Angry Democrats

[coorslite21]

Such a divided party.......sad...

 

CL

 

POLITICO

• MAGAZINE
• THE AGENDA

 

 

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rebuffed calls for impeachment, reportedly telling fellow Democrats, "This is not about politics. It's about what's best for the American people." | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

CONGRESS

Pelosi clashes with fellow Dems in closed-door debate on impeachment

 

By HEATHER CAYGLE, JOHN BRESNAHANand SARAH FERRIS

 

05/20/2019 07:47 PM EDT

 

Updated 05/20/2019 10:38 PM EDT

 

House Democratic leaders sparred internally on Monday over whether to begin an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies rejecting the call to move forward for now, according to multiple sources.

Reps. David Cicilline of Rhode Island, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Joe Neguse of Colorado — all members of Democratic leadership — pushed to begin impeachment proceedings during a leadership meeting in Pelosi's office, said the sources. Pelosi andReps. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, Hakeem Jeffries of New York and Cheri Bustos of Illinois — some of her key allies — rejected their calls, saying Democrats' message is being drowned out by the fight over possibly impeaching Trump.

Story Continued Below

Raskin — a former law professor — said he wasn't advocating impeaching Trump but suggested that opening an impeachment inquiry would strengthen their legal position while allowing Democrats to move forward with their legislative agenda.

Pelosi dismissed this argument, asking Raskin whether he wanted to shut down the other five committees working on Trump investigations in favor of the Judiciary Committee.

“You want to tell Elijah Cummings to go home?” Pelosi quipped, referring to the chairman of the Oversight and Reform Committee.

And in a Democratic Steering and Policy Committee meeting, Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee stood up and demanded Trump's impeachment. Pelosi then countered, "This is not about politics, it's about what's best for the American people," said a member who attended the meeting.

While Pelosi and her top Democrats argue that a majority of House Democrats don't want to impeach Trump, she is under growing pressure from some of her most hard-line members to move more forcefully against the president.

Several members and aides said an impeachment inquiry resolution could be introduced in the House Judiciary Committee in the next several days, spurring more Democratic debate over how to respond to Trump.

CONGRESS

Cohen: Trump’s attorney urged false testimony

 

By ANDREW DESIDERIO, NATASHA BERTRANDand DARREN SAMUELSOHN

During the Steering and Policy Committee meeting, Cohen said President Bill Clinton faced impeachment proceedings “over sex” while Trump is “raping the country,” according to two sources in the room. Cohen later confirmed his remarks.

Story Continued Below

 

Pelosi pushed back on Cohen during the meeting and his assertion that she was simply afraid impeachment would cost her the House majority.

“This isn’t about politics at all. It’s about patriotism. It’s about the strength we need to have to see things through,” Pelosi said, according to an aide in the room.

The speaker mentioned that Democrats have not exhausted all options to hold the administration accountable, including levying fines via a process known as inherent contempt.

Pelosi also tried to calm restive rank-and-file members by pointing to the legal victory Democrats won Monday against Trump, who tried to block his accounting firm from turning over his financial documents after Democrats issued a subpoena.

“What we said when we started is that these [investigations] will yield information to us. Today, we won our first case,” Pelosi said. “We’ve been in this thing for almost five months and now we’re getting some results.“

The latest Democratic battle over impeachment began after the White House formally declared that former White House counsel Don McGahn — a key figure in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation — would not attend a Tuesday hearing before the Judiciary Committee.

Story Continued Below

 

The White House decision to block McGahn's appearance infuriated some Democrats, who said it was the last straw following Trump's refusal to honor other Democratic subpoenas.

CONGRESS

Don McGahn won't comply with House Democrats' subpoena

 

By ANDREW DESIDERIO and KYLE CHENEY

Cicilline said he supports an impeachment inquiry if McGahn doesn't show on Tuesday.

"I think if this pattern by the president continues, where he's going to impede and prevent and undermine our ability to gather evidence to do our job, we're going to be left with no choice," Cicilline said about initiating an impeachment inquiry. The Rhode Island Democrat insisted that simply beginning an inquiry doesn't mean that there will be a formal vote to impeach Trump.

"It's a means where we can collect that information ... We need to have the ability to gather the evidence," Cicilline added.

Story Continued Below

 

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), another member of the Judiciary Committee, is also in favor of an impeachment inquiry if McGahn doesn't appear.

"If McGahn doesn't show tomorrow, I think we're at an inflection point," Lieu said. "If we can't get information, I think we have to start proceeding down this path."

Pelosi, however, countered that Democats "have invested this much time. I don’t know why we would say McGahn, that’s it.”

CONGRESS

Some Republicans unsettled by Trump’s sweeping claims of immunity

 

By ANDREW DESIDERIO and KYLE CHENEY

Jeffries — chairman of the Democratic Caucus who also sits on Judiciary — rejected any move toward impeachment.

"We did not run on impeachment, we did not run on collusion ... so logic suggests that we should carry forward with the agenda that we communicated to the American people," Jeffries said.

Judiciary Committee Democrats met late Monday night to decide how to handle their response to McGahn's nonappearance. The panel decided to move ahead with Tuesday's session, and will likely hold a contempt vote next month against McGahn.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Trump and the White House "intimidated" McGhan into not appearing before his panel.

Story Continued Below

 

“The president’s continuing lawless conduct is making it harder and harder to rule out impeachment or any other enforcement mechanism," Nadler said.

Trump and White House officials have blocked Democrats' attempts to obtain the president's taxes and a record of his personal finances; an unredacted version of the Mueller report, as well as testimony from Mueller directly; more information on Russian interference in the 2016 election; and internal documents on Trump's immigration and environmental policies, among other issues.

The Trump administration has refused to honor the Democratic subpoenas, with Attorney General William Barr failing to even show up for a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Mueller report. The Judiciary Committee then voted to hold Barr in contempt.

Democrats won a legal victory on Monday when a federal judge ruled against Trump's attempt to prevent the House Oversight and Reform Committee from obtaining Trump's financial records from his accounting firm. Trump's lawyers had argued that the committee was not entitled to the records and would immediately appeal.

Yet impeaching Trump, or even beginning an impeachment inquiry against Trump, is a huge risk for Democrats. Pelosi and her allies complain the anti-Trump fervor is overwhelming Democratic messaging on their agenda, and claim that most of the rank and file is against the move.

Story Continued Below

 

Democratic leaders also fear that impeaching Trump in the House, only to see him acquitted by the Senate, would strengthen his hand in 2020.

But there is a growing chorus of pro-impeachment Democrats, and they're being egged on by outside groups that argue Trump needs to be removed from office.

Pelosi, though, insists Democrats are all on the same page, despite Monday's drama.

"There's no divide," Pelosi said as she exited the Capitol. "We're fine."

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

 

 

[Shabibilicious]

The Dems are in a serious catch 22.....do what's morally right, or do what's politically savvy in the build-up to 2020....Pelosi is old guard, living in a land of bought and paid for millionaires, left and right, free from scruples.  As always, just my opinion.

 

GO RV, then BV

[coorslite21]

1 hour ago, Shabibilicious said:

The Dems are in a serious catch 22.....do what's morally right, or do what's politically savvy in the build-up to 2020....Pelosi is old guard, living in a land of bought and paid for millionaires, left and right, free from scruples.  As always, just my opinion.

 

GO RV, then BV

 

I'm right there with you on the amount of dirty laundry Trump is carrying around......but what are his probable impeachable offenses?  Poor morals doesn't qualify....

 

Yes....they are all bought.....to some degree......one way or another....CL

[jg1]

7 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

I'm right there with you on the amount of dirty laundry Trump is carrying around......but what are his probable impeachable offenses?  Poor morals doesn't qualify....

 

Yes....they are all bought.....to some degree......one way or another....CL

And not handing over your taxes is not breaking the law! They are grasping at straws and not reality. Especially with Barr in there. Lol

[Shabibilicious]

1 hour ago, coorslite21 said:

 

I'm right there with you on the amount of dirty laundry Trump is carrying around......but what are his probable impeachable offenses?  Poor morals doesn't qualify....

 

Yes....they are all bought.....to some degree......one way or another....CL

 

Though the list of impeachable offenses is a long a distinguished one.....I will refrain from the daily talking points for there exists a large area of gray, depending on ones political leanings and or allegiances to party.  That said, the easiest and by far most indefensible offense is Trump's egregious violation of the Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution.  By maintaining ownership of his business interests he violates said clause every time a dignitary of a foreign government stays at one of his hotels and directly pays the Trump coffers of which Donald Trump controls.....plain and simple, beyond contestation.

 

 

GO RV, then BV

Edited May 21, 2019 by Shabibilicious

[Pitcher]

Every time a foreign dignitary slips millions to the Clinton Foundation doesn’t apply I guess.  Or the millions the Obama Campaign received from foreign dignitaries.  Just keeping it real Shabbs. You keep posting the Dem Rubbish Coup people’s agenda and I’ll be here to counter with Rep Rubbish.  DC is a cesspool and who ever wins the prize of the WH wins the lottery.  

[Karsten]

The Liberals have good reason to be Angry.....Hillarious lost. She had this in the bag with all the dirty dealing and after the election it was all just going to Vanish and the American People would Never have had a clue.

 

Now they have burned their bridges doing everything they can to slow things down, cover it up where they can and try to drag things out until 2020 when they can rig another election in hopes of toppling POTUS Trump and the American People so they can get back to businesss as usual.

 

Today they worked a whooping 21 minutes and after McGhan was a No Show did some grand standing and voted to adjoin......Sure wish I could make that kind of money .30 minutes at t time.

 

 

Karsten

[Shabibilicious]

14 minutes ago, Pitcher said:

Every time a foreign dignitary slips millions to the Clinton Foundation doesn’t apply I guess.  Or the millions the Obama Campaign received from foreign dignitaries.  Just keeping it real Shabbs. You keep posting the Dem Rubbish Coup people’s agenda and I’ll be here to counter with Rep Rubbish.  DC is a cesspool and who ever wins the prize of the WH wins the lottery.  

 

Yet, and to your glee.....H. Clinton is not the president, therefore the Emoluments Clause does not apply.....ball one, try again, Pitch.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[Shabibilicious]

7 minutes ago, Karsten said:

The Liberals have good reason to be Angry.....Hillarious lost. She had this in the bag with all the dirty dealing and after the election it was all just going to Vanish and the American People would Never have had a clue.

 

Now they have burned their bridges doing everything they can to slow things down, cover it up where they can and try to drag things out until 2020 when they can rig another election in hopes of toppling POTUS Trump and the American People so they can get back to businesss as usual.

 

Today they worked a whooping 21 minutes and after McGhan was a No Show did some grand standing and voted to adjoin......Sure wish I could make that kind of money .30 minutes at t time.

 

Karsten

 

If any of what you say were true, then there wouldn't be 20 plus Dems running for President.....that choice would have already been made and the "conspiracy" would be completely on track to burying Trump in 2020.

 

GO RV, then BV

[nstoolman1]

58 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Though the list of impeachable offenses is a long a distinguished one.....

 

GO RV, then BV

 

I would like to see this list and if it is a valid one the Dems would be all over it. 

[coorslite21]

1 hour ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Though the list of impeachable offenses is a long a distinguished one.....I will refrain from the daily talking points for there exists a large area of gray, depending on ones political leanings and or allegiances to party.  That said, the easiest and by far most indefensible offense is Trump's egregious violation of the Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution.  By maintaining ownership of his business interests he violates said clause every time a dignitary of a foreign government stays at one of his hotels and directly pays the Trump coffers of which Donald Trump controls.....plain and simple, beyond contestation.

 

 

GO RV, then BV

And your point would be very valid.....if Trump owned these as a sole proprietor.....these holdings are corporations.....just like he is foregoing his salary as President......he is off the payrolls of these corporations...and no longer a part of the decision making process......he's kind of busy with other things......

 

I can post info on what and how a corp is and operates...but I think you already know that......CL

[jg1]

4 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

And your point would be very valid.....if Trump owned these as a sole proprietor.....these holdings are corporations.....just like he is foregoing his salary as President......he is off the payrolls of these corporations...and no longer a part of the decision making process......he's kind of busy with other things......

 

I can post info on what and how a corp is and operates...but I think you already know that......CL

I guess President Trump needs to set up a non-profit organization like Hillarious and call them contributions/ donations.

[nstoolman1]

48 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Yet, and to your glee.....H. Clinton is not the president, therefore the Emoluments Clause does not apply.....ball one, try again, Pitch.  

 

GO RV, then BV

It does not just apply to the office of POTUS so you can change that Ball one to Strike one for Hill and Obama while they were in office. No one had the "balls" to attempt to charge them. 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

1 hour ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Though the list of impeachable offenses is a long a distinguished one.....I will refrain from the daily talking points for there exists a large area of gray, depending on ones political leanings and or allegiances to party.  That said, the easiest and by far most indefensible offense is Trump's egregious violation of the Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution.  By maintaining ownership of his business interests he violates said clause every time a dignitary of a foreign government stays at one of his hotels and directly pays the Trump coffers of which Donald Trump controls.....plain and simple, beyond contestation.

 

 

GO RV, then BV

Forgive me, but I simply have to respond here because I see something that I've never seen before. Paying to spend the night at one of Trump Towers does not constitute  a present, Emolument, Office or Title,  it is paying for services rendered. However, I Now understand why the liberals think that it does. Seeing that the most powerful liberal Democrats have never owned a business of their own or held any other job besides being a political hack they would naturally see receiving money for actual services rendered as a violation of the emolument clause. But if that was the case I suspect that President Donald Trump would have been impeached long ago.

[Pitcher]

Check the second part of my post. Barry was President.  Strike one. Bill Clinton was peddling pay for play for HRC and you know it. Strike 2.   Want to talk about John Kerry and Biden’s sons making deals in China and the Ukraine.  I didn’t think so. Strike 3. 

[rw.sutton]

 

[bostonangler]

The number of those in denial just keeps going up...

 

 

I can't wait for 2020...

B/A

[coorslite21]

Guess they're all waiting to get their butts kissed.....??

CL

[Pitcher]

52 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

The number of those in denial just keeps going up...



 

They look a lot like snowflake Angry Dems to me.  They don’t want to hear the truth about how unlawful Comey, Lynch, McCabe, Strzok,  Brennan, Clapper, HRC and Russian Collusion.  MSNBC and CNN and other media said Russian Collusion was true so it just has to be.  

Resistance or is it a Rebellion and a Coup De’tat 

[Karsten]

I will just leave this right here.

 

 

 

 

 

The big names behind this Attempted Coup have to deflect, stall, discredit, impeach and use what ever other means they can because the gig is up and they know it. Their big old money making club went unchallenged for years....The corruption, the bribes, the pay off, the sexual abuse....It all started to crumble when Hillarious lost a rig election.

 

They know it and they know there is not a damn thing they can do to stop Justice from kicking them all to the curb...soon to see the inside of a big White House with a lot of Bars.

 

Karsten

[rw.sutton]

14 hours ago, bostonangler said:

The number of those in denial just keeps going up...

 

 

I can't wait for 2020...

B/A

NO OBSTRUCTION NO COLLUSION WHAT PART OF Hillarious CLINTON INVOLVED IN THIS RUSSIAGATE DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

[Shabibilicious]

17 hours ago, jg1 said:

I guess President Trump needs to set up a non-profit organization like Hillarious and call them contributions/ donations.

 

Not possible....Don the Con was already forced to shut down the "charitable"  Trump Foundation for using it like a personal expense account....and he as well as his 3 oldest children are barred from chairing another one in the future.  They may be rich, but they are certainly ethically and morally bankrupt. 

 

GO RV, then BV

[coorslite21]

50 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Not possible....Don the Con was already forced to shut down the "charitable"  Trump Foundation for using it like a personal expense account....and he as well as his 3 oldest children are barred from chairing another one in the future.  They may be rich, but they are certainly ethically and morally bankrupt. 

 

GO RV, then BV

Seems many of the very wealthy enjoy running these non profits to make themselves look good....often times they get carried away....Trump/Clinton......some of the same issues....CL

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/ tvwhat-the-collapse-of-the-trump-foundation-tells-us-about-donald-trump

 

 

[yota691]

15 hours ago, bostonangler said:

I can't wait for 2020...

So when 2020 rolls around an Trumps wins by a landslide. What will you say then? 

[bostonangler]

2 minutes ago, yota691 said:

So when 2020 rolls around an Trumps wins by a landslide. What will you say then? 

 

I will say fixed election, because based on new info he is struggling to keep anyone outside his base. which we know was far from a majority last time.

 

President Trump begins his reelection campaign in a deep hole as 54 percent of American voters say they "definitely" will not vote for him, compared to 52 percent in an April 30 Quinnipiac University National Poll. Today, 31 percent say they "definitely" will vote for Trump and 12 percent say they will "consider voting for him."

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2622

 

B/A