huge political PR nightmare for trump and republicans.

she is willing to shutdown the govt.

Emphasize that the budget will not be passed not only because of the wall, but also because cuts to Social Security and Medicare is unacceptable! The people need to see which party is for Social Security & Medicare, and which party is against. Right now, about 40% of the population think the Dems want to make cuts in those areas. On a side note, I am very pleased with Nancy Pelosi especially since I was one of the ones who had criticized her earlier.

Working with newly elected aggressive legislators so as not to inhibit their ideas, enthusiasm and exuberance, but school them on the most effective ways to lead. Cohesiveness as a party, staunch belief in the party’s ideals, and the tools to move legislation forward will be paramount as we approach the next election.

Dem vets like Pelosi, Schiff and Biden are okay but the newbies are genuinely exciting!

I don't get how folks would leave when we have a two party system. The Dems have always been for we the people. I am an elected precinct delegate here in Michigan. I attend the 12th District monthly meetings and conventions. It's up to us to fight the good fight.

Yeah, yeah. We've all done ward politics.
But the party moved away from all of us.
I just disagree with you about the efficacy of the DNC, et al over the past decade+.

It shifts from time to time, more left, then more center then more right, but it is always a better alternative to the GOPeed.

I am not seeing the brilliance as you put it.

Im not seeing anything bad either but not sure about the brilliances.

The Democrats are now fussing amongst themselves about Nancy's statement on no impeachment.

Im not sure how I see that as brilliance?

If the constant impeachment hearings would do us damage... wouldnt the constant house investigations also do the same?


I guess I dont understand where you are coming from.

There are some negatives of Pelosi's approach.

- the bar is set much higher on Impeachments
- many of the 40 house seats in the blue wave was because of peoples issues with Trump and Russia
- we arent doing what the constitution prescribed.


i think this shows the Dems are worried about R voters. They are doing this for political reasons (2020).

I am not sure its Brilliance.

Help me understand.

The House could pass the motion but it will die in the Senate. The republicans won't turn on him.

That is all.

It only takes a majority in the House to "impeach" (indict).

This is what happened with Bill Clinton. The House voted to "impeach" him by a simple majority but the Senate did not have enough votes to "convict" and remove.

it seems the vast majority of the public don't understand the meaning and mechanism of "impeachment". I.e., they basically assume it is still a "conviction" but without removal from office, and there is no expungement process to wipe that black mark away (other than perhaps a pardon).

Is not as strong as the GOP caving on crimes to keep him in office...

and that would be harmful to the Democrats?

I guess I dont understand.

Lets not compare to Clinton because for 4-6 years the white water investigation under ken starr and others found NOTHING on clinton.

So they had to set him up on a lie about consensual sex.


Today we have a number of crimes that Trump has committed or appear to have commited.

We are worried that the GOP not convicting will cause the R's to out vote us in the end?

I just dont see it.

If a president is doing crimes, its the job of the congress to correct that.

that Trump will be touted by the media and the republic party as being exonerated from everything including the Mueller investigation? It is the only thing that would get him re-elected next year at this point.

That chances of getting him convicted or removed with this Senate are pretty much nil.

Nobody says that he will be exonerated.

It will only be that he wasnt convicted by the Senate. Are we worried only about what the R's will say? Are we now just acting based on what the R's say and think about us?


We DONT HAVE TO CONVICT him for it to pay off.

When the R's impeached Clinton in late 1998.. 1.5 years later, they had the House, Senate and the Presidency.


IT DID NOT hurt the R's and it was a much weaker investigation.

Al Gore won and we all know it.

The Republicans went full on cheat mode. They have been in full on cheat mode since. They will continue to cheat. And they will continue to protect this president.

After ushering in the Blue Wave with phenomenal success all while enduring ridiculous crap like this being flung at her, I stand with and trust Nancy Pelosi. She has proven to be wise beyond those who lack her insight and experience.

The R's have become more divisive.

They are creating more contentious situations.

They are stoking the hate of liberal americans.

They are preventing our voters from voting..


What are we doing today...

We are wanting to not be divisive. We are giving in. We are trying to do the right thing, but this is what we always try to do..

Then the R's get over and they continue to take more and more advantage.

Its time for us to put a stake in the ground and fight back. Not cave in.

When the R's change the senate rules and go for nuclear option soon. (A DIVISIVE move for sure)

They will get more nominees through.

Then if we ever get he Senate back... We will move to NOT BE SO DIVISIVE and eliminate the nuclear options moving back to 60 votes.

When will we learn.. Caving in to the R's to be nice doesn't work.

Keep in mind his mantra of no collusion, no collusion

...to create a controversy, are only presenting parts of what Pelosi said and in a way that she's saying "trump will never be impeached, etc." which is NOT what she said.

The bar IS high on impeachments, there have been only two (not including Nixon which never reached the impeachment stage), and it should be. We're not a banana republic where there's a coup or an overthrow every few months or years.

Many of the 40 house seats were flipped more because of the republican obstruction in the House and Senate, not because of trump.

The Constitution doesn't require that anyone be impeached, it just sets up the guidelines/rules under which a president can be impeached.

Impeaching now or anytime in the near future would be, as Pelosi said, "divisive", and doing so knowing in advance that it would not result in a conviction in the Senate would do more harm than good. Especially since, with an acquittal, trump and the republicans can use it to their benefit in the campaigns next year. He's already carrying on about a "witch hunt", can you imagine him if the impeachment is not successful?

It is brilliance, and very wise.

What are the chances that Trump would be convicted and removed given the current Senate, and what would be the result of him being cleared by this Senate?

To be enough to get into the history books. And to let him know what he is doing is not ok

Better??? Not with immense pile of crap.

Good Grief.

To me it sounds like We (Pelosi) is worried about the 2020 elections and the wrath of the R's.

so she wants to not go down that path.

....on this - Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler. They both agree with Pelosi. Schiff actually said that he doubts that there is even a majority in the House to pass articles of impeachment.

This isn't voting on naming a post office, this is voting to remove a president. If they don't have an iron clad legal case it's pointless to even try. Right now they don't have such a case.

We dont have enough votes to vote out a president who constantly insults americans of color.

We dont have enough votes to vote out a president who is breaking laws and personally profiting from his office.

we dont have enough votes to vote out a president who many are concerned is doing the work of the Russians.


We havent even talked about how the russians help trump win the election and him working with the russians.


But wait until we have a president who has a tan suit or does a curtsey and maybe farts wrong and we have an impeachable offense.

It seems like the GOP is controlling our direction and narratives.

I hope it doesnt backfire with Dems not wanting to vote for folks that wont hold the presidents accountable.

* It implies that he hasn’t done anything impeachable

* it doesn’t leave open the door for considering impeachment post-mueller report

If the House took a vote for articles of impeachment, it would barely pass with ZERO Rs and a 10-12 Ds in Rish districts not voting for it.

The Senate would not even get 50 votes to convict - again, ZERO Rs would vote for it, and a handful of Ds in Rish states would not vote for it.

Subsequently, 45 will scream, and the MEDIA WOULD ENABLE IT, how he was exonerated AND the Rs and THE MEDIA would pile on Ds for "overplaying their hand!."

45 would get a boost, and have a greater chance of getting re-elected, the Ds would almost assuredly lose the House and take a beating in an other wise favorable cycle in the Senate ...

Now, it isn't "brilliant" but is most assuredly is dealing with the sad state of where this country is at this point ...

Was that it was so “3 D chess” like...way above our heads. Lol

in 2018 and upcoming congressional races: "Democrats will impeach Trump if they get the House."

I'm sure that the GOP loves that she has to choose between strategy and keeping all Democrats happy.

Impeachment is impossible right now, and if history serves as any teacher, presidents come out looking like victims, and gain approval.

Of course she will impeach if it becomes possible, which only happens if the demand clearly comes from the public and not Democratic leadership. That's the only way that the GOP Senate will even consider it.

We don't have that now - it would not only be pointless to threaten it, it would give the GOP ammunition in upcoming races.

This is the woman who got the ACA passed against all odds - even when Obama had given up on it after losing the fillibuster proof majority in 2010.

I trust her to know the enemy and the battlefield. She's good at what she does and willing to be "disliked" if it will get the damn job done, and that's why the GOP fears her and wants her gone.

I myself was angry at her for bringing in the RCC Bishops and no other clergy to look over the ACA, but I get it now - she knew that as a lifelong RC, she could personally assure them that it would not force Catholic orgs and schools to provide contraceptive coverage or pay for abortions. That got a huge obstacle out of the way of the ACA to make them feel listened to. She could both make them feel listened to, and get the ACA passed for the rest of us. That is her brilliance - she doesn't dominate, she listens.

before it was finished - she wasn't bringing in UCC ministers or Unitarian Universalists to give feedback.

But I get the wisdom of it now. She, as a lifelong Roman Catholic, could talk to them and they would listen to her as such, even if she is a woman. She could explain personally that it wasn't going to infringe on Catholic orgs, or fund abortion. She knew that making them feel included at the table would remove a huge obstacle to the ACA passing.

And she did it. She got it passed by doing what it took, by getting the right people to feel validated.

Yes, Nancy Pelosi is brilliant, and really knows her job and greatly respects our system.
Brilliant especially in light of the rot and corruption oozing from every single republican.

removal, its only the process to determine/find facts. Why not just follow the constitutional process and let it play out, one way or another?????????????

What am I missing?

Letting criminal behavior go without consequence is going to be helluva lot more "divisive" in the long term.

As soon as we accuse the Rs of this..

They can easily accuse of of doing the same thing.


I do get it.

We are worried about the election of 2020. We have to win it

So we dont want to piss off the R base and impeachment might do that.


what is weak sauce in my opinion.

Your concern and opinion is noted. Democrats are placing the country first by focusing on the corruption that makes up the entire Trump administration. Pursing impeachment proceedings would sweep aside this broad swath of justice and replace it with a singular focus.

The people will hold its own impeachment proceedings via their vote in less than two years. It would be a waste of precious time for the House to fight about impeachment.

It would be a pyrrhic victory anyway; it would die in the Senate. And then we will have accomplished NOTHING for the American people.

There is not a moment to waste. Impeachment proceedings would be a waste and a distraction that the country can not afford.

Impeachment hearings would be also looking into all the transgressions. There would not be much difference between investigations by the house for the next year and impeachment hearings over the next year. They are essentially the same but just called differently.

When Clinton was impeached in Dec 1998. Bush was in office basically 2 years later.

It DID NOT hurt the R's for them to impeach Clinton on basically a much smaller crime.

to keep the WH in one party for more than two consecutive terms - Gore did win.

In case you don't understand, impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process.

Do you really think that Dem leadership isn't doing everything that they can to undo this damage that DT has done, and you really think that they think impeachment would be good, even if it's picking a losing fight, and they just refuse to do it? Why?

Do you think that they are deliberately refusing to do something that you think would be somehow effective at getting rid of DT?

Not picking a fight we know we will lose isn't the same as "letting criminal behavior go."

The electoral college "let criminal behavior go," not Democrats. The constitution makes it hard to get rid of a sitting President. Blame the writers of the constitution for "letting criminal behavior go."

Agree.

But are going to stay at their 40% and continuing to try to control the country by hook or crook.

Therefore we will cave on this issue of Trump Russia and impeachment and just let the voters decide (like in 2016).

meanwhile the R's will run rough shod and kick you in your back if your not looking.


We cave.

I want to nail these Republicans for all their transgressions in the past 6-8 years but we cave because its too divisive.

Did the R's cave because its too divisive? They are the ones that cause the divisive.

We're united as a party. I hope that lasts through the primaries, and I believe it will.

Everything about the Trump administration is being exposed, with evidence in tow.

For Pelosi to dismiss Trump as "not worth it" for impeachment was smart. In an instant, she swept away the prospect of the House being bogged down by impeachment hearings that would lead to nowhere. Fighting against impeachment is the only thing the Trump campaign would have. Trump certainly hasn't improved those things it pledged to everyday voters. He has nicknames and schoolyard-bully insults, but people just roll their eyes at his deranged utterances now.

I guess time will tell,

It's not like we live in a comic-book universe, though it sometimes may feel like it.

Embolden the enemy... pfffft.

pfffft.

The house and senate remained in R control and the next president was an R.

The Impeachment of Clinton DID NOT hurt the R's. It hurt the Dems.

It is no different in professional sports. Especially, in baseball, basketball and hockey. That have minor leagues (farm system). It is the same in government with 51* minor leagues. Not including the county and city government.

Just as sports, there are rookies in Congress and they need to learn the ropes.

.....about a blowjob, it was a different political landscape.
Many people actually cared if a president was moral and honest.
Certainly the "moral majority" and the other hypocrites who
were fired up by Faux Noose and talk radio pretended it mattered.

Many States' governments had been taken over by Repugs. They began to install wedge issues
on the ballots of every election, insuring a large rightwing turnout. Their "long game" paid off.

The "Southern strategy" pulled white voters to the repugs with it's implied racism.

Let's contemplate what would have been if Al Gore had just won his home state of
Tenn and thereby beat GW Bush.

No 20 year War on Terror, budget surplus, tuition-free college instead of a generation of indentured servants,
universal healthcare like the rest of the developed world, etc.

"When you strike at a King, you must kill him"-Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Speaker Pelosi understands this adage.

Neither was Bill Clinton. After the impeachment, Clinton stayed popular, and the Republicans won the next election. So it didn't change much.

move forward deliberately, calmly, and brace for the upsets--which is what she is saying.

However, it's altar, not alter. Alter is a verb that means to change.

the greatness of, and our nation's great need for, Democrats. And here's something we're up to:

Link to tweet

Pelosi is great!

Check out @StephMillerShow’s Tweet:

Link to tweet

We could not be better served.