'Feel free to leak this': Inside the Pelosi-Nadler impeachment schism

[Counselor706]

In a closed-door meeting last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi stunned lawmakers and aides with a swipe at Democratic staff on the House Judiciary Committee.

Pelosi criticized the panel’s handling of impeachment in harsh terms, complaining committee aides have advanced the push for ousting President Donald Trump far beyond where the House Democratic Caucus stands. Democrats simply don’t have the votes on the floor to impeach Trump, Pelosi said.

“And you can feel free to leak this,” Pelosi added, according to multiple people in the room. Pelosi’s office declined to comment on the meeting.

It was the latest sign of the widening schism between Pelosi and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, two longtime allies who are increasingly in conflict over where to guide the party at one of its most critical moments.

Source

 

[HisArpy]

Nadler the Hut is going to lose his seat and he needs a "legacy". The fact that the rest of the D "impeachment caucus" is stupid enough to support him in that effort should tell you something about them too.

 

[Rightguide]

Corey Lewandowski absolutely owned the Democrats in that hearing yesterday and made "The Penguin" look like the big fucking dummy he is. He flattened the blowhard Sheila Jackson Lee as well. Hillarious.

 

[HisArpy]

Corey Lewandowski absolutely owned the Democrats in that hearing yesterday and made "The Penguin" look like the big fucking dummy he is. He flattened the blowhard Sheila Jackson Lee as well. Hillarious.

I only saw a few excerpts but some of them were beautiful.

"I think I'm a very handsome man."
"President Swallwell."
"The witness is directed to answer the question. I don't think there was a question. So noted."

Lewandowski did what needed to be done - he attacked them through their hypocrisies and showed them to be exactly what they are; fools with microphones.

 

[HisArpy]

I want to add that we should see an impeachment resolution by next spring.

If they can impeach Trump, even without removal, it makes him ineligible to run for reelection.

This is why they're working overtime to get his tax returns. ANYTHING they can gin up to use as a basis for impeachment is what will become the narrative to support the resolution. At that point, it will be all political maneuvering regarding reelection campaigns and money in exchange for votes.

 

[Rightguide]

I only saw a few excerpts but some of them were beautiful.

"I think I'm a very handsome man."
"President Swallwell."
"The witness is directed to answer the question. I don't think there was a question. So noted."

Lewandowski did what needed to be done - he attacked them through their hypocrisies and showed them to be exactly what they are; fools with microphones.

Loved it when he was directed to answer Lee's minutes long question, and he asked her to repeat it after stating he didn't hear one, and then called it a rant.

 

[Rightguide]

I want to add that we should see an impeachment resolution by next spring.

If they can impeach Trump, even without removal, it makes him ineligible to run for reelection.

This is why they're working overtime to get his tax returns. ANYTHING they can gin up to use as a basis for impeachment is what will become the narrative to support the resolution. At that point, it will be all political maneuvering regarding reelection campaigns and money in exchange for votes.

Where is it stated in the Constitution he cannot run for office while accused by the House? I believe if they try and accuse of him of anything other than "treason bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," the issue will not be taken up by the Senate. In Article I, the sole power to try the President is left in the hands of the Senate. It doesn't say he shall be tried upon impeachment by the House.

 

[Adre]

Speaking of re-election, it’s looking like Bibi may be going down. And maybe going to jail! He won’t get the immunity legislation he was desperately hoping for.

 

[HisArpy]

Where is it stated in the Constitution he cannot run for office while accused by the House? I believe if they try and accuse of him of anything other than "treason bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," the issue will not be taken up by the Senate. In Article I, the sole power to try the President is left in the hands of the Senate. It doesn't say he shall be tried upon impeachment by the House.

Welp, there's a mistake on my part.

I did some looking and it seems that Trump would have to be impeached in the House AND removed in the Senate before the bar against holding Federal office can be imposed against him.

If he can't be barred because the Senate isn't going to remove him, the phony impeachment stuff has no purpose.

 

[Rightguide]

Speaking of re-election, it’s looking like Bibi may be going down. And maybe going to jail! He won’t get the immunity legislation he was desperately hoping for.

Too bad, he is a Churchillian figure in the Middle East

 

[Rightguide]

Welp, there's a mistake on my part.

I did some looking and it seems that Trump would have to be impeached in the House AND removed in the Senate before the bar against holding Federal office can be imposed against him.

If he can't be barred because the Senate isn't going to remove him, the phony impeachment stuff has no purpose.

Clinton didn't have to step aside when he was impeached by the House. I think all that would happen if he did run for office while impeached and won the election, that in itself might end the trial in the Senate seeing how the entire affair is a political matter in the first place. If not and he was tried and removed from office they would just swear in his Vice President.

 

[Adre]

Too bad, he is a Churchillian figure in the Middle East

That’s an insult to Churchill.

 

[mark_j]

Speaking of re-election, it’s looking like Bibi may be going down. And maybe going to jail! He won’t get the immunity legislation he was desperately hoping for.

There's a little more to it than that. As I understand it, unless the winner has a clear majority in the knesset, the winning party still has to be able to form a coalition government. The coalition has to have majority to function and neither Bibi nor the challenger has majority support at this point.

 

[Adre]

There's a little more to it than that. As I understand it, unless the winner has a clear majority in the knesset, the winning party still has to be able to form a coalition government. The coalition has to have majority to function and neither Bibi nor the challenger has majority support at this point.

Correct, but the third actor in this play had made it clear he does not intend to throw in with Netanyahu.

 

[Rightguide]

That’s an insult to Churchill.

Your intellect is stunted.

 

[Adre]

That’s an insult to Churchill.

Your intellect is stunted.

Blah, blah, blah.