House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) conceded to other top Democrats in a meeting this week that public opinion on President Donald Trump is so baked in, it may be hard to sway people’s opinion with the impeachment inquiry — but that they must go ahead and do it anyway.
According to CNN, she referenced the impeachment and resignation of former President Richard Nixon, recalling that public opinion was split on it right up until he abdicated his office.
One of her right-hand men, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), put the situation in stark terms to CNN.
“Well, I think there are hard views on both sides,” he said. “And sadly, apparently, Trump was perhaps right when he said of his own supporters that he could shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue and they would not require any accountability.”
Democrats haven’t given up the messaging game though, exchanging the antiquated and clunky “quid pro quo” for “bribery” in an attempt to make average Americans understand why what Trump did was an abuse of his office.
Meanwhile, they are struggling to figure out the scope of what should be included in the articles of impeachment. Some argue for inclusion of the obstruction of justice episodes outlined by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller in his report. Others worry that including Russia misconduct will muddy the waters, and that they should be limited to the Ukraine scandal.
While politicians reflexively consider the political ramifications of their actions, Pelosi is right here. She had no choice but to proceed with impeachment. She knows the chance of Senate removal is remote. But Trump is on a crime spree. He threatens our very electoral system if he isn’t stopped. Pelosi is putting our Constitution first.
Agree with her. If they do not do their job, then that is game over.
“Meanwhile, they are struggling to figure out the scope of what should be included in the articles of impeachment.”
Everything would be good, eventually.
Yup. Spanky left the house no choice. They were forced to impeach POTUS.
Yup.
It’s not just the egregiousness of the testimony and the open, venal, day-to-day criminality of this administration, which gives a moral imperative, but also, whether you agree with her on the scope or not, if they hadn’t taken this step, the Dems might have splintered. Even though we may disagree on some stuff, on one thing we are united: impeaching the mfer and firing him by Nov 2020 at the latest.
I keep wondering about a kitchen-sink approach to articles of impeachment. The caveat: a raft of criminal offenses that are easy to understand.
Most people understand the concept of “bribery.” I wonder how many counts of bribery could be included in articles of impeachment. The concept of “extortion” is easy to understand too. What about “conspiracy” related to one of the crimes that top the potential list?
And what about “money laundering?” Is that a bridge too far?