Pelosi tells Dems she wants to see Trump ‘in prison’

Authored by politico.com and submitted by TYLER_WAS_ROBBED
image for Pelosi tells Dems she wants to see Trump ‘in prison’

“I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. | Win McNamee/Getty Images congress Pelosi tells Dems she wants to see Trump ‘in prison’ She also clashed with Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, who pressed her to begin impeachment proceedings.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi told senior Democrats that she’d like to see President Donald Trump “in prison” as she clashed with House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler in a meeting on Tuesday night over whether to launch impeachment proceedings.

Pelosi met with Nadler (D-N.Y.) and several other top Democrats who are aggressively pursuing investigations against the president, according to multiple sources. Nadler and other committee leaders have been embroiled in a behind-the-scenes turf battle for weeks over ownership of the Democrats’ sprawling investigation into Trump.

Nadler pressed Pelosi to allow his committee to launch an impeachment inquiry against Trump — the second such request he’s made in recent weeks only to be rebuffed by the California Democrat and other senior leaders. Pelosi stood firm, reiterating that she isn’t open to the idea of impeaching Trump at this time.

“I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison,” Pelosi said, according to multiple Democratic sources familiar with the meeting. Instead of impeachment, Pelosi still prefers to see Trump defeated at the ballot box and then prosecuted for his alleged crimes, according to the sources.

They said she was expressing solidarity with pro-impeachment Democrats who want to hold the president accountable while disputing the idea that it is now time to take that step. Pelosi has long argued that certain conditions must be met before Democrats begin impeachment — public support and strong bipartisan backing, neither of which have so far materialized.

POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Other Democrats said Pelosi’s comment wasn’t that surprising given her previous criticisms of the president, including saying Trump “is engaged in a cover-up,” that his staff and family should stage an intervention and that the president’s actions “are villainous to the Constitution of the United States.”

Ashley Etienne, a Pelosi spokeswoman said Pelosi and the chairmen “had a productive meeting about the state of play with the Mueller report. They agreed to keep all options on the table and continue to move forward with an aggressive hearing and legislative strategy, as early as next week, to address the president’s corruption and abuses of power uncovered in the report.”

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) and Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) were also present for the meeting. Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) — a vocal impeachment supporter whose panel is probing Trump’s finances — was not in attendance.

In Tuesday’s meeting, some committee chairs expressed frustration about the appearance that rank-and-file members — rather than party leaders — were leading the caucus’ oversight strategy, including what they do on impeachment, according to one source familiar with the meeting.

But not all committee leaders were supportive of the impeachment inquiry. Both Schiff and Neal argued that if Democrats are going to open an inquiry, they should also be prepared to impeach Trump, which the caucus isn’t ready to do, they said. Cummings also sided with Pelosi, according to a source.

Neal also grumbled about Democrats who have come out in favor of impeachment, saying it puts pressure on members in bordering congressional districts to explain why they don’t feel the same way. House Rules Chairman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) — whose district touches Neal’s — came out for impeachment last week.

The meeting is just the latest example of the impeachment debate that is roiling the Democratic Caucus. Pelosi is facing continued pressure both publicly from some rank-and-file members and privately from committee leaders like Nadler, who are unhappy with the current strategy.

The gulf between Nadler and Pelosi was on full display Wednesday as the New York Democrat dodged questions about whether he and Pelosi were in agreement on Democrats’ impeachment strategy.

“We are investigating all of the things we would investigate, frankly, in an impeachment inquiry,” Nadler said on CNN. He then paused for several seconds when asked if he and Pelosi were “on the same page.”

“When that decision has to be made, it will be made not by any one individual, it will be made probably by the caucus as a whole,” Nadler added. “Certainly Nancy will have the largest single voice in it.”

Pelosi, meanwhile, is trying to publicly project unity — going so far as to defiantly declare Wednesday that “there is no controversy” within the caucus over impeachment.

“Make no mistake, we know exactly what path we’re on. We know exactly what actions we need to take,” Pelosi told reporters earlier Wednesday, hitting her palm on the podium for emphasis.

In reality, the speaker and her top lieutenants have been trying to tamp down a rebellion within the caucus, as close to 60 members have publicly declared they want to begin impeaching Trump.

Trump, meanwhile, has continued to stonewall Democrats’ every attempt to investigate his administration, personal finances and charges of obstruction of justice outlined by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Party leaders have tried to relieve some of the pressure by taking more aggressive public action against the White House’s repeated defiance, including scheduling a contempt vote on the House floor next week against Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn.

And Democratic leaders continue to emphasize that their methodical, step-by-step oversight process is working, pointing to recent federal court victories Democrats have secured against Trump’s efforts to block them. Nadler is also still trying to secure Mueller’s testimony before his committee.

But for a growing number of Democrats, including several members of the Judiciary Committee, opening impeachment proceedings is the only recourse.

Reps. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), all members of Democratic leadership and the Judiciary panel, first raised the idea of launching an impeachment inquiry during a private leadership meeting late last month only to be shot down by Pelosi.

Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) and other top Democrats met with Nadler separately that night as he again unsuccessfully argued for opening an impeachment inquiry.

Nadler, Raskin and other lawmakers say opening an inquiry doesn’t necessarily result in impeachment and would strengthen their legal case as Democrats pursue Trump in court in an effort to force him to comply with their investigations. But other Democrats argue that the public wouldn't understand the difference between an inquiry and actual impeachment, which would only further muddle the party's message in the run-up to the election.

Pelosi has repeatedly said she doesn’t think trying to impeach Trump is “worth it,” arguing that without the public on their side, the best way to beat the president is to persuade voters to kick him out of office in 2020. She and some other top Democrats worry that pursuing impeachment would swamp their legislative agenda and embolden the Republican base, possibly costing them the House next year and ensuring Trump’s reelection.

“I’m not feeling any pressure,” Pelosi told reporters Wednesday.

SadlyReturndRS on June 6th, 2019 at 03:19 UTC »

For those of you who don't understand the game, here it is:

Pelosi has the numbers to pass articles of impeachment. McConnell has the numbers to ensure Trump is not convicted in that impeachment trial.

It would take the defection of 20 Republican Senators to convict Trump in an impeachment trial. Trump currently has a 90% approval rating among Republican voters. Voting to impeach would piss off those voters and ensure that Senator loses re-election. Nixon did not resign until his approval rating among Republican voters was around 60%. That won't happen to Trump during the Fox News era.

So, if Nancy impeaches, Mitch the Bitch will "exonerate" Trump, and from that day until Election Day, all you're going to hear from the GOP, Republican pundits, Republican Voters, and trolls is "Trump was cleared of all charges/innocent/Russia Hoax."

We are 17 months out from Election Day.

That means we are in the middle of the large Democratic field, as the party's platform is built from an amalgamation of the best ideas of our 20-odd candidates. Right now we need primetime debates, and the primetime media coverage is being fought over fiercely by each of the candidates. Dems need every second of good press they can get.

Trump, on the other hand, is doing barely any campaigning. It's still more campaigning than any other President would be doing, but he's still out there very little in comparison. He's fundraising for the real election season next year, mostly. And planning.

Politically, there are four benefits to an impeachment trial with a guaranteed failure. First, it motivates the base to see their opponent on trial. Second, all of that overwhelming evidence demotivates the centrists aligned with the party on trial. They won't necessarily switch parties, but they're more likely to not vote. Third, it absolutely drowns out all other news coverage. Nobody else will be able to breathe in that media ecosystem without addressing it. And fourth, whoever is on trial in the Senate is nearly-grounded to DC. They won't be out heavily campaigning, they'll be reliant on surrogates for grip-and-grins.

Now, effects 1 and 2 only remain active so long as the trial continues. Once it's over and the trolls get to chant "Russia Hoax" the spell is broken and the motivation leaves an exasperated base and rejuvenated opposition.

Effect 3 is the exact opposite of what the Dems need right now. That kind of media blackout will drown campaigns who can't get their message out, and so can't get funding. You'll see a boost in the Senator-candidates campaigning like Harris, but campaigns like Buttigieg will die a lonely death out in the cold. The simplest solution to this is have the media circus after we have chosen a candidate and pushed our message out to the people. If the people know what we stand for, we'll survive the storm more intact.

The fourth effect would be useless right now when Trump is barely campaigning. But it would be incredibly next August-September-October. Imagine a candidate who could barely leave DC, who couldn't go out to see their supporters. It'd be doubly effective on Trump, who thrives off his cult-like rallies.

Lastly, House Democrats get to decide how long the impeachment trial lasts.

So if Pelosi times this right by holding off on impeachment for one year, we could ground and destabilize Trump's 2020 campaign, while mobilizing our own voters, and pushing the Senate vote back until after the election, so that the decision on whether Trump stays President or not is made in the ballot box instead, and we never have to hear "but he was found innocent" once this cycle.

OR

She could impeach right now and we get "bUt HE waS eXoNeRaTeD" for a year straight.

slakmehl on June 6th, 2019 at 02:29 UTC »

In less than 2.5 years, he has already been formally implicated by his own DoJ in two separate felonies:

(1) SDNY has formally accused him a felony conspiracy to defraud US voters by directing hush money payments in violation of campaign finance law.

(2) Robert Mueller detailed 11 acts of felony obstruction justice, 8 of which could be reasonably prosecuted, and 4 of which are open-and-shut cases. According to nearly 1000 former federal prosecutors, he would be undoubtedly be indicted right now if he were not President.

And that's just behavior exclusively surrounding the election. The indictable offenses that could flow from his business practices are almost beyond reckoning, as summarized here by the New Yorker's Adam Davidson the day after Michael Cohen was raided:

I am unaware of anybody who has taken a serious look at Trump’s business who doesn’t believe that there is a high likelihood of rampant criminality. In Azerbaijan, he did business with a likely money launderer for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. In the Republic of Georgia, he partnered with a group that was being investigated for a possible role in the largest known bank-fraud and money-laundering case in history. In Indonesia, his development partner is “knee-deep in dirty politics”; there are criminal investigations of his deals in Brazil; the F.B.I. is reportedly looking into his daughter Ivanka’s role in the Trump hotel in Vancouver, for which she worked with a Malaysian family that has admitted to financial fraud. Back home, Donald, Jr., and Ivanka were investigated for financial crimes associated with the Trump hotel in SoHo—an investigation that was halted suspiciously. His Taj Mahal casino received what was then the largest fine in history for money-laundering violations..

He could have evaded prosecution for his whole life had he simply kept his head down. Corruption prosecutions are typically not worth the effort for a rinky dink little company like Trump Org. As our head of state, it would be unconscionable if he were not held to account for this sort of behavior.

M00n on June 6th, 2019 at 01:58 UTC »

“I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison,” Pelosi said, according to multiple Democratic sources familiar with the meeting.