So if Nancy Pelosi, as @CharlesPPierce so eloquently argues here, is violating the solemn oath she swore and is refusing to perform the duties required her of the US Constitution, shouldn't she be impeached? https://t.co/fCp5Bgx5di— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 12, 2019
Technical point: Removal would be by expulsion, not impeachment, and it would be done by a 2/3 vote of the House acting alone.
Of course, it's not a serious proposal. It's not possible to remove members of Congress on such a sensitive standard of what it means to be "violating the solemn oath." Who would be left?
On a subtler level, I don't think Nancy Pelosi is violating her oath in ruling out impeachment. There's discretion in deciding when to go forward on impeachment, even if there is an impeachable offense. She's simply exercising her discretion, and I'd say she's even doing that well. What I like about Greenwald's wisecrack is that it supports the decision not to impeach Trump, not that I think Greenwald intended to do that.
पोस्ट्स
६१ टिप्पण्या:
prosecutorial discretion
She knows she can't get a guilty verdict from the Senate
It's a joke question, but the answer is that the House can dump its Speaker any time it wishes by simple vote.
It’s the ‘change the language rule’ again. Impeachment in this case means threaten to abandon politcally so as to coerce into doing what we want you to do.
I know it's all silly hyperbole, but I wish Pelosi would clarify specifically how Trump is an "unprecedented threat to the Constitution", or more so than any other President.
She's trying to save her party from its own insanity. Over the last couple years, I've developed a certain respect for Nancy Pelosi. However much I may disagree with her on many issues, she often is the sanest person in the room. That takes character.
I absolutely think Nancy should propose impeachment.
The junior members too obviously although they will of course never shut up anyway.
They should even follow-through and do it.
I don't need a just a victory in 2020. I need a Roman triumph.
They are still attacking Nancy but she’s managed to stiffle AOC and the other one for 48 hours without so much as a peep from their supporters. If it continues I wonder if we’ll see spittle flying towards AOC and the other one for caving (or whatever the trendy term for caving the kids are using). That’d be checkmate Nancy...
They either know the Mueller report is a dud, or they are playing it for a bait and switch. Keep hope alive!
"unprecedented threat' - even if true - would not be grounds for impeachment. It's why we have separation of powers and elections.
I understand the way it works in today's House is that the "leadership" of the Democratic caucus, i.e. the senior committee chairs, largely 80+/- years old survivors from the 1960's, meet daily somewhere in the bowels of the Capitol and decide what the position of the Congressional Party shall be on the issues of the day, and the Speaker and her assistants then sally forth to enforce those decisions among the Democrat members.
The Speaker, Majority Leader, Assistant Majority Leader, and Whip are thus all not acting as party leaders, but as party whips.
I can only guess at what sort of imbecility the asterisk refers to.
tim maguire said...
she often is the sanest person in the room. That takes character.
That's a sad commentary on the quality of the rest of the room...
Lock her up! Lock her up!
When they turn, they turn on YOU!
Nancy hasn't ruled out impeachment. She said, unless there are serious accusations. She is positioning herself as reasonable and moderate and framing whatever accusations come up as serious.
The real conundrum of the day is turning out to be "what is the impeachable offense"?
I honestly thought impeachment was coming (I predicted spring, but maybe late summer fall makes more sense).
The goal isn't to remove the president. They know that is a bridge too far to achieve (and you'd just get Pence). Some (Chuck?) think that Trump would do a Nixon and resign rather than go through a trial. Sorry, but Bill Clinton broke the glass on that one.
No president will ever resign again to avoid impeachment.
The goal is to provide cover for Trump to be primaried. It dovetails with reports about how Trump only has a low "base" of support, and he can't win re-election, etc.
So is Nancy:
A) trying convince the more radical of her party that impeachment isn't a good thing?
B) trying to set up the argument that she wasn't for impeachment but was forced into it by a groundswell of opposition from the "people". Thereby saving her Speakership when impeachment fails. "See I told you it wouldn't work".
C) lowering the expectations for the Mueller report so that when it comes out they can still go ahead with impeachment.
I'm leaning towards "C".
By even discussing it however, it's playing with fire.
I would like to give a quick shout-out to Nancy for some of her sane comments about impeachment. It is a terrible practice to talk endlessly and casually about impeaching a duly elected President. You keep it up, you lapse into Banana Republic status.
There's one caveat, though. If Nancy had the evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" she'd probably do it.
It'd be really nice if Nancy explained that the REASON she's against impeachment, is because there's no evidence.
The threat is that they are going to have to tear up the Constitution to beat him. Ask the judge in Hawaii who had to appoint himself king, for example.
Charlie Pierce's opinions are not worth a sack of wet dog s**t.
He's one of the reasons we cancelled a 30+ year subscription to Esquire magazine.
Just FYI.
Ms. Pelosi is now receiving some of that codswallop that inundates Trump each day. She rose to power as phenomenal fundraiser doling out dollar cookies to the masses in the Democrat House. Now the ungrateful sods are turning on her. Karma (and Kamala) are coming for Pelosi and the other old bulls.
Bob Boyd said...
Nancy hasn't ruled out impeachment. She said, unless there are serious accusations. She is positioning herself as reasonable and moderate and framing whatever accusations come up as serious.
This is exactly right.
When, not if, she introduces Articles of Impeachment on the House floor, it will be done 'with a heavy heart' and something the House democrats had 'hoped to avoid'.
Pelosi, being the Speaker and the nominal head of the Democratic Party at the moment, has inside information on the Mueller investigation and its status, and when you combine that with the tenor of the news stories since the election last November, it becomes pretty fucking clear that Mueller's well drilling came up dry and that neither Trump nor of his present staff will be indicted. How do we know this? Because we can actually see who Mueller has indicted and what they have been charged with or pleaded to.
Put another way, what was Manafort, Papadopoulos, Flynn, and Stone charged with? Nothing relating to Russia election meddling at all and nothing really related to the Trump Campaign for president either because none of these people had anything to offer Mueller in exchange for leniency- I mean, seriously, just read the court documents if you don't believe me.
Pelosi's statement is a tell about where this is going to end up- she is warning her caucus that impeachment isn't going to happen. She is preparing her supporters for the big let down that is coming their way so that they don't end up out on a limb being sawed off behind them.
tim maguire said...
...Nancy Pelosi... often is the sanest person in the room.
Being the sanest person in the room depends a lot on the choice of rooms.
Drop me into the ward of (almost) any mental hospital, and I'd be the sanest person in the room.
Drop (almost) any patient of a mental hospital into the U.S. Congress, and they'd be the sanest person in the room.
It's time for Speaker Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez!
"Sometimes you feel like a nut. Sometimes you don't."
Impeachment??.....yeah, go ahead!!....Light that fuse!
Remember something that is often overlooked- the FBI and Mueller had access to all of the Trump Campaign's electronic communications conducted from at least January of 2016 until the late Summer of 2017 due to the Page FISA warrant by itself- literally all of it. Were there any truth to the Russian collusion story, you would have seen it leaked with the details over the last 2 years, and people would have been indicted on it by this point in time.
Read the Manafort indictment documents and the Stone indictment. These were the two men most likely to be involved in such a conspiracy, and yet neither was charged with anything close to it.
Nancy isn't ruling out impeachments, she just doesn't want the headlines right now.
Pelosi has a long history of outrageous demands and positions that you know she didn't really believe, but wielded as weapons, and she would rightly be outraged about those if they were employed by the other side.
I love when the crazies do the same thing to her. Like her, if they get their way, they will immediately change direction or sweep the crazy under the rug like it never was said.
The Drill SGT said...
tim maguire said...
she often is the sanest person in the room. That takes character.
That's a sad commentary on the quality of the rest of the room...
It sure is. How many times since the last election has she faced down screeching leftists to defend a policy that is, at least, moderate and within Washington norms? Many times. And you know she's quietly sharpening the knives that will solve her Freshman Media Darling problem.
She's trying to save her party from its own insanity. Over the last couple years, I've developed a certain respect for Nancy Pelosi.
I'm not a Pelosi fan and had thought that she had lost significant cognitive ability in the past years. But I've revised my opinion of her in the past months. From a political perspective, she handled the government shutdown showdown with Trump well. After giving some ground to the young left guns to retain the Speaker position, she wisely closed the door to impeachment. True there aren't the votes in the senate to convict, but there weren't the votes to convict for Clinton's impeachment and the GOP unwisely then went the impeachment route.
Now the ungrateful sods are turning on her. Karma (and Kamala) are coming for Pelosi and the other old bulls.
I suspect their funding is coming from somewhere else. I'd like to know where.
Chakrabarti has an interesting history.
Oddly enough, he doesn't sound at all like his protege.
Saikat Chakrabarti
@saikatc
We shouldn't allow other countries to build the new energy economy without competing. Would you want America to stick to horse & buggy when other countries built cars? Inaction is unilateral disarmament. Investing in the American economy is how we've always achieved greatness.
Whaaat ?
I'm thinking too of the recent event where she was ambushed by school children and their activist "teachers." She held her ground better than most would have.
According to CNN:
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., rushed to the defense of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday, saying only “graphic evidence” would warrant an impeachment gamble against President Trump.
“In the absence of very graphic evidence, it would be difficult to get the support in the Senate needed to make an impeachment successful. Again, my feeling is let’s see what Bob Mueller produces. But the evidence would have to be pretty overwhelming,” Schiff told CNN.
The only thing that remains to be seen is how the pro-impeachment Dems (Nadler, AOC, Tlaib, etc.) react.
As the House Democrats yell, McDonalds, McDonalds, McDonalds.
Nancy Pelosi pulls in, orders a half-cafe, soy, no foam, latte, with a drizzle of pumpkin spice carmel and no plastic straw, and drives out.
Sorry, I would have drawn you a triangle graph meme, but I'm just not into it.
Greenwald is, overall, not a serious person.
(Pelosi's oath requires her to "defend the Constitution".
This is deliberately vague, and no, no "not pushing to try-and-fail to impeach the President because he's a big fat meaniehead" is not an attack on the Constiution or even ignoring one and failing-to-defend it.
Arguably the daily work of most of Congress is a bigger attack on it than the President will ever do, but he doesn't give a damn about that.)
I'm thinking too of the recent event where she was ambushed by school children and their activist "teachers." She held her ground better than most would have.
I believe that was Senator Feinstein. But roughly the same generation and the Democrats have a big generational problem. The young guns are not interested in pragmatism and their political philosophy won't prevail nationally.
The Democrats in the House might have enough votes to impeach President Trump, but there are enough Republicans in the House to make a mockery of the process.
There will be Republicans asking questions in the committee hearings, and there will be Republicans debating on the House floor. All of this will be televised and will be watched by huge audiences.
The Democrats' kangaroo-court antics will be watched and discussed by the entire population.
Also discussed will be the comparable actions of prominent Democrats.
------
While the Republicans were dragging President Clinton through the mud for his sexual affairs, Larry Flint was offering a million dollars to any woman who could prove she had had a sexual affair with a prominent Republican politician. Several women took Flynn's money, and then Flynn ruined a series of Republican politicians.
Something similar will happen while the Democrats hypocritically drag Trump through the mud. The public will become well informed and will laugh about Democrat hypocrites.
The thing is, the game plan for the Democrats under Yes Impeachment and No Impeachment is almost exactly the same: Investigate the sh-t out of Trump, his family and associates between now and Election Day.
They were not going to impeach during the campaign season. So they would have to do it in 2019. There's not enough time.
Pelosi's statement means they can continue doing exactly what they've been doing, for as long as they want.
"Pelosi's statement means they can continue doing exactly what they've been doing, for as long as they want. "
That sounds right to me. I've never thought they were seriously going to move to impeach Trump. It was campaign rhetoric designed to keep the base fired up and voting. Running all these investigations, presumably to uncover high crimes and misdemeanors, is done to keep the base fired up and, maybe, slow down Trump even if just a little.
What I like about Greenwald's wisecrack is that it supports the decision not to impeach Trump, not that I think Greenwald intended to do that.
I think that was exactly Greenwald's intent.
Greenwald appears from time to time on Tucker Carlson, and I'm always surprised by how much I respect him. I don't like him much and usually disagree with his opinions, but he is a classical liberal in the sense that he is a big fan of free speech and due process. It's nice to see there are still some around.
Me thinks, Glenn likes Trump.
The tell that GG is being ironic is that he called Charles Pierce "eloquent."
Running all these investigations, presumably to uncover high crimes and misdemeanors, is done to keep the base fired up and, maybe, slow down Trump even if just a little.
The Congressional and Mueller investigations have one primary purpose in mind: dirty up Trump so that he does not win another term. It is needed to protect the Deep State which would be at risk during a second term.
The talk about impeachment and Russian Collusion is crisis inducement that allows leftists to take extraordinary actions that would not be otherwise tolerated in a democracy.
Impeachment is a political remedy, not a judicial remedy.
There are all sorts of things one might wish to accomplish via politics. And if you're the Sun King then you can accomplish these political things by royal decree. But, in this country you've got to have the votes.
Charles Pierce's conception of what impeachment is and isn't does not match reality. A witness in a court of law can be required (under penalty of law) to tell the truth, but a politician can't be ordered to perform a political act.
Singularity arguments are the first refuge of a dolt
I agree with Joan. GG is pointing out how stupid the impeachment talk is.
I don’t think GG is pro Trump but he likes him more than hawks.
even William arkin, noted in harpers, how crazy this sudden love of the deep state, has gotten,
"I don’t think GG is pro Trump but he likes him more than hawks."
Greenwald has no use for Trump AT ALL but while Greenwald can be a stubborn ass, he's not stupid and the sheer idiocy of the whole "Russia Collusion" thing offends him.
Mike
Pelosi had more cause to impeach GWB, and she didn't, so why would she impeach DJT? It's really quite fascinating how she's become the stateswoman of her party.
https://babalublog.com/2019/03/12/fun-quiz-who-said-it-ocasio-cortez-or-che-guevara/
It is needed to protect the Deep State which would be at risk during a second term.
I see nobody talking about Trump's budget which has big cuts in agencies.
WaPoo even has a chart and you can see the pain if it passes. Its will take a GOP House to do it.
I expect we will hear a lot about it next year. State cut 29%.
is this considered a flip-flop?
"not that I think Greenwald intended to do that." Not sure! He has been pretty eloquent too this last couple of years, pointing out that Trump is kinda a lot like previous presidents. Or that they were like him.
Pelosi didn't rule out impeachment, she said the very sensible thing, that impeachment would have to be based on very clear and compelling evidence of impeachable crimes, that could get bipartisan support. Absent that, it's a mistake.
Boy, how did we get to the point where even a brutally partisan pol like Pelosi by merely talking common sense political strategy is not crazy enough for not only one wing of her party, but much of the media?
they've been fed this red meat for three years now,
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/13/bloody-sunday-colonels-fury-says-soldiers-betrayed/
Please, please, PLEASE, Miss Nancy, impeach Trump! I really want a Republican House and Senate in 2021, and there's no better way to get that than for the House to impeach Trump.
"If you really believe the president* is an unprecedented threat to the Constitution, your oath demands that you begin the process to remove him. It's your job."
It's pretty much taken for granted by partisans nowadays that a president of the other party is always "an unprecedented threat to the Constitution."
But that doesn't constitute a crime, let alone a high crime or misdemeanor.
At least Pierce is using an asterisk after President* and not the "scare quotes" so popular during the W years...
I think I love pretty much every comment Aunty Trump posts. Aloha Aunty
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा