DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

And I think what Pelosi said just corners the GOP in.  That when the evidence is presented she wouldn't push for impeachment unless the evidence was very "graphic" (I think that's the word she used, maybe it was Schiff that said graphic).

Anyway, I think we need to wait until it's presented.  Remember, Nancy was in the gang of 8 that has seen some or all of the info.  And she is a forward thinking lady.  What she has done is make a public statement saying that she's not chasing impeachment as a political move.  That she doesn't support impeachment unless the evidence leads them there.  She has not said that she's absolutely won't do it, she's just said the evidence needs to be conclusive and the move needs to be bipartisan.  She's played her cards such that the GOP will now have to explain why they are against impeaching a man that there is obvious evidence of criminal actions.  

 
NM11046 said:
And I think what Pelosi said just corners the GOP in.  That when the evidence is presented she wouldn't push for impeachment unless the evidence was very "graphic" (I think that's the word she used, maybe it was Schiff that said graphic).

Anyway, I think we need to wait until it's presented.  Remember, Nancy was in the gang of 8 that has seen some or all of the info.  And she is a forward thinking lady.  What she has done is make a public statement saying that she's not chasing impeachment as a political move.  That she doesn't support impeachment unless the evidence leads them there.  She has not said that she's absolutely won't do it, she's just said the evidence needs to be conclusive and the move needs to be bipartisan.  She's played her cards such that the GOP will now have to explain why they are against impeaching a man that there is obvious evidence of criminal actions.  
Click to expand...


Well said. 

 
NM11046 said:
And I think what Pelosi said just corners the GOP in.  That when the evidence is presented she wouldn't push for impeachment unless the evidence was very "graphic" (I think that's the word she used, maybe it was Schiff that said graphic).

Anyway, I think we need to wait until it's presented.  Remember, Nancy was in the gang of 8 that has seen some or all of the info.  And she is a forward thinking lady.  What she has done is make a public statement saying that she's not chasing impeachment as a political move.  That she doesn't support impeachment unless the evidence leads them there.  She has not said that she's absolutely won't do it, she's just said the evidence needs to be conclusive and the move needs to be bipartisan.  She's played her cards such that the GOP will now have to explain why they are against impeaching a man that there is obvious evidence of criminal actions.  
Click to expand...
I don't understand the logic here. Why will the GOP have to explain anything when the majority party isn't even bring impeachment article to the floor for discussion?

 
RedDenver said:
I don't understand the logic here. Why will the GOP have to explain anything when the majority party isn't even bring impeachment article to the floor for discussion?
Click to expand...
The investigations/reports are not complete and presented yet.  She has not said she wont move to impeach, she has said unless there is real visible evidence she is not moving toward that currently.   My bet is there is very real, inarguable evidence that she knows about, and at that time its made public when Mueller is done or the committees finishe she will move on impeachment in the House.  By stating this now she puts the GOP and specifically those in the Senate in a position if and when the House moves to impeach to try and defend their decision not to look at the evidence and evaluate it fairly.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Removing him from office or worse impeaching without removal and then no longer having that looming threat to at least partially keep him in check would be a big defeat for her.  Pence would walk strait in to the oval after that and pardon Trump, if they even could convict.  I'd personally prefer if he lost the election, SDNY and whoever else charged him the next day and he and his idiotic offspring were actually held accountable for their tax dodging and other crimes.

Her mistake was answering that question in the first place, in any way that wasn't "We'll have to wait and see what the numerous investigations uncover and will consider all evidence as they wrap up."  If they cant convict in the senate it's a moot point.  Also we'll have much more detail about just how much of an idiot and crook he is by the time the next election rolls around, it would probably be a gift to the republican party if they were able to say "Yeah, that was an anomaly lets move on" rather then having to explain it all publicly for months.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
Apparently it is close to wrapping up?
Click to expand...


"Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election interference and whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin is reportedly being funded through the end of September."

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/433591-mueller-probe-being-funded-through-september-report

I have no idea how these things are funded, but at face value this would indicate that Mueller isn't handing anything in for another few months. 

 
This now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to gain swift approval.

BUT WAIT, WHAT IS THAT CLOUD ON THE HORIZON!?!?!

OMG IT'S LINDSAY GRAHAM!!!!


:facepalm:

 
Back
Top