RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Boardman writes: "Would the American people re-elect a president caught in the midst of a multi-faceted impeachment inquiry? One never knows. Or would the American people be more likely to re-elect a president free from any impeachment inquiry?"

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. (photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. (photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)


Failure to Impeach Trump Is a Way to Reaffirm Him

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

10 July 19

 

ould the American people re-elect a president caught in the midst of a multi-faceted impeachment inquiry? One never knows.

Or would the American people be more likely to re-elect a president free from any impeachment inquiry?

With no commanding presidential candidate likely to emerge till well after the Iowa caucus on February 3, 2020, the center of Democratic Power is now in the House of Representatives, largely in the hands of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is so determined to give Trump a pass on impeachment that Trump’s lawyers cite her position in their court briefs. That seems like a pretty bad place for a supposed opposition party to find itself.

Pelosi and other Democratic Party leaders have indicated a willingness to pursue impeachment if “the people want it.” Then the same leaders do little or nothing to encourage the people to want it. That is the opposite of leadership. That is also a failure to understand how the impeachment of Richard Nixon became supportable through the conscientious evidence-gathering that persuaded the public that Nixon had committed impeachable offenses.

Pelosi is slippery to the point of dishonesty on the question of impeachment. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote a long wet-kiss article titled “It’s Nancy’s Parade” in the Sunday Times of July 7. Dowd asked Pelosi if she had said about Trump, as reported, “I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison.” That’s a classic false-choice deflection to begin with, but Pelosi danced it disingenuously further:

I didn’t exactly say that…. You can’t impeach everybody. People wanted Reagan impeached but that didn’t happen. O.K., they impeached Clinton for something so ridiculous — getting impeached for doing a dumb thing as a guy. Then they wanted to impeach Obama…. [Trump] has given real cause for impeachment.

This is scattershot distraction Trump-style, seeming to make some point while avoiding the underlying question. If Trump, as Pelosi says, “has given real cause for impeachment,” then why has the House not begun to impeach him?

There is a glaring omission in Pelosi’s list of recent presidents – Reagan, Clinton, Obama, but neither Bush. The second Bush lied the country into war, a war that continues to cost us. Even that was not enough for Pelosi. She opposed impeaching Bush for the war crimes he so plainly committed. Does she lack principle? Does she lack courage? Does she always make her decisions on the narrowest partisan political calculation? What is really going on?

Democrats have the power to initiate impeachment proceedings. Democrats have the power to control the pace of those proceedings. There are numerous impeachable offenses, in almost every area – climate, immigration, census, war-making, regulating contrary to statute, emoluments – the list of failures to faithfully execute the laws or the office of the President is long and easily demonstrated. Even Pelosi says, “he every day practically self-impeaches by obstructing justice and ignoring the subpoenas” – which he is allowed to do with impunity.

There are about 80 Democratic House members reportedly in favor of moving ahead on impeachment. That leaves another 155 Democratic House members either uncommitted or opposed to impeachment. These Democrats are not outspoken on the question and many of them oppose impeaching a flagrantly dishonest, probably criminal president mainly because it might put their own re-election at risk. No profiles in courage there. We saw them flex their muscles recently when they forced Pelosi to capitulate on protecting immigrant children and accept the Senate bill that would do little to assure that the Department of Homeland Security follows the law.

Pelosi misleadingly talks about impeachment, characterizing it as if it’s a compact, unitary event. It’s not. “Impeachment” itself is only a formal accusation, a Congressional indictment that requires an investigation of uncertain length by the House Judiciary Committee, including having hearings, drawing of articles of impeachment, publicly debating and voting on them, and delivering those approved to the full House for a final vote. Only then do the articles of impeachment go to the Senate for a trial of indeterminate length and a final vote.

The impeachment process for Bill Clinton began in January 1994 with the appointment of a special prosecutor (Ken Starr took over in August 1994). The process ended more than five years later when the Senate acquitted Clinton on February 12, 1999.

The impeachment process for Richard Nixon began formally with the creation of the Senate Watergate Committee in February 1973, less than eight months after the Watergate burglary. The House Judiciary Committee started its investigation in October, voting for articles of impeachment at the end of July 1974. Nixon resigned on August 9, before the full House considered the impeachment articles. That abbreviated impeachment process took about 550 days.

As of July 9, the November 3, 2020, presidential election was 483 days away. That is plenty of time for the House Judiciary Committee to accomplish something meaningful without having to risk defeat in the Senate.

So it’s a calculated question for 2020: Would a prolonged, careful, substantive impeachment inquiry make Trump stronger or weaker by election day? Would a prolonged period of sniping at Trump’s faults, without daring to impeach him, make Trump stronger or weaker on election day? Regardless of who the Democratic candidate turns out to be, it seems more likely that he or she will be strengthened by a House impeachment inquiry carried on with integrity before the election. Yes, it will be partisan, but that is offset if it is also principled. But first, Pelosi has to help it happen. According to Dowd:

Now Pelosi is in her element, ready for the fight of her life with Trump…. Pelosi keeps moving forward, a shark with a permagrin…. If combating an inhumane Trump requires a superhuman effort, Pelosi may be just the woman to do it.

But Dowd does not say how this will be done. She supports the hope with an anecdote about Pelosi carrying on bravely at an Irish political event just after having her right hand smashed in a car door. This shows grit, to be sure. But it was only for one night, and the struggle with Trump has more than a year to go.

Reflecting the traditional political timidity of mainline Democrats, Pelosi has taken potshots at fellow Democrats in the House like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, mocking the Green New Deal, or Ilhan Omar, reinforcing the right wing’s anti-Semitic canard. Pelosi has demonstrated that, in a pinch, she does not have their backs or Rashida Tlaib’s or Ayanna Pressley’s. Pelosi again denigrated all four women of color to Dowd. This is ugly, gratuitous infighting, not principled leadership. Little wonder, perhaps, that Corbin Trent, an aide to Ocasio-Cortez, told reporter Ryan Grim that the Democratic leadership is “driven by fear. They seem to be unable to lead.”

“The greatest threat to mankind,” according to Trent, a co-founder of Justice Democrats, “is the cowardice of the Democratic Party.”

The Democrats Pelosi denigrates are all agents of change. Pelosi talks about defeating Trump, but she doesn’t embrace much change of any other sort. She cavils at the more ambitious proposals of Democratic presidential candidates. Why has the House pushed so little legislation that challenges the status quo? Is there anything Pelosi truly believes in besides herself? Dowd characterizes her as the most powerful woman in the country (with Trump the most powerful man). She seems to have made the calculation that she’d rather preserve her speakership than take any serious risk. Are the ambitions of a 79-year-old multimillionaire really more important than the good of the country? If this is really “Nancy’s Parade,” where is it headed?

Email This Page


William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

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

 
+2 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-07-10 13:09
As WB says, Democrats have the power to launch impeachment hearings. They can control the pace of the hearings and who testifies. They have a lot of power.

But what if the impeachment fails. It may not even pass the house where Democrats have a majority. Right now, only 76 house democrats have indicated they are in favor of impeachment. The hearings might push that number up over the 218 needed but they also might not.

Two years of Russiagate has only made Trump stronger. The testimony of Mueller next week is likely to push Trump favorability ratings even higher. Impeachment is just a big risk for democrats. For one, the charges against Trump are weak and mostly political not criminal. Two, there are no democrats with sufficient stature to lead the impeachment. Nadler, Warner, Schiff, Swallowwell, and others are limp wristed non-entities. They are not leadership material. They have told way too many lies already.

I strongly think Pelosi wimped out in the impeachment of Bush. He really deserved to be thrown out of office.

I mostly see Pelosi in a no-win situation. Her real goal is to prevent progressives from taking control of the party. Trump is the least of her worries. Pelosi herself will be primaried and probably lose in 2020.
 
 
+9 # Tjerzyk1 2019-07-10 18:27
There are a few women in the House that could get it done. Pelosi needs to ride off into the sunset with her wealthy husband, never to be seen or heard from again.

As to the hearing with Mueller at least that will be done if someone can ask the right questions.

Trump getting stronger??? Cycles. He will never be stronger than the peak on Election Day.
 
 
+11 # WBoardman 2019-07-10 19:26
RR didn't get my point.

The crisis that is the Trump administration has no easy solution
and no one has control of a future full of "what-ifs."
That's what makes the need for courageous leadership so dire.

An impeachment inquiry has no time limit.
The areas in which Trump has committed impeachable offenses
are almost unlimited. That's not the hard part.

An impeachment inquiry that has multiple foci that are heading
toward multiple articles of impeachment should take a long time
and can be credibly managed to conclude before or after
the election, or never.

That's the part RR didn't grasp.

In that sense, impeachment can't fail.

RR may be right about Democrats of stature (Warner is in the Senate) while omitting Clyburn. But RR doesn't know.
Nobody knows what inner strength a person has until
the person is tested. Who thought Peter Rodino was as tough
as he turned out to be.

RR is a merchant of timidity.

Perhaps Pelosi really is in a no-win situation, along with the US.
And perhaps not.

Either way, no one knows, so why not choose an aggressive
and principled course of action that takes the fight to Trump
instead of forever reacting ineffectively?
 
 
-7 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-07-11 11:14
WB -- "Either way, no one knows, so why not choose an aggressive and principled course of action that takes the fight to Trump "


Well, the FBI counter-intelli gence investigation and the Mueller Probe were aggressive courses of action. I would, however, not say principled. Still, they turned out to be duds. They found nothing. They were just masturbating.

I think Democrats are like the Biblical Jews wandering in the desert and looking for the promise land. They are led by a Moses (Pelosi) who won't be going into the promise land with them. Opening impeachment hearings or adopting some aggressive position to me is just building another golden calf or Mueller Probe.

Let's see how the Mueller testimony pans out next week. If it is run well and is substantive, then I'd say impeachment hearings would follow. If it turns out like a Benghazi hearing, then we are sill wandering in the desert.

I just think it is better for democrats to throw all of this effort into the campaign. Beating Trump at the ballot box will be more difficult than most people are imagining. This is largely because whomever gets the Demo nomination will face a split in the Demo party. If it is not Sanders, the Bernie-or-Bust faction will pull out. If it is Harris, very many democrats will walk away. The Demo party will have to heal its own split and then take on an insane campaigner like Trump.

In short, I think impeachment is a distraction from what we should really be doing.
 
 
+10 # WBoardman 2019-07-11 12:08
RR misrepresents the Mueller findings. Deliberately?

RR offers the Trump spin on Mueller as truth. Really?

RR sells timidity. Why?

Start with impeachable offenses.

Does RR thinkTrump has committed none?
Will RR try to make THAT case?

Failing to impeach Trump is to kiss the Consitution goodbye.

Take the latest horror:
Acosta says he was "trying to help the girls" – laughable on its face, since he lied to them and broke the law on Epstein's behalf – and now we learn that he wants to cut human trafficking funding by 80% and says that's the way it's always been, so two more obscenities. More to the point, this sheds a crack of light on the way the Trump administration is systematically failing faithfully to enforce the law in almost every agency it doesn't like, mostly out of public sight, and almost always in violation of the Constitution.
 
 
-7 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-07-11 19:01
The Mueller report is so filled with holes and inconsistencies that it makes Swiss cheese look good. Almost every episode Mueller covers has been debunked by careful readers. After a lot of bluster about GRU officers hacking the DNC, the report concludes that "the GRU appears to have stolen thousands of emails." Try going into court and telling the jury that someone "appears" to have done it.

Impeachment crimes are pretty much political. There are no rules for evidence in a congressional hearing. So it might be that Trump is indicted for crimes. It is OK. Indict his ass. I don't care about that. But I don't think he's committed any crimes that would stand up in a real court. So, yes, I would make the case that Trump has not committed high crimes, in the way that Bush and Obama clearly did. But if you are willing to take his regime change in Venezuela as a crime or his continuing and amplifying drone bombings, then I would agree he has committed high crimes.

I think the constitution was far more dangerously transgressed in the CIA/FBI meddling in the 2016 election.

Acosta is a typical Trump appointed asshole. He's a coward. He should have spilled the beans on the FBI's informant protection for Epstein. I think that will come out with the work of good investigative journalists.
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2019-07-12 00:33
Most likely intentionally. He seems to get most of his talking points from alt-right conspiracy sites. He have to either be as dumb as Trump to really believe that stuff.
 
 
0 # Farafalla 2019-08-15 14:14
RR is a paid Russian troll who should not be on this site. He is actually a Trump supporter.
 
 
+5 # lfeuille 2019-07-12 00:31
RR is being disingenuous. He just doesn't want Trump impeached.
 
 
-2 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-07-12 12:41
I want Trump out of office. I don't care if that is by impeachment or electoral defeat. Electoral defeat seems more likely to me given the lack of real crimes and the republican control of the senate. But I want just as much someone good to replace him. Replacing Trump with a Clinton-look-al ike is really not worth much at all.
 
 
+22 # chapdrum 2019-07-10 13:25
Extremely wealthy Democratic politicians like Pelosi have far more in common with Trump than they don't.
 
 
+20 # johnescher 2019-07-10 13:45
I am sorry to hear about the hand caught in a car door. No one deserves that.

But Boardman's thesis here is sound and so well thought out. The only thing I question after reading this article is its list of subjects for the impeachment discussions (an impeachment being comprised mainly of discussion).

Most of Boardman's items seem obvious. Lacking however is family separation and infanticide (first degree murder?) as a central focus. Why?

Because we don't despite a collective recollection of the Holocaust and World War II concentration camps have any specific law on the books forbidding such specific practice? Because we still approve the Japanese internment camps? And slavery? And genocide of Indians or any other convenient minority?

It truly is past time for the U.S. to grow up on these issues. The only other specific thing I would suggest is that portions of the impeachment hearing be held in Nuremberg, Pennsylvania.

Am I wrong in thinking that the founding fathers when they came up with notions of impeachment had moral misbehavior in mind along with picayunely defined legal transgression?

I thought this was the reason that impeachment hearings are as open-ended as they are.
 
 
+11 # WBoardman 2019-07-10 19:57
johnescher is correct that I did not list "family separation and
infanticide" as impeachable offenses.

My list of areas of impeachable offenses was deliberately illustrative and incomplete, not comprehensive (for space reasons if no other):
"There are numerous impeachable offenses, in almost every area – climate, immigration, census, war-making, regulating contrary to statute, emoluments – the list of failures to faithfully execute the laws or the office of the President is long and easily demonstrated. Even Pelosi says, “he every day practically self-impeaches by obstructing justice and ignoring the subpoenas” – which he is allowed to do with impunity."

When I included immigration I very much had in mind family
separation. An article of impeachment for adopting an
immigration policy of deliberate, illegal cruelty that includes family separation and other crimes against humanity, violations of domestic and international law – that's easy to imagine – and the hearings leading up to such an article would have the advantage of addressing an issue many Americans care about and all Americans should care about, and it would do so in a formal, lawful context where evidence matters.

I have written about this and other impeachable offenses elsewhere, starting in February 2017.

"Infanticide" seems like a stretch, even though the President's policies have led directly to the death of children....

Nuremberg, Pennsylvania, is a lovely idea.
 
 
+33 # Farafalla 2019-07-10 14:09
Thank you Bill Boardman. You nailed it. I like to quote Noam Chomsky who said the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization on earth. But I will have to amend with the fact you quote: "“The greatest threat to mankind,” ... “is the cowardice of the Democratic Party.”
 
 
+27 # grandlakeguy 2019-07-10 14:28
Pelosi has consistently violated her oath of office to protect and defend our constitution.
She took impeachment "off the table" for war criminals Bush & Cheney!
It is a serious failing in our political system that once voters put someone like her into office that there is no mechanism to recall and remove that official.

She must be a stealth Republican!
 
 
+7 # lorenbliss 2019-07-10 17:23
No, Pelosi is merely the commander of the House Division of the Republican Fifth Column.
 
 
+7 # Texas Aggie 2019-07-11 10:21
Along with Biden.
 
 
+4 # GreenBee 2019-07-13 20:10
But there is a mechanism to remove the likes of Pelosi but the voters in her district fail to do it.

Many in Congress besides Pelosi have consistently failed to protect and defend the Constitution. Not to mention that the Constitution does not seem to have any provision to allow one person in the House or the Senate to have the kind of power that Pelosi and McConnell now hold and the citizenry continues to tolerate this system.
 
 
0 # HenryS1 2019-07-10 15:03
It is so easy for people who profit from chaos and controversy and media fireworks to accuse politicians of cowardice. I don't agree with Pelosi on everything, but she has an almost impossible job. Rather than criticize Republicans for excusing and hiding Trump's crimes, Boardman makes Pelosi's attempts to balance Trump more difficult.

Pelosi is a politician and I don't always like when she puts the interests of the Democratic Party first.

But compared to Trump's willingness to sacrifice everything on the altar of his ego, I think she makes intelligent choices. And I want to leave the timing of impeachment in her hands.

Because a botched impeachment would help Trump get re-elected. And I don't want that to happen.

I think Pelosi and the young women freshman of color see how any public disputes will be used to denigrate them all. I doubt AOC would agree with Boarman's accusations of Pelosi's cowardice, despite the clear differences AOC and Pelosi may have. Because AOC seems determined to do the right thing, while gaining experience in how politics really functions in Washington.

We all have to stop enjoying the infotainment and take things seriously. And the need to shorten King Trump's reign is about as important as it gets.
 
 
-3 # Lolanne 2019-07-10 19:30
HenryS1, I'm not sure why you had a -1 on what is to me a thoughtful, reasoned statement. I want trump gone but I have very mixed emotions about impeachment proceedings. Month after miserable month since January 2017, the same 40-ish percent have remained solidly in support of trump, with a few variations here and there, no matter what he does or says. It’s unfathomable to me, but there it is.

So would a failed impeachment attempt (possible, as you say, although beyond my comprehension – but then, so was his election!) only increase his support? That's the question that keeps me awake nights, and I wonder if Pelosi is having the same nightmare. If the voices for impeachment grow to the point of potentially causing a split in the party (which would pretty much guarantee getting stuck with trump for another cursed 4 yrs), I have to believe that Pelosi is politically astute enough to acquiesce and move ahead with an impeachment inquiry.

As much as I LONG to see him not only impeached but also perp-walked out of the White House in handcuffs, I think we have to leave it in her experienced hands and trust that she will make that decision with the political wisdom and experience that we lack.
 
 
+8 # Texas Aggie 2019-07-11 10:30
It isn't that her experience is in question that people won't quit complaining. People are complaining that she has no interest in actually doing anything that will rid us of this tiresome beast.

If her goal is to elect a republican president, she is going about it in the right way. And if she wants to lose her seat as Speaker, she's doing a bang up job of that, too. She's setting us up for another 2016.
 
 
+8 # chapdrum 2019-07-10 19:30
I wonder just who and/or what is supposed to end Don's reign. Last time checked, he has passed 2-1/2 years in office, with no end in sight. When the highest-ranking Democrats evince disinterest in removing him...
 
 
+13 # WBoardman 2019-07-10 19:43
HenryS1, like RR above, doesn't get my argument.

What, exactly, are "Pelosi's attempts to balance Trump"?

A continuing, multi-faceted inquiry into even just a handful of
Trump's most egregious constitutional violations has the
potential for education that part of the American public
still capable of being educated (a majority, one hopes).
It is a vehicle to create change quite different from Pelosi's
apparent choice of waiting for change to happen spontaneously.
An extended impeachment inquiry is a positive, forceful
way to focus on issues that matter with the full force of the
Constitution.

Does HenryS1 have a better plan for attacking Republicans?
I'm for it, if it exists.

"a botched impeachment" won't happen if the Democrats
don't let it happen. They have the power. They don't seem
to have the will.

Pelosi initiated this particular dispute and deliberately denigrated
AOC and "the squad." Why? It was gratuitous. The actual
legislative fight was over. Pelosi could have kept her lip zipped.
So why is she more willing to attack AOC than Trump.

As for cowardice, who knows?
The accusation is against the mainstream Democrats,
and the evidence has been accumulating for decades.

Hillary Clinton embodied it and lost.
Biden and other embody it.

If Trump teaches us nothing else it the hugely obvious lesson
that boldness impresses Americans and can win against odds.
 
 
-7 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-07-11 12:42
WB -- "a botched impeachment" won't happen if the Democrats
don't let it happen. They have the power. They don't seem
to have the will.


Unfortunately, I think a botched impeachment is more likely than a well run or successful one. There are no democrats in congress with the skills to run impeachment hearings well. Just look at the hearings that Schiff and Nadler have held since Dems took over the House in Jan of 2019. They have been totally inept.

The hearing with Mueller testifying will be the true test. Can Dems make this work? We will see. I'm not optimistic.
 
 
0 # Interested Observer 2019-07-10 15:28
Impeaching Trump and failing to convict in the Senate, which at the moment appears to be a sure thing, is the best way to lock him in for 2020.
 
 
-6 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-07-11 19:57
I.O. Adam Schiff a former impeachment hawk now agrees with you. He's turning against impeachment. This is the guy who a year ago was saying he had absolute proof that Trump conspired with Russia to rig the 2016 election.

The biggest impeachment hawks are becoming chicken hawks. On this Boardman is totally correct.
 
 
+1 # GreenBee 2019-07-13 20:04
As WB pointed out, impeachment hearings would not have to be voted on in the Senate before 2020 election even if begun now. They would, however, expose in detail with almost constant news coverage Trump's constant violations and disregard of the law. This alone could be helpful in rallying many to vote against him especially frequent non-voters, not to mention inspire some renewed respect in the Dems.
 
 
+1 # Interested Observer 2019-07-18 05:17
Trump's defects have been on display for decades, no one's ever better documented in the media. He carried into office a baggage train of facts any one of which would have sunk any prior campaign in the primaries. The Access Hollywood video alone should have been enough. Further such revelations in Congress without a vote are unlikely to be any more effective and will be branded partisan lies and fake news by Trump and his sycophants in the media, with too little. or even opposite, effect on the 2020 election. Trump is already turning the campaign in to a race and culture war even more shamelessly than in 2016. America either rejects that on its face or the game is up when Neal Gabler called it in 2016 "America died on Nov 8, 2019". The shortfall in popular vote in 2016 provides some hope against that. This time around no one is going to flip a bird at Hillary and the government by voting for the sure loser, or be genuinely against Trump but not pleased with the Democrat and stay home because Trump will lose anyway. Trump will be depending almost entirely on his base, his fear, hate and disinformation campaign, and another four years of GOP vote fraud, the real vote fraud of destroying decades of voter rights law, and purposeful inaction against foreign interference. That is, assuming that the war with Iran is not orchestrated right on time for a "don't change horses" flag waving exercise, and enough voters fall for it.
 
 
+11 # PABLO DIABLO 2019-07-10 15:46
Ms. Pelosi and her multi, multi Millionaire husband did not get rich by stirring up the shit-pot.
Her and Joe Bidens "sell by date" has long passed.
VOTE PROGRESSIVE. We need to move on.
 
 
+6 # johnescher 2019-07-10 16:08
Henry S1: You don't seem to understand the main point of the article. It may be expressed in a single sentence close to one of your own and here it is: A non-impeachment would help Trump get re-elected. Boardman's arguments for this belief are stronger than yours, RR's and others' who hold the perversely opposite point of view.

Can you truthfully assert that the impeachment hearings of Richard Nixon were just an infotainment with nothing serious in them? And why do you think Nancy Pelosi so well qualified to decide whether impeachment hearings should be held? Her wealth? Her sharp understanding of history? Why don't you have an opinion of your own and trust it?

To me Pelosi seems cowardly and self-pitiful. It's nice that you and Maureen Dowd can adulate her so much. On most other issues for the last couple of decades I've found myself in agreement with Dowd. Not on this one.
 
 
+8 # lfeuille 2019-07-10 20:05
I wish we could impeach Pelosi.
 
 
0 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-07-11 19:04
We can. She is up for re-election in 18 months. I predict she will be challenged by someone inspired by AOC. The conditions are over-ripe.
 
 
+3 # dbrize 2019-07-10 22:22
Brother Boardman is nothing if not passionate in his request for impeachment hearings. And he presents many premises that support his contention.

Since I must own up to my own volume of comments over many years concerning impeachment, I acknowledge that I have long held the belief that a good impeachment in every administration would do more to promote better government for the American people than anything else Congress might do.

Why isn’t it happening? The question asked by Brother Boardman, answered by acolyte Escher is, Pelosi is “...cowardly and self-pitiful.”

Let’s examine the charge. She is at the top in the most dangerous profession of all. Big time politics. Quick, name the “cowardly” folks that have done so. She’s not tough enough? No, that charge doesn’t, at least to this examiner pass muster. Nor, despite her power, does she operate in a vacuum. Could something else be holding her back?

Consider:

Impeachment gives the impeached opportunities for defense. A factor?

What part does the Mueller nothingball play? Barr’s investigation of Dem chicanery which might even lead to Obama himself?

Hillary trafficking Ukraine connections for political dirt? Veep Uncle Joe’s son gets sweetheart deals after daddy visits Ukraine?
Do folks like John Brennan, James Clapper, Loretta Lynch and bakers dozens of FBI and DOJ officials desire subpoenas?

How does she control all of this?

I say bring it on. All of it. Just don’t hold your breath.
 
 
-4 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-07-11 19:20
db -- good points. I'd not thought of the idea that a good impeachment hearing would promote good behavior in a president better than anything else. Probably it would.

I think you are right about Trump's defense. Republicans in congress would mount a terrific defense. They have been prepping for this all during the Mueller Probe. We'll get a good glimpse of it when Mueller testifies next week.

Personally, I just think the Demo party fucked up royally by getting involved with people like Clapper, Comey, Mueller and the rest of the intel criminals. The party leaders -- Clinton and Obama -- believed these criminals could deliver the white house to them and give them a beautiful new Cold War to proselytize. Trump would prime evidence that the Russians started the war. Idiot Hillary has said over and over that Trump's collusion with Russia is a new Pearl Harbor.

So, OK. Bring it on. It will fail and that may mean the total extermination of the Dem party leaders who brought the party to this abysmal place. Somehow the Clinton-Pelosi- Obama oligarchs need to go and an impeachment may be the best way. They'll try to impeach Trump but it will backfire on them, just as the Mueller Probe is backfiring now.
 
 
-7 # MikeAF48 2019-07-11 16:49
I'm with Nancy Pelosi 100% some things just are not popular that's when Speaker Pelosi is at her best.
 
 
+2 # GreenBee 2019-07-13 20:26
Well, that explains why she has failed in her promise to pass a $15 minimum wage mandate in the first 100 hours of the new House term. It's extremely popular. Not her best thing I guess to get the easy things done.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/25/democrats-2018-agenda-minimum-wage-increase-238828
 
 
+9 # dandevries 2019-07-11 18:39
"Does she lack principle? Does she lack courage?" Rhetorical questions to be sure, but having watched her in San Francisco for too many years, the answer to both is most assuredly YES!
 
 
+5 # diamondmarge7 2019-07-13 05:44
She wants to die holding the gavel SGE IS A DISGRACE--won't do anything but kiss ass rich friends
i'm 100 % FOR IMPEACHMENT proceedings and for her to shut up dissing the brightest and best of new blood-AOC-PRESS LEY-TLAIB & other new blood--that terrific katie porter. PELOSI is GD TRAITOR!
 
 
+4 # johnescher 2019-07-13 16:34
I happen to think this has been one of the best conversations ever at RSN even if I was in it. First, the article's author deigned to consort with the lowly peons who read it. Second, discussion board denizens who by natural temperament are polarized were one inch closer than usual to each other's viewpoint. That said, however, I still assert the childhood deaths perpetrated in our un-American internment camps are the result of "malice aforethought." The negligence that characterizes these camps is not "casual" but intentional no matter how that intent is dressed up in the advertising man's palaver of "deter." And the action has failed to deter! Further, the language used to describe it is feeble disguise of the xenophobia and hate and entitled attitude at its root. The buck stops here with Trump. His intention was to make life as miserable as possible for persons trying to immigrate here. That little kids then died in his custody was entirely his fault. He broke the system and therefore owns it, can't just walk out of the shop without paying. For these reasons he should be indicted for first degree murder as a result of impeachment hearings conducted by persons capable of understanding the principle discussed here.
 
 
0 # johnescher 2019-08-15 07:21
The cult poster Rodion Raskolnikov says he's not a paid troll and is very proud of his independence of thought. Actually though he is a squid whose prime function is to obscure the waters of all discussion with a suffusion of dark ink. No matter what he does, though, he retains admirers such as the knee-jerk Librarian1984 or d'Brize, who really just wants to shoot the breeze. They love him because he is kind to them. In fact he has even been kind to me. But I do not trust this any more than I trust RR's calling Donald Trump an "asshole." For in the next breath he will express sympathy for poor Trump's constant subjection to verbal attack. RR, d'Brize, Librarian1984 and I are all supposed to be supporting Sanders, Warren or Gabbard and we all should be great buds. Sadly, though, I see those three posters as enabler Trumpzis by virtue of their not pro-actively going after Trump aggressively and often enough.

RR would say and has said to me "It's more complicated than that." No it isn't. With Hitler you either were against him or you were for him. Same thing for Trump. And this is true even if Trump is more like Mussolini and Berlusconi than Hitler.

Amazing, isn't it, how the commie-accusing right makes every effort to repel the term "Nazi" as a verbal or political ploy and not an honest attempt to understand something dark and horrible in every human being.

An expansive definition of "Nazi" includes all the people who didn't do enough to stop truly evil men.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN