GatewayRedbirds.com
http://gatewayredbirds.com/forum/

Nancy Pelosi
http://gatewayredbirds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=63026
Page 12 of 13

Author:  Joe Shlabotnik [ January 24 19, 11:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Nancy Pelosi

ghostrunner wrote:
I wonder why not just cancel it altogether though. It's not necessary and the shutdown is plenty excuse to just say let's do it next year.

The Constitution says the President "shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union." So they could cancel the speech and let him deliver a letter. And probably ditch the yearly part as well. You could interpret 'from time to time' in any number of ways - just ask scumbag McConnell about 'timely'.

Author:  33anda3rd [ January 24 19, 11:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Nancy Pelosi

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:
ghostrunner wrote:
I wonder why not just cancel it altogether though. It's not necessary and the shutdown is plenty excuse to just say let's do it next year.

The Constitution says the President "shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union." So they could cancel the speech and let him deliver a letter. And probably ditch the yearly part as well. You could interpret 'from time to time' in any number of ways - just ask scumbag McConnell about 'timely'.


Also this used to be an administrative report more or less. This year we did this, this year we did that. Now it's a political speech. It's basically the second Amendment, still nice to have but something that needs re-worked so it's not used as a political device with the defense that the constitution allows for it.

Author:  33anda3rd [ March 7 19, 2:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nancy Pelosi

Pelosi is handling the Ilhan Omar thing very well. Hitting all the right notes, saying that she believes Omar's intent was not anti-Semitic and talking about Omar just being unaware of how her words would land. Making the house resolution about anti-hate, whether it's anti-Semitims, anti-Muslim bigotry, or white supremacy and insisting "It's not about her."

Author:  Gashouse [ March 7 19, 8:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nancy Pelosi

I agree. I think she's walking the line well.

Author:  Freed Roger [ May 21 19, 1:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nancy Pelosi

She should have commenced impeachment before, but the WH denying subpoenas practically gives an ultimatum , and a face-saving path for her to call to impeach.

Think of the precedent if they don't act. If they don't at least attempt to impeach, even a 2020 sweep by dems would be tainted

Author:  G. Keenan [ May 21 19, 1:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nancy Pelosi

Freed Roger wrote:
She should have commenced impeachment before, but the WH denying subpoenas practically gives an ultimatum , and a face-saving path for her to call to impeach.

Think of the precedent if they don't act. If they don't at least attempt to impeach, even a 2020 sweep by dems would be tainted


I think she's still handling this pretty well, basically giving Trump enough rope to hang himself. Next step will be Don McGahn getting on a plane to Russia where they don't extradite.

Author:  Freed Roger [ May 21 19, 1:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nancy Pelosi

G. Keenan wrote:
Freed Roger wrote:
She should have commenced impeachment before, but the WH denying subpoenas practically gives an ultimatum , and a face-saving path for her to call to impeach.

Think of the precedent if they don't act. If they don't at least attempt to impeach, even a 2020 sweep by dems would be tainted


I think she's still handling this pretty well, basically giving Trump enough rope to hang himself. Next step will be Don McGahn getting on a plane to Russia where they don't extradite.

If they don't impeach now, basically saying they never will, under any circumstance.
Even if voters boot him he won't be gone without the record and facts of impeachment laid bare. Not that I'm kidding myself that people that have given their will over to Trump will ever be gone.

Author:  G. Keenan [ May 21 19, 2:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nancy Pelosi

Freed Roger wrote:
G. Keenan wrote:
Freed Roger wrote:
She should have commenced impeachment before, but the WH denying subpoenas practically gives an ultimatum , and a face-saving path for her to call to impeach.

Think of the precedent if they don't act. If they don't at least attempt to impeach, even a 2020 sweep by dems would be tainted


I think she's still handling this pretty well, basically giving Trump enough rope to hang himself. Next step will be Don McGahn getting on a plane to Russia where they don't extradite.

If they don't impeach now, basically saying they never will, under any circumstance.
Even if voters boot him he won't be gone without the record and facts of impeachment laid bare. Not that I'm kidding myself that people that have given their will over to Trump will ever be gone.


The White House has shown already that they are going to blanket refuse any congressional oversight. This will therefore end up in the courts. It will be hard to hold impeachment hearings without any of evidence being sought by these subpoenas. Better to establish a pattern of unconstitutional behavior going in to that court phase.

When the courts rule that the White House must comply, as they did yesterday on the financial records subpoena, and the White House still flaunts the subpoena the case fore impeachment (and possible conviction in the Senate) becomes much stronger.

Trump is going to end up self-impeaching.

Author:  Arthur Dent [ May 21 19, 3:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nancy Pelosi

G. Keenan wrote:
Trump is going to end up self-impeaching.

What does this mean?

Author:  G. Keenan [ May 21 19, 4:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nancy Pelosi

Arthur Dent wrote:
G. Keenan wrote:
Trump is going to end up self-impeaching.

What does this mean?


It means that, by stonewalling Congress, he is himself building a body of evidence for impeachment, in addition to the evidence of obstruction in the Mueller report. The courts will rule on subpoena compliance case by case. In all likelihood Congress will win those cases. The admin will then have to flout both the Congress and the Legislative branches, at which point the impeachment case becomes all the stronger. Maybe a few more Republicans will even get on board.

It means that Trump is himself basically forcing the House to take up impeachment. If he flouts their oversight, what other choice do they have?

If he's smart, he'll flout for as long as possible, let it play out in court for as long as possible, then comply, play more games, negotiate some more, go back to court, play games with document release, and so on. Basically, stall through 2020 and beyond. Maybe that's his game plan. The Dems should assume that it is and just cut to impeachment. But first, I think they need to at least let these subpoenas play out for another month or so.

IMO, they need to impeach. The Mueller report put the ball in their court, deliberately. They need to take the baton and continue the process. Otherwise, any future President can just bury any DOJ investigation with a stooge attorney general.

Page 12 of 13 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/