Key House Democrat: About 40 of us want Trump impeached

  
Via:  tessylo  •  3 months ago  •  22 comments

Key House Democrat: About 40 of us want Trump impeached

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Key House Democrat: About 40 of us want Trump impeached









9197dca0-94e1-11e6-9718-4d4a4a2e45f0_US- Michael Isikoff 1 hour 32 minutes ago 






5ce7f153210000630c80af9c.jpeg
Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn. (Yahoo News photo Illustration; photos: Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — About 40 House Democrats now support impeachment, including about 90 percent of those on the House Judiciary Committee, according to a key Democrat on the judiciary panel who is one of the more aggressive advocates for impeachment.

In an interview with the Yahoo News podcast "Skullduggery," Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., also pointed to a “a little bit of tension” this week during a closed-door meeting in which he told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., that President Trump was “raping the country” and should be impeached.

“Speaking truth to power is one of the things that a good congressperson should do,” Cohen said. He acknowledged that Pelosi — with whom he remains close — stuck to her guns and continues to oppose the move, effectively blocking the Judiciary Committee from opening up an impeachment inquiry despite the sentiment of the 23 Democrats who make up the panel’s majority.

This iframe is not allowed


Cohen’s estimate that more than 40 Democrats now favor impeachment is higher than most other estimates. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., No. 5 in the House leadership, estimated earlier this week that pro-impeachment members numbered at only about 20 to 25.

But even though Cohen’s higher estimate is still far short of a majority, he hasn’t given up hope that Pelosi may come around — and has redrafted his own resolution to impeach that he may introduce shortly. “I guess she's persuadable,” Cohen said about Pelosi. “You know, she's a smart woman and ... I just disagree with her perspective."

The tensions between Democrats like Cohen and Pelosi boiled over this week during closed-door meetings in which impeachment advocates argued that the House could no longer stand idly by while Trump stonewalls and refuses to allow key witnesses in the Russia investigation — such as former White House counsel Don McGahn — to testify. Those views are held most passionately by members who, like Cohen, are on the House Judiciary Committee.

Download or subscribe on iTunes: “Skullduggery” from Yahoo News

“People who get on the judiciary committees care passionately about the Constitution,” Cohen said. “Not to say that others don't, but not as passionately as we do to make it our first choice. And we are charged with the responsibility of defending the Constitution. It probably is about 90 percent [of Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee] in favor of impeachment.”

Pelosi, for her part, this week charged that Trump is engaged in a “cover-up” and even suggested that family members and the Cabinet should stage “an intervention” after the president cut short a White House meeting about infrastructure because Democratic leaders have pursued investigations of him.

Still, Pelosi so far has strongly resisted opening an impeachment inquiry, arguing that the current strategy of investigating Trump and challenging his refusal to comply with subpoenas through the courts was paying dividends. (Two federal judges this week ruled against Trump over his efforts to block subpoenas to turn over his banking and accounting records.)

5ce7e5a4240000f7107f281f.jpeg
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. (Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

But Pelosi also believes an actual vote to impeach is bad politics in part because it appears ultimately doomed in a Senate that is solidly controlled by Republicans — none of whom have signaled willingness to break with the president. In the House, Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., is the only GOP lawmaker who supports impeachment.

Pelosi even argued in the closed-door meeting Thursday that Trump is goading the House into impeaching him, knowing he will be acquitted in the Senate and can then claim exoneration, according to the Washington Post. “He wants to be impeached so he can be exonerated,” Pelosi reportedly said.

But Cohen said that political calculus could change if the House as the 2020 elections get closer, especially if the House Judiciary Committee could hold televised hearings to educate the country about the contents of special counsel Robert Mueller's report. That could turn up the heat on several GOP senators who are up for reelection next year and are considered vulnerable.

“You’ve got Corey Gardner [of Colorado,] and you’ve got [Martha] McSally [of Arizona,] and you’ve got [Susan] Collins [of Maine,] and you’ve got a couple of others that could get beat because of this,” he said. “And that’s not the reason to bring [impeachment,] but it's reality. Instead of saying, ‘Well, the Senate's not going to convict him,’ let the senators do what they do and let them deal with it at the polls.

He continued: “And I think the American public, after seeing the proof, ... we'll see that this is the most corrupt administration ever, and that they will not support a senator who didn't support convicting him or impeaching him.”









Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Tessylo
1  seeder  Tessylo    3 months ago

“People who get on the judiciary committees care passionately about the Constitution,” Cohen said. “Not to say that others don't, but not as passionately as we do to make it our first choice. And we are charged with the responsibility of defending the Constitution. It probably is about 90 percent [of Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee] in favor of impeachment.”

Pelosi, for her part, this week charged that Trump is engaged in a “cover-up” and even suggested that family members and the Cabinet should stage “an intervention” after the president cut short a White House meeting about infrastructure because Democratic leaders have pursued investigations of him.

Still, Pelosi so far has strongly resisted opening an impeachment inquiry, arguing that the current strategy of investigating Trump and challenging his refusal to comply with subpoenas through the courts was paying dividends. (Two federal judges this week ruled against Trump over his efforts to block subpoenas to turn over his banking and accounting records.)

But Pelosi also believes an actual vote to impeach is bad politics in part because it appears ultimately doomed in a Senate that is solidly controlled by Republicans — none of whom have signaled willingness to break with the president. In the House, Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., is the only GOP lawmaker who supports impeachment.

Pelosi even argued in the closed-door meeting Thursday that Trump is goading the House into impeaching him, knowing he will be acquitted in the Senate and can then claim exoneration, according to the Washington Post. “He wants to be impeached so he can be exonerated,” Pelosi reportedly said.

But Cohen said that political calculus could change if the House as the 2020 elections get closer, especially if the House Judiciary Committee could hold televised hearings to educate the country about the contents of special counsel Robert Mueller's report. That could turn up the heat on several GOP senators who are up for reelection next year and are considered vulnerable.

“You’ve got Corey Gardner [of Colorado,] and you’ve got [Martha] McSally [of Arizona,] and you’ve got [Susan] Collins [of Maine,] and you’ve got a couple of others that could get beat because of this,” he said. “And that’s not the reason to bring [impeachment,] but it's reality. Instead of saying, ‘Well, the Senate's not going to convict him,’ let the senators do what they do and let them deal with it at the polls.

He continued: “And I think the American public, after seeing the proof, ... we'll see that this is the most corrupt administration ever, and that they will not support a senator who didn't support convicting him or impeaching him.”

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2  Sean Treacy    3 months ago

40 out of the 218 votes necessary just  to impeach him, let alone the 2/3 of the Senate needed to actually remove him. 

Why is impeachment even a story?   At what point do the Democrats reach the acceptance stage in their grief over how the contents of the Mueller report killed their dreams of removing Trump?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
2.1  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    3 months ago
Why is impeachment even a story?   At what point do the Democrats reach the acceptance stage in their grief over how the contents of the Mueller report killed their dreams of removing Trump?

Have you even read the Mueller Report or, are you just going by what Barr and, Trump have told you? If you haven't read it then you should, especially the second part dealing with Obstruction of Justice.

By the way, to you know what the third article of impeachment was against Richard Nixon? I think it might be wise for you to look it up.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @2.1    3 months ago
? If you haven't read it then you should, especially the second part dealing with Obstruction of Justice.

Yes. So? There was nothing really new in it.  Pretty much all the incidents cited by Mueller as possibly problematic have been known to the public for months, if not years.  Everyone understands Trump didn't interfere with Mueller's investigation.  That's why most House Democrats don't want to impeach Trump. That's why the American people overwhelmingly don't want Trump impeached. 

Third article of impeachment was against Richard Nixon? I thin

So? You can impeach a President for anything. Sure, the Republicans could have impeached Obama for refusing to comply with subpoenas, but it would have been just as pointless. Until Trump refuses to comply with a Supreme Court order, no one cares. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @2.1    3 months ago

So please provide us ignorant fools your expertise and show the information in the Mueller report that Trump should be impeached on?

Before you ask. I have not read the full report. I have, however, read so many legal opinions that I trust siting the report (exact information in it)- that the Dems have no legal basis to stand on. They have moved on from collusion to obstruction.  If heir Mueller would have had the evidence to convict Trump of obstruction, he would have filed charges. His touchy feely, wishy washy, vague, gray, and murky findings was purposely done. Heir Mueller took the chicken shit way out. He would face severe repercussions if he took Trump to court and lost. This way he escapes, while still allowing the Dems to sling mud.

I really want the Dems to proceed with impeachment. Put up or shut up. Show the evidence and let the Republicans trash it for what it is. Then vote strictly along party lines for impeachment, where it will be rejected in the Senate.  See if the voters will love the waste of money for the shit show. 

Seems Dems forgot the price the Republicans paid for their impeachment of Bill Clinton; and that was when they had Bill dead to rights for perjury in front of a grand jury. Oh, the power of the mighty D behind one's name.

This is nothing more than a political stunt to hurt the Republicans/Trump before the next elections. Seems the left is terrified their over flowing clown car of candidates cannot produce someone able to defeat Trump. 

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
2.1.3  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.1    3 months ago
Yes. So? There was nothing really new in it.  Pretty much all the incidents cited by Mueller as possibly problematic have been known to the public for months, if not years.  Everyone understands Trump didn't interfere with Mueller's investigation.  That's why most House Democrats don't want to impeach Trump. That's why the American people overwhelmingly don't want Trump impeached. 

Yep, "everyone knows that Trump is guilty of trying to obstruct the investigation", what you seem to forget is that obstruction doesn't need to be successful to be illegal and, a crime punishable by imprisonment.

But regardless of the specific section of federal law (1501 through 1521) cited in a particular case, the prosecution need not prove anyactualobstruction -- the defendant'sattemptto obstruct is enough. The element of intent, which is central to such cases, is also usually the most difficult to prove; although memos, phone calls, and recorded conversations may be used as evidence to establish this.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/obstruction-of-justice.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/03/26/barr-is-wrong-obstruction-justice-doesnt-require-another-underlying-crime/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cab74b090f5a

So? You can impeach a President for anything. Sure, the Republicans could have impeached Obama for refusing to comply with subpoenas, but it would have been just as pointless. Until Trump refuses to comply with a Supreme Court order, no one cares. 

Just to give you reference, this is what I was talking about. Trumps current efforts at preventing Congress from seeing his financial records and, his tax returns and, telling his "people" to ignore Congressional subpoena's was covered in the third article of impeachment of Richard Nixon.

ARTICLE III, DEFIANCE OF SUBPOENAS. (Approved 21-17) In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. ...

 http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/rnimparticles.htm

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @2.1.3    3 months ago
, what you seem to forget is that obstruction doesn't need to be successful to be illegal and, a crime punishable by imprisonment.

We are talking about impeachment. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one.  Until 218, and not 40, House Democrats redefine "obstruction of justice" to apply to Trump's actions, this is simply wishcasting by the far left.   

,mps current efforts at preventing Congress from seeing his financial records and, his tax returns and, telling his "people" to ignore Congressional subpoena's was covered in the third article of impeachment of Richard Nixon

 Congress and the Executive are co-equal branches and unless Trump defies a Supreme Court order to comply, impeachment is even a bigger pipe dream under this theory.    

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
2.1.5  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.2    3 months ago
So please provide us ignorant fools your expertise and show the information in the Mueller report that Trump should be impeached on?

Read what I posted to Sean in post 2.1.3.

Before you ask. I have not read the full report. I have, however, read so many legal opinions that I trust siting the report (exact information in it)- that the Dems have no legal basis to stand on.

Then you missed one, one of the more important ones, the one that I speak of is a letter signed by 900 prosecutors that states that Trump did commit obstruction of Justice and, should be charged with that.

They have moved on from collusion to obstruction.  If heir Mueller would have had the evidence to convict Trump of obstruction, he would have filed charges.

Mueller stated that he wasn't going to charge Trump with obstruction because of the rules at the DOJ that prevent charging a sitting president, that is why he left it up to Congress to decide but, Barr is keeping the report from Congress.

His touchy feely, wishy washy, vague, gray, and murky findings was purposely done. Heir Mueller took the chicken shit way out. He would face severe repercussions if he took Trump to court and lost. This way he escapes, while still allowing the Dems to sling mud.

I know you aren't a lawyer so, here is a breakdown of the obstruction charges in the Mueller report from someone who is. Enjoy, I hope you read it.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
2.1.6  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.4    3 months ago
We are talking about impeachment. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. 

Only when made a political one like Trump is trying to do now, let's have a look at what the Constitution says about impeachment.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So, show me here where is says, "for Political reasons."

Until 218, and not 40, House Democrats redefine "obstruction of justice" to apply to Trump's actions, this is simply wishcasting by the far left. 

Just because the article says that there are only 40 members of the House who want an impeachment, it doesn't mean that the rest won't vote for it, if it comes to the floor, however, that being said, the rest want to see an investigation proceed first to gather the evidence for impeachment, such that the Senate Republicans will have no choice but to vote for impeachment or, risk looking like co-conspirators.

Congress and the Executive are co-equal branches and unless Trump defies a Supreme Court order to comply, impeachment is even a bigger pipe dream under this theory. 

The SCOTUS has in the past opted out of any impeachment discussion, they have left it up to the lower courts to bring the evidence forward when there was obstruction of the process by the executive branch so, don't be surprised when the SCOTUS refuses to hear any of the appeals by Trumps lawyers.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @2.1.6    3 months ago
So, show me here where is says, "for Political reasons.

I said political process. This shouldn't be controversial to anyone. The House, and the House alone,  defines what is an impeachable offense. No one else has a say. 

d first to gather the evidence for impeachment, such that the Senate Republicans will have no choice but to vote for impeachment or, risk looking like co-conspirators.

First,The Senate votes to convict and remove the President from office. Not to impeach.  

But sure. Hold on to the dream that partisan House investigators can discover information that Mueller couldn't and that the evidence Mueller missed will somehow convince Republicans to remove Trump from office. Maybe Santa Claus will deliver it on Christmas Eve!

At some point, reality is going to set in that Mueller's report ended any hope of removing Trump from office by impeachment.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @2.1.6    3 months ago
TUS has in the past opted out of any impeachment discussion, they have left it up to the lower courts to bring the evidence forward when there was obstruction of the process by the executive branch so, don't be surprised when the SCOTUS refuses to hear any of the appeals by Trumps lawyer

I didn't mean to skip this, but it's nonsense. The Supreme Court plays no role in impeachment (other than the CJ acting as presiding Judge in the Senate trial). They didn't "opt out" of anything.  The Supreme Court and lower courts have zero say in deciding if the executive branch obstructed justice as a basis for any impeachment.

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.9  Ronin2  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @2.1.5    3 months ago
Then you missed one, one of the more important ones, the one that I speak of is a letter signed by 900 prosecutors that states that Trump did commit obstruction of Justice and, should be charged with that.

Only 900; what happened to the rest of them? What is their political affiliation? How many are never Trumpers?

I did read you other post. If ignoring Congressional subpoenas was a valid reason for impeachment- then how many times should Obama have been impeached?

As for the link for lawfareblog. 

How can you have obstruction when there was never a crime? Is attempted (failed) obstruction worse than the actual obstruction Obama did? If the entire investigation by Comey & Mueller is proven to be illegal based on fraudulent evidence to get FISA warrants. How is it obstruction to try and end an illegal investigation?

 

 

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.1.10  dennis smith  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @2.1.6    3 months ago

40 support impeachment and the est of the House dems will folow like the sheep they are if Pelosi tells them too. They are afraid to think and vote for themselves.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
2.1.11  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.7    3 months ago
I said political process. This shouldn't be controversial to anyone. The House, and the House alone,  defines what is an impeachable offense. No one else has a say.

I'm glad you said this, now, consider, there is a Republican in the House who has called for impeachment, yes, it is just one but, it's important to remember, despite what is being said about him he is a Constitutional conservative, which means he doesn't use the impeachment word lightly, unlike the president who calls anyone who disagrees with him a traitor.

First,The Senate votes to convict and remove the President from office. Not to impeach.  

Well, duh, that is how it was done for Clinton and, would have been done for Nixon, if he hadn't chickened out and, resigned. What you forget is that the Senate in voting to convict are voting on the articles of impeachment so, yes, they are voting to impeach.

But sure. Hold on to the dream that partisan House investigators can discover information that Mueller couldn't and that the evidence Mueller missed will somehow convince Republicans to remove Trump from office. Maybe Santa Claus will deliver it on Christmas Eve!

800

Read this page from the Mueller report, it says plainly that the reason Mueller didn't file charges was because of the OLC regulations at the DOJ and, he was leaving the decision up to Congress.

At some point, reality is going to set in that Mueller's report ended any hope of removing Trump from office by impeachment.

800

And, here you will see this is the first case of obstruction, after Comey's claim that the president wanted him to stop investigating Flynn, it is worth it to keep reading the report, I suggest you do.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report.html

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
2.1.12  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.8    3 months ago
I didn't mean to skip this, but it's nonsense. The Supreme Court plays no role in impeachment (other than the CJ acting as presiding Judge in the Senate trial). They didn't "opt out" of anything.  The Supreme Court and lower courts have zero say in deciding if the executive branch obstructed justice as a basis for any impeachment.

You must be young not to remember the role it played in the Nixon impeachment hearings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
2.1.13  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.9    3 months ago
Only 900; what happened to the rest of them? What is their political affiliation? How many are never Trumpers?

They are all U.S. district court prosecutors, the mix is even, they are both Democrat appointed and, Republican appointed, so, get off of that BS about them being "never Trumper's.

https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1

I did read you other post. If ignoring Congressional subpoenas was a valid reason for impeachment- then how many times should Obama have been impeached?

As far as I know the only ones that Obama ignored were the ones that covered Executive Privilege, the things Trump wants to ignore are covered in the Mueller report which isn't covered under Executive Privilege any longer since the staff at the White House already gave testimony on it to Mueller and, the Grand Jury. Nixon tried this same tactic and, the SCOTUS in an eight to nothing decision sided with Congress.

How can you have obstruction when there was never a crime?

Obstruction is a process crime, there doesn't need to be any completion of the crime, just the attempt. The rest of the comment isn't worth it to discuss since it is all Rightwing bullshit.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
2.1.14  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  dennis smith @2.1.10    3 months ago
40 support impeachment and the est of the House dems will folow like the sheep they are if Pelosi tells them too. They are afraid to think and vote for themselves.

Those folks are young and, just starting to serve, Pelosi has been through this rodeo a few times and, knows when to put up and, when to hold back. Right now she is getting her cards in a row, when she is ready she will announce what she will do. I have a feeling you won't like it.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
2.1.15  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  dennis smith @2.1.10    3 months ago

That actually sounds more like the Republicans who have been following along behind Trump like little lap dogs.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3  Greg Jones    3 months ago

 especially if the House Judiciary Committee could hold televised hearings to educate the country about the contents of special counsel Robert Mueller's report.

I suspect the average voters eyes glaze over when the "Mueller Report" is mentioned these days. I am sure their attention next summer will be focused on Barr's investigations of the former administration's illegitimate use of government agencies in an attempt to discover dirt on presidential candidate.

If the dems were going to impeach they would have started to do so by now. Any such attempt would fail in the Senate and then the dems would once again appear to be the fools they are.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Greg Jones @3    3 months ago

Here's a good article about impeaching Trump, perhaps the Democrats should pay attention and take heed.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/americans-dont-want-impeachment-but-democrats-arent-listening/ar-AABQnF0?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=AARDHP

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4  Nerm_L    3 months ago

An interesting power play is emerging within the Democratic Party.  IMO the dissension is less about impeaching Trump and more about challenging the Democratic establishment.  The Democratic primaries should prove interesting.

Biden is the status quo establishment candidate that will provide continuity for the party and protect all the deadwood in the party establishment.  Sanders, Warren, and possibly Booker are establishment candidates trying to push the party in a more liberal direction.  A number of moderate and more liberal candidates are in a position to claim outsider, anti-establishment credentials.  So, the Democratic primaries appear to be shaping up as two contests; one between moderates and liberals and another contest between status quo establishment and anti-establishment.   

Impeaching Trump is gradually becoming a litmus test within the Democratic Party that can be used against establishment foot draggers.  Claiming that Democrats need to conduct investigations to educate the public is a political farce.  The only way to justify that claim is to blindly  accept that news organizations are incompetent, the previous committee investigations were inept, and that Robert Mueller didn't know what he was doing.  The public simply won't believe the whole world has been wrong just so Democrats can score political points.

At present it appears that impeaching Trump (no matter the outcome) will benefit the more liberal faction and the anti-establishment faction within the Democratic Party.  I would not be surprised if the Democratic candidates are going to be forced to take a position on whether or not they support impeachment during the primaries.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
5  The Magic Eight Ball    3 months ago
Key House Democrat: About 40 of us want Trump impeached

those 40 or so people will be disappointed.... 

so what?  they are irrelevant.

cheers :)

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


CB


250 visitors