RSN Fundraising Banner
Over 100 House Members Call for Removal of Trump
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48770"><span class="small">Chris Riotta, The Independent</span></a>   
Saturday, 27 July 2019 12:58

Riotta writes: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has defended herself at a press conference against accusations from a growing number of members within her own party, that she was 'trying to run out the clock' on impeaching Donald Trump."

Representative Rashida Tlaib pledged to impeach Donald Trump the day she was sworn into office. (photo: NBC)
Representative Rashida Tlaib pledged to impeach Donald Trump the day she was sworn into office. (photo: NBC)


Over 100 House Members Call for Removal of Trump

By Chris Riotta, The Independent

27 July 19


Comments come as House judiciary committee files lawsuit demanding secret material gathered by Robert Mueller

ouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi has defended herself at a press conference against accusations from a growing number of members within her own party, that she was “trying to run out the clock” on impeaching Donald Trump. 

“Everybody has the liberty and the luxury to espouse their own position and to criticise me for trying to go down the path in the most determined, positive way,” Ms Pelosi said about her stance on launching an impeachment inquiry into the president. The House speaker has said she does not yet support impeaching Mr Trump, noting several congressional investigations still ongoing into his financial dealings and possibly obstruction of justice. 

Speaking about a growing number of Democrats calling for the process to remove the president from office to begin, Ms Pelosi said: “Their advocacy for impeachment only gives me leverage.”

“A decision will be made in a timely fashion,” she added. “This isn’t endless, and when we have the best, strongest possible case and that’s not endless either.”

The speaker’s comments arrived as more Democrats continued adding their names to a growing list of House representatives demanding Mr Trump’s impeachment, the latest of those being Ann Kuster, the highest-ranking Democrat to call for his removal so far. Also, Democrats filed a lawuist demanding secret, grand jury testimony collected by special counsel Robert Mueller, which they said they needed to determine whether to press ahead with a formal censure.

In a statement after Ms Kuster announced her support for an impeachment inquiry to be launched, Democrat Don Beyer wrote in a statement: “100 Members of the House of Representatives now publicly support an impeachment inquiry.”

“There will be more to come,” he added.

The list of 100 House representatives is made up of Democrats, save for Justin Amash, a former Republican who left the party after announcing his support for an impeachment inquiry. Mr Amash has reportedly been mulling launching a presidential bid in opposition of Mr Trump. 

A growing faction of Democratic senators and 2020 hopefuls are also urging Ms Pelosi to begin an impeachment inquiry. 

Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts senator and candidate for president, said at an event on Wednesday: “l understand that there are people who for political reasons say it’s not where we want to be. But my view is some things are above politics.”

“One of them is our constitutional responsibilities to do what is right,” she added.

The speaker’s refusal to support impeachment arrived just two days after former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified on Capitol Hill about the president’s alleged obstruction of justice and Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Jerrold Nadler, the House judiciary committee chairman, said on Friday he was moving forward with court action to investigate the president, adding ”there’s no point speculating whether the speaker with agree with our decision”, when the probes come to a conclusion. 

“We are continuing an investigation of the president’s malfeasances,” he said. 

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
-8 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-07-27 13:44
I think impeachment will happen. Pelosi is just managing the timing. She wants just the right moment to launch it. It will consume the news cycle and congress. Probably right at the high point of the elections in the spring of 2020 will be the most effective timing.

100 is not yet a very big number. But more democrats would vote for a formal impeachment process if it came to a vote.

Whether or not impeachment is the wise thing to do is an entirely different question. I do think it will happen, and then we will find out if it was wise or not. Seems pretty stupid to gamble with like this with the whole federal government and the whole media. There must be a safer and less risky way to show opposition to Trump.
 
 
+6 # johnescher 2019-07-27 17:58
Quoting Rodion Raskolnikov:
I think impeachment will happen. Pelosi is just managing the timing. She wants just the right moment to launch it. It will consume the news cycle and congress. Probably right at the high point of the elections in the spring of 2020 will be the most effective timing.

100 is not yet a very big number. But more democrats would vote for a formal impeachment process if it came to a vote.

Whether or not impeachment is the wise thing to do is an entirely different question. I do think it will happen, and then we will find out if it was wise or not. Seems pretty stupid to gamble with like this with the whole federal government and the whole media. There must be a safer and less risky way to show opposition to Trump.


You just don't get the double edge, do you? "There must be a safer and less risky way to show opposition to Trump." You just don't believe me when I say the bigger risk is not to impeach Trump. Okay, you don't have to agree, but shouldn't you admit that the argument on both sides is roughly of the same weight? Can't you go that far? Be open-minded on this as some other commentators are?

As to your continued insistence that the Russians did not interfere in the 2016 election, why should not someone who disagrees ask, in view of all the evidence, if you need psychiatric help?
 
 
-3 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-07-28 06:41
j.e. -- I think I do understand. I think it will happen.

Impeaching Trump will have consequences, since it is more about rejecting Trump and his election than it is about any high crimes. So impeachment hawks are really just refusing the results of the 2016 election.

If they are successful, then republicans will refuse to accept the results of an election that sends a Demo to the white house. We have seen the mistake it was for Democrats in the senate to abolish the super majority rule for presidential appointees. It used to take 60 votes to confirm a nominee such as a supreme court justice. Demos made it 51 votes, and now Repos are exploiting that new rule. So we have Kavanaugh.


When Obama was elected, Mitch McConnell vowed not to work with him and make his presidency a failure. Demos are now doing that to Trump.


As much as we all dislike and disagree with Trump, we must accept the fact that he won and work with him or against him within the processes of governing. The opposite is to make the central regime break apart.

Perhaps I should endorse impeachment. I really do want the US to break up into smaller nations. The "union" was a terrible idea to me. There could be no "imperial" foreign policy if the US broke into 15 smaller nations. Impeachment will hasten that break up. Maybe I should endorse it.

Here --

"Is It Time for America to Break Apart?
Boyd D. Cathey"

http://www.unz.com/article/is-it-time-for-america-to-break-apart/
 
 
-2 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-07-28 07:22
j.e. -- I ran out of space. Please list the proofs that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections. My view is that there is no proof, only allegations.

1. The judge in the Petersburg internet trolls case issued an order to Mueller and Barr to stop saying that Russia and the Petersburg trolls are connected. She said it is a matter being decided in court and no one from the DOJ has a right to claim the issue has been decided. She will hold them in criminal contempt if they say "Russia interfered in the election." Mueller violated the judge's order many times in his testimony. My bet is that the judge will now toss out the case. Her reason is that the DOJ has steadfastly refused to present any evidence for its claims.


What have you got? What do you know that no one else, even Mueller's lawyers, seems to know?
 
 
-1 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-07-28 17:02
j.e. -- watch this episode of Jimmy Dore. He has a document from Podesta who was Hillary's campaign chair saying they should blast out stories about the Trump-Putin "bromance." And other documents from the Hillary campaign show that her greatest vulnerability was the Uranium One deal, so their tactic is to pin corrupt relations with Russia on Trump.

This is what the Mueller/Weissma n Probe was always about. It was always a cover up for the Hillary campaign.

Too bad almost no one on RSN can see that.
 
 
-1 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-07-28 17:13
j.e.-- I forgot to include the link to the Jimmy Dore program --

"Evidence Clinton Campaign Invented Trump/Russia Story To Cover Their Failures"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVmhj5zY3x4
 
 
+2 # coberly 2019-07-27 22:40
Rodion

would 100 congressmen at a border detention facility be enough.

if they brought their constituents?

we are "talking" while the kids are in jail.
 
 
-1 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-07-28 17:09
cob -- 100 congressmen and women in a detention facility might be OK. Maybe it could be a re-education camp. The need it.


But as for children, it is horrific and I think it should be stopped now. The problem is that it is the law. Putting parents in pre-trial detention is the law and separating their kids from them is the law. The law needs to be changed. All the hand-wringing and teeth gnashing in the world won't change the law, but if Democrats woke-the-fuck-u p they could repeal Sec. 1325 of the Immigration Code in two days.

One person running for president is saying this. The rest are OK with the laws.


"Let's be very clear, the reason that they're separating little children from their families is that they're using Section 1325 of that act which criminalizes coming across the border to incarcerate the parents, and then separate them," said Castro. "Some of us on this stage have called to end that section, to terminate it. Some, like congressman O'Rourke have not, and I want to challenge all of the candidates to do that. I just think it's a mistake and I think that if you truly want to change the system, then we have got to repeal that section. If not, then it might as well be the same policy."


I support Julian Castro. Read the whole article.

https://www.romper.com/p/what-is-section-1325-julian-castro-discusses-plan-to-decriminalize-illegal-border-crossings-18150618
 
 
+3 # RLF 2019-07-28 05:14
Pelosi is making all of her decisions on impeachment from what happened to the Republicans with the Clinton impeachment. I ask her...are the two the same? One president lying about getting a blow job and another working with a foreign nation...an enemy nation...to swing the election toward himself for narcissistic reasons. Are the public going to look at the two the same? I, for one, don't think the American people are quite that stupid.
 
 
-1 # The Eternal Optimist 2019-07-28 08:48
I have to stick up for Rodion with regard to Russiagate. It's quite clear that Russia "interfered" with the election (I think Rodion will agree) but it is still very uncertain exactly what the effects of that interference really were. How many votes were actually influenced; where, and how? "All the evidence" notwithstanding , these questions have not been answered, and it's disturbing to some of us to see so many people acting as though they have.

But they have absolutely been answered with regard to a number of things that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt influenced the election very greatly indeed; e.g. Citizens United, gerrymandering, Operation Crosscheck, etc. etc. etc. For three years we had an endless stream of vituperation from the media, telling us that Russia had put Trump in, which I think is extremely doubtful, but we heard very little about the things that without any doubt did hugely distort the election. We would do well to ask who benefits from our allowing our attention to be diverted like this.

BTW; should we impeach Trump? Of course!!! Can we, and how? That's the question of the moment.
 
 
0 # lfeuille 2019-07-28 20:22
Russiagate is not the beginning and the end of Trumps misdeeds. There are many more and more serious in my opinion reasons to impeach him. He is a fucking disaster in every way and letting him continue for another year and a half without serious pushback is just irresponsible. RR talks about Russiagate as if it was all that mattered probably because it is all that matters to him. But for the country, which he doesn't seem to care about at all, it is not that important.
 
 
-1 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-07-29 06:09
Eternal -- there are three legs to the Russian interference theory:

1. Internet Trolls in Petersburg working on orders from the Russian government (Putin) placed adverts in US social media for Trump. 126 million Americans were exposed to these adverts.

2. Agents of the Russian government contacted members of the Trump campaign team and offered "dirt on Hillary." They actively wanted to help Trump defeat Hillary.

3. Russian intelligence hacked into the DNC server and stole DNC and Podesta emails and then passed them to their publishing front, WikiLeaks, which published them at strategic moments.


All nations or maybe most nations engage in cyber espionage. This is true for Russia. The US is the biggest cyber spy in the world. But formal cyber espionage is not being alleged. These are one-off smaller operations that are being claimed.

All of the three alleged Russian interferences are false. They have been refuted many times. The proofs offered by the Weissman Probe have NO reasonable evidence. The investigation was incomplete, one-sided, and would never stand up in court. The only reason Weissman and his Probers have not been laughed out of existence is that the elite media believes the three legs of Russiagate. But the elite media has a bad track record in believing false stories.

Rob Goldstone, who promised Russian dirt to Trump Jr., has a book out in which he says he had no idea what he was saying and that Russia played no role in the story.