Pelosi: Impeachment ‘Not Worth it’

The Democratic Speaker of the House says there will be no charges against the Republican President barring an "overwhelming and bipartisan" consensus.

WaPo Magazine (“Nancy Pelosi on Impeaching Trump: ‘He’s Just Not Worth It’“):

Nancy Pelosi stands up in her spacious office in the U.S. Capitol, walks past an enormous window with a commanding view of the Mall and the Washington Monument, and picks up a small plaque from her desk. A gift from Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.), the plaque has the familiar profile of a young Abraham Lincoln on one side. Pelosi returns to her chair holding the plaque on her palm and reads a quote from Lincoln etched on the reverse side: “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed.”

It was public sentiment, Pelosi says, that convinced her President Trump would back down in the standoff over funding a border wall that partially shut down the government for 35 days earlier this year. And it is public sentiment, she says, that will guide her as she leads the House Democrats and seeks to use their powers as a check on a president she believes disregards the Constitution.

Pelosi, 78, never thought that Donald Trump would be elected president, but in many ways she has been preparing for this political battle all of her life. First elected to Congress in a special election in 1987 and now in her 17th term, she is experienced in all of Washington’s various forms of combat, power and perseverance. She is the first woman to lead a political party in Congress and, in 2007, was the first woman to become speaker of the House. After Democrats won control of the House in November following eight years out of power, Pelosi fended off an effort by some in her party to replace her, and reclaimed the speakership.

[…]

I’m not for impeachment. This is news. I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.

While I think it obvious that the President has committed numerous impeachable offenses—even outside the Russia investigation—Pelosi is right and for the right reasons.

First, like it or not—and I don’t—Republicans overwhelmingly back Trump. Unless that changes, not only is impeachment futile, in that there’s no way the Republican-majority Senate votes to remove him from office.

Second, impeaching Trump and not removing him will enhance his prospects for re-election. It’ll be seen by his supporters–and possibly by some otherwise persuadable swing voters—as a vindication. And it’ll demoralize Democrats.

Third, even aside from the raw politics of the matter, impeaching a duly elected President is something that simply must be done based on an overwhelming, bipartisan consensus to be seen as legitimate.

FILED UNDER: Congress, Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi, US Politics
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Kit says:

    I hope there was an unreported nudge, nudge, wink, wink in there. If not, then maybe this is, finally, a Democratic dog whistle for: let’s lock him up once he leaves office.

    6
    1
  2. Jen says:

    She’s right. Impeachment without the Senate convicting–and it won’t, despite all of the evidence that Trump is a conman, fraud, and dumber than a post–serves no purpose other than to cause his base to become further unglued.

    She, rather deftly I think, has taken a main rallying cry of his off of the table.

    He will continue to make mistakes and act a fool on the world stage. The Democrats do not need to help him turn out his base.

    25
    1
  3. James Joyner says:

    @Kit: But, absent some massive shift in Republican support, nothing is going to happen until a Democrat holds the White House. So that has to be her first priority. And, frankly, absent a massive shift in Republican support, President Democrat 46 will like pardon Trump or strongly resist having her/his Justice Department indict him because doing so would effectively tank the rest of their agenda.

    6
    1
  4. Teve says:

    @Kit:

    I hope there was an unreported nudge, nudge, wink, wink in there. If not, then maybe this is, finally, a Democratic dog whistle for: let’s lock him up once he leaves office.

    the state of New York is now investigating his business dealings, which has to be a feeling much like a poor child who’s suddenly allowed to run amok in a candy store.

    Which of his enormous list of bank frauds, insurance frauds, and tax frauds should be examined?

    All of them, Katie!

  5. Kit says:

    @James Joyner: James, this sounds reasonable, but I’m tired of Democrats being constantly told to be reasonable lest Republicans do everything to derail the D’s agenda. In hindsight, I’d have had Obama trade his health-care policy for a vigorous prosecution of his predecessor’s crimes.

    13
    2
  6. SC_Birdflyte says:

    Personally, I think she was giving the prez a dog whistle, saying “he’s not worth it.” That had to sting. Most folks will hear it as “it would be a distraction from everything we want to do,” while DT will hear it as an insult.

  7. Teve says:

    In hindsight, I’d have had Obama trade his health-care policy for a vigorous prosecution of his predecessor’s crimes.

    because of Obamacare I was able to get the first health insurance I had in 10 years. I have a friend in Michigan with sarcoidosis, who would quite literally be dead right now if it weren’t for Obamacare. So you might imagine I feel differently.

    23
  8. Kit says:

    @Teve:

    So you might imagine I feel differently

    You’re right on that, Teve. But can I at least feel conflicted about it? Obama spent all his political capital on changing the system for health care, and Republicans spent a few years of hate and spite trying to gut it. Obama would likely have been a great builder, and he did real good, but I feel the country needed a political surgeon to rid the country of its cancer. Still, I see your point.

    7
    1
  9. steve says:

    I certainly understand the desire for revenge. Republicans impeached Clinton because he lied about sex. I little bit of me keeps hoping they find some reason to interview Trump and ask him questions about his sex life too. No way he keeps from lying. However, there is also no way the Senate would convict. Unless he does something so bad that even the Republicans agree he should be impeached, and at this point I am not really sure there is anything he could do, it is a pointless exercise with no upside for anyone other than Trump.

    Steve

  10. just nutha says:

    “…while DT will see it as an insult.”

    True, but isn’t that the point of mentioning it? If we get really get lucky, we may get a tweet on the order of What is Crazy old Nancy talking about?

    NO ONE had EVER been more worth impeaching than ME!!!

    11
  11. Teve says:

    @Kit: I think it is a huge disaster to not prosecute American Presidents for war crimes. Torture should have been prosecuted all the way up to the President. The sad fact of humanity though is that justice is for the little people.

  12. Mike in Arlington says:

    @James Joyner: I don’t know about pardoning Trump, but I can see the next democratic president refusing to prosecute him, if for no other reason, the state of New York looks like they’re stepping up to the plate and may be able to prosecute Trump without the next president getting their hands dirty.

    12
  13. Kit says:

    @steve:

    it is a pointless exercise with no upside for anyone other than Trump.

    Maybe. Probably. But is it inconceivable that future generations will point to this and say: that’s the moment that the President could shoot a man in broad daylight, and the opposition party would not even go through the motions?

    I understand the arguments. This is a political calculation, not an ethical one. And Democrats should certainly be more hard-headed. Even still, I’m having trouble swallowing it.

    3
    1
  14. wr says:

    @James Joyner: “And, frankly, absent a massive shift in Republican support, President Democrat 46 will like pardon Trump or strongly resist having her/his Justice Department indict him because doing so would effectively tank the rest of their agenda.”

    I know this has been the conventional wisdom, and I suspect it’s what led Obama to ignore punishing those involved with the housing crash. But I don’t think it will work for 46. One of the rising political themes on the left is inequality not just in terms of finances but justice — and we’ve just seen Paul Manafort let off with a slap on the wrist because as a lifelong felon who managed not to get caught, another upper-class white man saw him leading an exemplary life.

    If Dem 46 proclaims that Trump has committed all sorts of crimes, but he has to be set free to allow healing in the country to begin, it will be the end of his or her presidency.

    12
  15. Teve says:

    Unless he does something so bad that even the Republicans agree he should be impeached, and at this point I am not really sure there is anything he could do

    try to imagine something, anything, he could do that would make Florack and John 4:20 and Guarneri etcetera stop defending him.

  16. Kit says:

    @Teve:

    try to imagine something, anything, he could do that would make Florack and John 4:20 and Guarneri etcetera stop defending him.

    Piece of cake! “Amnesty” for illegal immigrants. Renounce the wall as stupid. Shake Obama’s or Hillary’s hand…

  17. Teve says:

    @Mike in Arlington: the law bloggers I follow have been saying for the last few months that Mueller is the least of Trump’s worries. They think New York is going to put him in a world of hurt.

  18. grumpy realist says:

    OT: report on latest Brexit shenanigans: Theresa May’s (amended) Withdrawal Agreement was shot down in the House of Commons by 149 votes. Tomorrow is the vote for/against leaving with a No Deal, and a day or two after that is the vote whether to extend or not (also requiring full approval from the rest of the EU.)

    I suspect the U.K. is on the track to a total crash out simply because it’s now the default to the end of the 2 years since filing Article 50, and no one in the British government has enough oomph to get the ship on course–everyone’s still arguing–the “wet” Tories vs. the Eurosceptic Tories, Tories vs. Labour, the DUP vs. anyone that annoys them, the ERG vs. everyone else aside from the DUP….and a handful of politicians who have been trying like crazy to keep the stench of the failure of Brexit off them but are eagerly waiting their chance to get into No. 10. There’s wrangling about whether to have a General Election, have a second referendum, or revoke Art. 50. There’s not enough time to do the first two before the end of the month, so chances are high that the Brits will convince themselves that they’ll be able to “muddle through” and will crash out March 29th with no planning, a huge chip on their shoulder, and continued complaints about the EU “not being nice” to them. If you ever wanted to understand how historically the British accomplished so much and yet stumbled over their feet all the time, take a good hard look at the present situation.

  19. Jen says:

    @Teve:
    @Mike in Arlington:

    Can someone give me a quick class on this…I am assuming these are crimes committed at the state level that he can be prosecuted for, is that correct? So, not cheating on his federal taxes, but cheating on his state taxes, etc.?

    I just would find it disappointing for him to get away with all of the federal crimes he’s committed, because there does seem to be quite a tall pile, including Federal Elections Commission violations (someone check with Jeb Bush to see how that goes over).

  20. Teve says:

    @Kit: he already changed from Mexico is going to pay for it to you’re going to pay for it, and they don’t care. he campaigned on not cutting rich people’s taxes, and getting rid of the debt. then he cut the shit out of rich people’s taxes and is blowing the debt through the roof. He campaigned on not cutting Social security and Medicare and he just proposed a budget that cuts both. They don’t care. They’re in too deep.

  21. Teve says:

    @Jen: yes, insurance fraud, bank fraud, state tax fraud, All state crimes.

  22. Franklin says:

    I’m really starting to come around on Pelosi. “He’s just not worth it.” That is Grade A trolling. It’s not hard to get underneath Trump’s thin skin, but that one must have burrowed pretty deep.

    14
    1
  23. Teve says:

    Wikipedia

    Escalation of commitment

    Escalation of commitment is a human behavior pattern in which an individual or group facing increasingly negative outcomes from a decision, action, or investment nevertheless continues the behavior instead of altering course. The actor maintains behaviors that are irrational, but align with previous decisions and actions.[1]

  24. CSK says:

    @Teve:

    Most of the Trumpkins don’t care what he says or dies as long as he continues to be a malevolent churl and schoolyard bully. That’s why they elected him, and that’s why they adore him.

  25. Jay L Gischer says:

    The Republicans have a much tougher Senate map in 2020. Politically, the move is to hang Trump around their necks, to make him indistinguishable from them, and gain a bunch of seats and the Presidency. Impeachment has always been, and will always be, a political act.

    Only when Senate Republicans, and perhaps 20 or more of them, come around begging for impeachment, should it be considered. I don’t think that’s going to happen. I suspect that they have told him what lines they don’t want him to cross, presumably with respect to NatSec and he has listened to them.

  26. Kathy says:

    @James Joyner:

    I don’t think a Democrat who wants to serve two terms will ever pardon Trump.

    And what better way to showcase the independence of the DOJ, than by indicting and prosecuting El Cheeto over the stern objections of the President? Win-Win.

    That’s about the best we’ll ever get. The current crop of GOP Senators, with a few exceptions, wouldn’t vote to convict Dennison, if he ordered CNN headquarters nuked.

  27. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    @Franklin:
    “He’s just not worth it.”
    Great T-shirt…just put his comb-over floating above the text.

  28. Teve says:

    @CSK: I know. Did you see the CPAC clip where he mocks Jeff Sessions’s southern accent and the audience laughs?

  29. gVOR08 says:

    Exactly right, James. If Mueller or any of the other investigations turn up a smoking gun that would swing public opinion, Pelosi can change her mind and announce she’s compelled to impeach. Otherwise, the Senate won’t convict, and as James says, that enhances Trump with the base. Even if a smoking gun shows up and the Senate convicts, we get Pence. (And I wouldn’t entirely rule out the idea of the Senate convicting, the Koch Bros (well now just Charles) own the Rs in the Senate and Pence is even more a creature of the Kochs than Scott Walker.)

    Waiting out Trump, harassed and weakened on every side by investigations and perhaps indictments of his minions and family, is better than giving the Kochtopus time to make Pence look like a decent and reasonable Prez. And drags down more of the Party with him.

    9
    1
  30. OzarkHillbilly says:

    What I have been saying since before the 2018 election. I may be wrong but if I am, some pretty damned politically savvy people agree with me.

  31. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @grumpy realist: The Brits are so fucked… So are the Scots, the Welsh, and the Northern Irish.

  32. Kit says:

    @Teve:

    They don’t care. They’re in too deep.

    You’re wrong on this one. They don’t care about the details, they don’t care about the logic. Mexico pays or doesn’t pay. The wall goes up or doesn’t. Just as long as their enemies suffer and are publicly humiliated. Joe Republican will take a punch in the gut as long as he can give another punch in the face.

  33. Michael Reynolds says:

    Nancy Pelosi is right. It’s a very smart move. She gave up absolutely nothing and she forced the Trumpies off their impeachment scare-mongering. Now the focus will be squarely on the facts. And the facts are good.

    22
    1
  34. the Q says:

    Pelosi 1952, “I think separate but equal is settled law and it would just be too divisive to make southerners all drink out of the same fountains, swim in the same pools and dine at the same restaurants.”

    Pelosi 1964 “Geez, I think the Negro should realize the tremendous progress he has made in getting rid of Jim Crow and integrating colleges, but this Voting Rights Act is just too divisive and non partisan so I told LBJ to table the legislation which he did.”

    Pelosi, 1994″I recommended to DA Garcetti that, since it maybe a mainly black jury, he needs to plea bargain down to involuntary manslaughter because we don’t want another King style riot and its just too divisive if OJ is put on trial.”

    Talk about a “Profile in Courage”

    Sticking up for the Constitution even if it means losing AN election is the duty of the politicians, not getting elected.

    This same bullschite thinking got Trump elected by going with the “safe” HRC. And look how that turned out.

    Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey then telling Lester Holt and the Russian Secretary that he fired Comey over the Russian investigation. That’s one of the charges of impeachment against Nixon, calling off the FBI investigation under the guise of “national security”

    19
  35. Gustopher says:

    I think James might be high if he seriously thinks a Democratic successor will pardon Trump. Not going to happen.

    Declining to prosecute might happen. But no pardon.

    I’m in favor of impeachment, as we can’t just ignore high crimes and misdemeanors — crimes need a full accounting, and if Republicans want to make a stand that they are ok with obstruction of justice and any other crimes, they should do so. It’s not a hill I would die on though.

    How about a Lame Duck Impeachment? It would tie up the Senate a bit, and cut down their time for mischief, and tee up criminal cases that would pretty much have to be pursued.

    We will also have clear picture of the next senate, and whether the incoming president would be able to hope to enact sweeping legislation, or will be just using the power of the executive.

  36. DrDaveT says:

    I’m amazed that nobody has yet mentioned…

    Fourth: President Mike @#$%ing Pence!?!

    As I’ve noted before, Trump is a loose cannon that threatens us all, but Pence is a laser-guided force for evil. We can weather 2 more years of CASE NIGHTMARE ORANGE.

  37. Guarneri says:

    I’m wondering when we will see an essay on the newly released and totally damning testimony of Ohr and Page.

    I’m not holding my breath.

    2
    14
  38. The Q says:

    Dr.Dave, you may mean 6 years! If the feckless Pelosi stays true to her word, the economy is stable and fairly prosperous and Trump has weathered the “collusion” storm, he could easily win. he’s at 46% in non Rasmussen polls right now after Manafort, Cohen,Stormynotti, at al. Incumbents very rarely lose. The Dems will splinter with the 743 candidates running. We can’t count this clown out now.

    2
    6
  39. PJ says:

    The more I think about it, it’s not that unlikely that Trump will end up like Assange, “locked up” in the embassy of some US hating country…

    But impeachment is meaningless in the current political climate, better to continue to run investigations and then do something in, hopefully, 2021. Or just sic New York on him…

  40. Kathy says:

    @PJ:

    He should be locked up in a room for fifteen minutes, with all the immigrant parents who’ve lost their children’s to Trump’s policies.

    4
    1
  41. Teve says:

    @Kit: I’m confused. What am I wrong about? I don’t think there’s anything Trump can do that would make his cult abandon him. I agree with you, they don’t care about the details, they don’t care about the logic.

  42. Teve says:

    @DrDaveT: Krugman had an interesting description of trump, something like “malevolence tempered by incompetence.”

  43. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Teve:
    That’s an excellent phrase.

  44. Teve says:

    @Michael Reynolds: It is. I just looked it up–Krugman says he got it from this post by Benjamin Wittes at Lawfare: https://www.lawfareblog.com/malevolence-tempered-incompetence-trumps-horrifying-executive-order-refugees-and-visas

  45. Eric Florack says:

    The Mueller report is supposed to be dropping soon. Does anybody truly imagine that the contents of that report, even in uncompleted form, hasn’t been making the rounds among the Democrats, particularly the Democrat leadership?

    If the Democrats have anything to go on, anything at all, they would have already been going with it. if the Mueller report had anything in it that helped their case, they’d be preparing to use it. Clearly, this backing away from impeachment is an indication that it is, as we’ve been predicting, a huge nothing Burger.

    The line about not going with impeachment without bipartisan support is a cute little move on Pelosi’s part. Essentially, she’s trying to find a way to blame the GOP for not having enough support for her goals of bringing down this president.

    The reason of course she doesn’t have enough support to do that is because she also doesn’t have any evidence whatsoever to back to Democrats claims. But you’ll never hear her say that. Indeed, the only evidence at all about any collusion with the Russians is what the Obama Administration in general and Hillary Clinton in particular.

    But here’s the thing; this is a face-saving move…. Damage control.

    1
    19
  46. Kit says:

    @Teve:

    I’m confused. What am I wrong about? I don’t think there’s anything Trump can do that would make his cult abandon him.

    Maybe I was trying to be a bit too cute. We likely agree that, ah, for lack of a better term, the real Donald Trump will never lose the support of his cult, because they only require that he remain true to his nasty self. I was simply trying to say that were he to, for example, grant undocumented workers a path to citizenship (i.e. amnesty), then the cult would turn on him. Obviously, not going to happen.

  47. SC_Birdflyte says:

    @Teve: This reminds me of one of my German instructors (a German native) told me about the end of World War II. He said his father believed everything Hitler said in his radio addresses about Germany was winning the war, until the day Russian tanks rolled into his hometown.

  48. grumpy realist says:

    OT: (Brexit) The Brits, having peed on the bed, are now proceeding to take a huge dump on it as well with their “list of tariffs to be imposed in the case of a No Deal Brexit.” Oh, supposedly they’re only temporary (for a year) so there’s no problem. (The fact that a company can go under in less than a year seems to have totally slipped their tiny little minds.) Imported automobiles are to undergo a tariff of 10%, which will probably kill off the rest of the auto companies using JIT production.

    Businesses are screaming, particularly the ones in NI.

    And no one is saying anything about the fact that it’s not the tariffs which are going to wreck havoc but all the Non-Tariff-Barriers which now automatically swing into place.

    Sometimes I think that there has to be a virus which spreads stupidity, because otherwise I have no understanding of why humanity goes through periods like this.

  49. Blue Galangal says:

    @Jay L Gischer:

    I suspect that they have told him what lines they don’t want him to cross, presumably with respect to NatSec and he has listened to them.

    For now. This has to be the thing that’s keeping some Republicans up at night: he’s demented and he turns on a dime. It’s all about access and who has his ear last and then hoping that he remembers it long enough to tweet about it or spout off about it as he wrestles with umbrellas on the way to AF1. I think at this point – as we hear news that several senators (at least) are talking to him multiple times a day – they’re trying to be the last voice in his head because they can’t rely on his memory (or his affect). I wouldn’t put any money on him not doing crazy stuff if he gets angry/feels insulted.

  50. Kathy says:

    @grumpy realist:

    You know when you were a child and did something because “everyone else did it,” and your parents asked “and if everyone jumped off a bridge…”?

    Brexit strikes me that way. I’d like to ask the British government, “and if a referendum approved jumping off a bridge…”

  51. Teve says:

    @Kit: I’m actually finding it hard to believe that Trump just proposed a budget that would cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. He explicitly campaigned on not cutting those things because most of his Fox geezers depend on it.

    But I suspect the handful of Trump Chumps who show up here won’t be shocked or unhappy, they’ll just make excuses for Trump as usual. We’ll see.

  52. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    @Eric Florack:

    Does anybody truly imagine that the contents of that report, even in uncompleted form, hasn’t been making the rounds among the Democrats, particularly the Democrat leadership?

    Mueller is a Republican. Why would he leak to Democrats? His investigation hasn’t leaked one single item in two years. Yet you form an entire conspiracy theory around him leaking.
    Once again you establish yourself as the poster child of epistemic closure, and the Dunning-Kruger Effect…

  53. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    @Guarneri:

    I’m wondering when we will see an essay on the newly released and totally damning testimony of Ohr and Page.

    I read some of the Page testimony and the only damning thing I saw was her describing the NY FBI as being Pro-Trump and Anti-Clinton…which Guiliani alluded to before the election, and ultimately forced Comey to release the letter to Congress re the Clinton Investigation.
    I guess you missed that part…

    8
    1
  54. Kathy says:

    @Daryl and his brother Darryl:

    Also the Mueller probe is largely limited to the 2016 election. remember it’s about Russian interference in that election. it’s not, per se, an investigation of Dennison.

    His partisans, though, may think it is, and that only “collusion” would be a problem. The campaign finance violations are not part of Mueller’s probe, but are handled by the SDNY. there are also inquiries being conducted by the state of New York. and there’s the oversight inquiry being undertaken by various committees in the House.

    But in the first place, impeachment without a good chance at removal is rather hollow. And there’s no chance in hell, as yet, the spineless cowards in the GOP would vote to remove El Cheeto.

    1
    1
  55. DrDaveT says:

    @Teve:

    I’m actually finding it hard to believe that Trump just proposed a budget that would cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

    Why shouldn’t he? We’ve gotten to the point where his core supporters won’t believe you if you tell them he did that, unless they hear it first at Fox News or Breitbart. Which they won’t.

    (I just popped over to the Fox News website, and I literally could not find a story about the budget. I found several about the college admissions scandal, and several about Ocasio-Cortez — including one outraged that she implied that Ronald Reagan was a racist — but nothing on the just-announced budget.)

  56. Eric Florack says:

    @Daryl and his brother Darryl: Mueller is a republican. So was John McCain. So is Paul Ryan. Get the picture?

    moreover, look at the way that’s worded. I said Mueller’s team. Not necessarily Mueller himself although that stands out as a distinct possibility.

    Then again let’s look at the makeup of Mueller’s team, shall we?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2018/03/18/trump-said-muellers-team-has-13-hardened-democrats-here-are-the-facts/

    2
    4
  57. Eric Florack says:

    For the sake of confirmation, this one gets into the details of each of Mueller’s team
    https://heavy.com/news/2017/10/robert-mueller-team-democrat-campaign-donation-hillary/

    2
    4
  58. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Eric Florack: Yes, I do. You’re surrounded by traitors to the cause. Now if I only cared…

  59. Teve says:

    @DrDaveT: yeah, good point.

  60. Teve says:

    Well, I thought the big story today was going to be Paul Manafort getting another three and a half years in jail for more crimes, but now the Manhattan DA appears to have indicted him for even more crimes.

    Trump was right when he said he only hires the best people. They’re like the Harlem Globetrotters of committing crimes.

    ETA 16 more criminal charges.

  61. Moosebreath says:

    @Eric Florack:

    “Mueller is a republican. So was John McCain. So is Paul Ryan. Get the picture?”

    Yep. You think everyone except those who agree with your own warped views of the world (all of whom can fit in a phone booth, if you can still find one these days) is your enemy.

  62. grumpy realist says:

    @Kathy: Yes. The number of commentators over at the DT banging the drum for a Hard Brexit because It Wuz The Will Of The Peeple never fails to surprise me. Heck, you could run a referendum asking if everyone should be paid a salary of 100,000 pounds a year and never have to pay taxes and get a solid YES. Does that make such an expressed Will of the People of the U.K. something that can actually be carried out in reality? No.

  63. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    @Eric Florack:

    I said Mueller’s team.

    No…you absolutely did not.
    @Eric Florack:
    You cannot even defend your own conspiracy theory without lying thru your teeth.
    You really should just STFU…you embarrass yourself with every comment.
    What a pathetic old racist you are. Your progeny must hate seeing you and hearing from you.

    Doh…there goes the crazy old fuq’r, again.

    5
    1
  64. Mister Bluster says:

    test

  65. gVOR08 says:

    @the Q: Pelosi was 22 in 1952, so I assume that quote and the rest are your clever idea of how Pelosi would have reacted. If real quotes, cite please, if not, single quotes (‘) are appropriate.

    Have you ever noticed how common it is for conservatives to use as evidence something they openly just made up?

    5
    1
  66. James Joyner says:

    @gVOR08:

    Have you ever noticed how common it is for conservatives to use as evidence something they openly just made up?

    In this case, I think it was a rhetorical device to illustrate his opinion of how this decision compared to others, not an assertion that Pelosi said those things.

    2
    1
  67. Tyrell says:

    @Teve: I’m thinking that Speaker Pelosi may have had some encounters with some people at some place like a barbecue joint or a sporting goods store: people who are everyday Americans. And she probably finally figured out that the Mueller inquisition and some of this other stuff that the media is obsessed with is not selling to the regular people out there. Now this Representative Nadler says he has hundreds of subpeonas to go out. So this mess could well continue after Director Mueller closes up shop.
    The people are interested in a tax cut and getting the government off their backs, not these spurious political gambits.

    2
    6
  68. Eric Florack says:

    @Daryl and his brother Darryl: ice and happily corrected. I didn’t say Mullers team. Then again, I didn’t say Mueller, either.

    Hmm?

    So I ask again, look at the people involved with his team. Do you consider it an impossibility that the contents of Mueller’s investigation hasn’t already made it into the hands of the Democrat leadership? Yes or no?

    And by the way, spare us the sanctimony.

  69. grumpy realist says:

    OT: I’d give you a Brexit report if I could figure out what’s going on…..there’s been several more votes in the House of Commons, basically saying “no, we don’t like that plan, either” and “but we don’t want to crash out, no matter what happens.”

    The fact that crashing out by default is what Article 50 implies is going to happen at the end of March is being argued over. In fact, the British government is in total meltdown at present. Unspoken rules of traditional behaviour getting broken right left and centre. Nobody knows what is going on. Theresa May will probably manage to hang on because she’s stubborn and no one else wants to take responsibility for this existing fiasco. Boris Johnson, Gove, and all the other pretenders to the throne are busily giving speeches (often to empty chambers) and ignoring the rolling of eyes of everyone else while madly plotting a dash for No. 10.

    (As John Crace put it, “Theresa May would come second in a one-horse race.” )

  70. Jen says:

    @Tyrell:

    I’m thinking that Speaker Pelosi may have had some encounters with some people at some place like a barbecue joint or a sporting goods store: people who are everyday Americans. And she probably finally figured out that the Mueller inquisition and some of this other stuff that the media is obsessed with is not selling to the regular people out there.

    Or, you know, she’s smart and politically savvy and understands that being the vector for agitating Trump’s base isn’t a smart move.

    Suggesting that she stumbled into some random people who set her to thinking straight is just straight-up misogyny.

    5
    1
  71. An Interested Party says:

    And by the way, spare us the sanctimony.

    Oh that’s funny coming from one of the most sanctimonious gasbags ever to comment on this site…

    @the Q: Oy, speaking of sanctimonious gasbags…oh wise sage, do tell us the point of Pelosi bringing forth Impeachment only for it to die in the Senate…

  72. Eric Florack says:

    @Moosebreath: the bandwagon argument? Yeah that’ll work.

  73. Eric Florack says:

    @Moosebreath: the bandwagon argument? Yeah that’ll work.
    @Daryl and his brother Darryl: for some reason the time-out I posted earlier isn’t here. So I will ask again, do you think it’s impossible for the leading Democrats to have been updated on mahler’s efforts from the inside of that team, particularly given the makeup of that team? Yes, or no?

    1
    3
  74. Eric Florack says:

    @Daryl and his brother Darryl:
    And by the way, I eagerly await your explanation as to what the hell any of this has to do with race. Absent an explanation of that, I’m going to have to assume that what you’re doing is throwing the charge of racism out in a completely meaningless attempt to suck all the air out of the room, because you’ve been caught without a logical argument again.

    @An Interested Party: it’s called value signaling.

    1
    2
  75. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    @Eric Florack:

    what the hell any of this has to do with race

    You are an abject racist…and thus ignorant.
    Anything you say is tainted by that. Your political opinions are colored by your support of the racist in the White House. You’ll never turn against him, because he validates your pathetic existence. You cannot form an opinion that isn’t influenced by your racism, because it courses thru your being. And thus, nothing you type can be taken seriously.

  76. Moosebreath says:

    @Eric Florack:

    “the bandwagon argument? Yeah that’ll work.”

    You’re the one who always says that if Republicans ran a True Conservative (TM), they would be massively popular. I’m just pointing out the obvious contradiction.

  77. Eric Florack says:

    @Daryl and his brother Darryl: like I said, you throw out the charge just so that you can remove all the air from the room. It’s totally meaningless, and is a strong indicator that you have nothing else to go with. I actually very seldom bring up the subject of race. you bring it up as a knee-jerk reaction. I submit that makes you a racist.

    @Moosebreath: there’s no contradiction there.

    Trump is not the ideal conservative, I think we’d have been better off with Ted Cruz in the long run, but you take what you get…unless you’re a Democrat or a GOP establishment type, in which case you spend the entirety of the presidential term trying to overturn the election…. but he is far more conservative than anything else that’s come down the pike since Reagan…which explains his popularity (last I saw, Rasmussen had him at 50/50 which is higher than Obama was at this point)… can you imagine Obama getting the negative press that Trump has been getting day in and day out and getting those kind of approval numbers? I don’t think so.

    (Oh… And remember the GOP establishment was none too happy about Reagan winning the presidency either… as I’ve been writing since those days, the GOP establishment still hasn’t learned that lesson.)

  78. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    @Eric Florack:

    you throw out the charge

    The charge is meaningless. Who a law enforcement official chooses to donate to doesn’t determine how they do their job.
    Proof: Dennison has been donating to Democrats for years and you think he’s the best thing since a white pillow cloth with eye-holes cut out.
    Proof: There has not been one piece of exculpatory evidence on Dennison’s side. Dennison’s only argument (and yours) is that everyone is against him.
    E.g. Comey…Dennison doesn’t seriously argue that he didn’t obstruct justice by firing Comey, he can only claim that Comey is a liar. So says the man who has told 9,000 lies in two years.
    Everything…everything…points to the very real possibility that Dennison was either 1) conspiring with the Russians or 2) was unwittingly duped and manipulated by the Russians. I personally think it’s probably #2 because he’s just as dumb as you are.
    You are an ignorant old racist fuq’r…just go away.
    http://bitsblog.theconservativereader.com/2008/10/barack-obama-house-nigger/

  79. Mister Bluster says:

    Here is a review of Florack’s recent postss:

    Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 04:12
    The Mueller report is supposed to be dropping soon. Does anybody truly imagine that the contents of that report, even in uncompleted form, hasn’t been making the rounds among the Democrats, particularly the Democrat leadership?

    Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 12:07
    Then again let’s look at the makeup of Mueller’s team, shall we?

    Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 12:19
    For the sake of confirmation, this one gets into the details of each of Mueller’s team

    Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 17:23
    So I ask again, look at the people involved with his team. Do you consider it an impossibility that the contents of Mueller’s investigation hasn’t already made it into the hands of the Democrat leadership? Yes or no?

    Those posts were all yesterday.

    So today he whines, as if he has gone blind:

    Thursday, March 14, 2019 at 02:36
    for some reason the time-out I posted earlier isn’t here. So I will ask again, do you think it’s impossible for the leading Democrats to have been updated on mahler’s efforts from the inside of that team, particularly given the makeup of that team? Yes, or no?

    And just to prove what a moron he is he states that citizens who object to him calling
    President Obama a ni99er are the racists but not him.

    1
    1
  80. Moosebreath says:

    @Eric Florack:

    So breaking even in Rasmussen’s polling is the definition of massively popular for a Republican. Good to know that.

  81. Eric Florack says:

    @Daryl and his brother Darryl: like I said, the only reason racism still exist is to be used as a crush by white liberals who were really don’t have an argument that stands up to anything. Thanks for so clearly demonstrating that for us all.

  82. Eric Florack says:

    @Moosebreath: it is when you consider the amount of negative press the man has been getting. The press is you should pardon the pun a full court press against Trump or anything for that matter that was not Hillary Clinton. So again the question, would Obama have withstood the constant negative press As Trump has? We both know better.

    And yes, I see the post I didn’t think had made it. I assume that has something to do with browser cache

  83. Eric Florack says:

    This just came in about 20 minutes ago to my inbox and it seems to be directly related to the topic of the post, as you will see.

    From the Washington Examiner:

    Fired FBI agent Peter Strzok told Congress last year that the agency “did not have access” to Clinton Foundation emails that were on Hillary Clinton’s private server because of a consent agreement “negotiated between the Department of Justice attorneys and counsel for Clinton.”

    That agreement was revealed in newly released congressional transcripts from Strzok’s closed-door testimony at the House Judiciary Committee on June 27, 2018.

    When asked by then-majority general counsel Zachary Somers if “the Clinton Foundation was on the server”, Strzok testified that he believed it was “on one of the servers, if not the others.” But Strzok stressed that due to an agreement between the DOJ and Clinton, they were not allowed to search Clinton Foundation emails for information that could help in their investigation.

    Well, look, we always knew the fix was in. That said, several questions spring from this revelation.

    First of all… everybody had the same access to those transcripts that’s the Washington examiner did. So why isn’t the mainstream media going after this? Why do we see so few blogs mentioning it?

    Secondly, on what basis, and on whose authority was that exemption from prosecution granted?

    it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that the reason that pelosi backed off on this was because those transcripts were released.

  84. James Joyner says:

    @Eric Florack:

    From the Washington Examiner:

    Do you read any reputable media outlets whatsoever?

  85. Moosebreath says:

    @Eric Florack:

    “The press is you should pardon the pun a full court press against Trump or anything for that matter that was not Hillary Clinton.”

    OK, now I know you are delusional. Claiming Trump got worse press than Hillary Clinton only is true if you confine your reading to what is printed on other planets.

  86. Mister Bluster says:

    Do you read any reputable media outlets whatsoever?

    He can’t read his own posts on these very threads that everyone else can see and then blames it on browser cache.

  87. Eric Florack says:

    @James Joyner: it’s more reliable than the Washington Post is by several links. That you even ask such a question…

    I can’t even….

  88. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    @Eric Florack:
    That’s fuqing laughable…you do not answer any of the argument…only claim to be a victim…an old white male claiming to be the victim of racism.