Man.