Nancy Pelosi: As long as Trump is here, 'I'm here'

[DonViejo]

Source: CNN



Ashley Killough
By Ashley Killough, CNN

Updated 0532 GMT (1332 HKT) September 10, 2018

Christiane Amanpour's full interview with Nancy Pelosi airs on CNN International at 8 p.m. CET and 10 p.m. ET, and on PBS across the United States at 10 p.m. ET.

(CNN)Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who served as the first woman Speaker of the US House of Representatives, told CNN that while "it's time for new blood" in her party, she also thinks it's a gamble in the current political climate for her not to be at the negotiating table.

"If Hillary Clinton had won, and the Affordable Care Act was protected -- I feel very proprietary about that -- I was happy to go my way," Pelosi told CNN's Christiane Amanpour on Friday in an interview for her new hour-long program, which premieres on CNN International and PBS on Monday.

Pelosi added that it's "up to the caucus" to determine who leads her party, "but to have no woman at the table and to have the Affordable Care Act at risk, I said 'As long as (Trump's) here, I'm here.'"

Pelosi also said that if this fall's midterms were held immediately that her party would take back control of the chamber and that "women would lead the way."

Read more: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/10/politics/nancy-pelosi-christiane-amanpour-interview/index.html

[pazzyanne]

1. I love this smart, capable woman!

Go, Nancy!

[mcar]

2. I'm on Team Pelosi!

[NCDem47]

3. I passed her two weeks ago

In Las Vegas airport. Yes, it was really her. As she went by and it registered who it was, I just spontaneously blurted out “Keep going Nancy!” with a big thumbs up. She smiled back. Had a little entourage around her of course.

Hey, we’re all in this together. I wanted her to know there are people out there who have her back. I probably would have done the same for any Democrat.

[47of74]

4. Well I hope she doesn't take impeachment off the table

Government officials need to be accountable for their actions and not be allowed to skirt.

[ehrnst]

5. Impeachment requires solid evidence, and even that won't work if

we don't take the house in the midterms.

First things first.

[apnu]

8. Nailed it! (nt)

[David__77]

9. Impeachment need not require any evidence at all.

The Congress can determine by simple majority what an impeachable offense is and can determine what, if any, evidence is require to move forward with impeachment.

[ehrnst]

10. Wrong. It requires "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Article II § 4 of the Constitution provides as follows:

"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."

Thus, the operative legal standard to apply to an impeachment of a sitting President is "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." There is substantial difference of opinion over the interpretation of these words.

https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

Think about it - if Congress could determine by a "simple majority" what an impeachable offense is, don't you think that congress would have done that to Obama the minute the GOP took the house?

If what you say is true, then that leaves POTUS open to removal at any time by a simple vote of congress. That's not a stable government. There must be real, Constitutionally defined grounds to impeach, then it's up to congress to remove the POTUS, or not.

[David__77]

11. Congress determines what "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" means.

And Congress determines what, if any, evidence of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" is required.

I'm not saying what I think a Democratic congress should do, simply that Congress, led by whichever party, has the legal power to determine the level of evidence required.

[ehrnst]

13. No, they can't decide wearing a tan suit is "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors"

even if their constituents think that it is. Because if they could, Obama would have been impeached.

Is that clearer?


Again, it is not easy, nor should it be to impeach and remove a sitting president.

[David__77]

14. Congress can determine what is "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

I do not believe that the Supreme Court or another judicial body would intervene to overrule Congress' adjudication of that.

The Republicans in Congress absolutely could have impeached Obama. I don't believe that they could have convicted him in the Senate.

If Democrats get the house majority, they would be able to impeach Trump if they determined that he committed "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." That doesn't mean that they should do so.

[ehrnst]

15. So why do you think that the GOP didn't impeach Obama

if impeachment is as simple as a majority?

No impeachment is guaranteed to be taken up by the Senate, so why do you think they didn't throw the red meat to the base, to whom they vowed to make Obama a one-term president?

[David__77]

17. I think that's because those who advocated for it didn't control the heights of the party leadership

Sarah Palin, for instance, called for Obama to be impeached. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Barack_Obama)

Here's a link to an article referencing Boehner disagreeing with Palin on that point: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/07/09/boehner-disagrees-with-palin-on-impeaching-obama/?utm_term=.3c7cae57d760

Prominent Republicans did advocate for impeaching Obama - those individuals did not at that time control the House Republican leadership. Perhaps if Sarah Palin had been speaker of the house, things would have gone differently.

[ehrnst]

18. Turns out that you do need more than "a simple majority"

There is a reasonable argument that the Republican Party, with a House majority insulated from electoral pain through a combination of safe districts packed with conservative constituents, would not hesitate to impeach Obama. He has been enemy number one since he stepped into office.

However, that begs the question: why haven’t they already impeached Obama? The House could impeach the President now and get the same result that they would get after the 2014 Elections regardless of Senate control.

The most likely answer is some form of, “last time we tried this it was a disaster.” Clinton’s impeachment backfired badly on Republicans in the 1998 midterms. It contributed to a loss of seats and the resignation of then Speaker Newt Gingrich. While there are likely several Members in the conference eager to impeach the president, the leaders in both chambers, who witnessed impeachment first-hand in 1998, are almost certainly opposed to it.

In either case, Senate control is almost entirely irrelevant to impeaching Obama. Regardless of the Senate majority, in neither case would Republicans “have the votes” to remove Obama from office. The constitutional super-majority requirement prevents a majority from taking such brash action. So whether Republicans control the Senate or not does not get them any closer to removing Obama from office. It is all based on a political calculation; one that the leaders appear eager to avoid.

https://gai.georgetown.edu/obama-a-republican-congress-and-impeachment/

[David__77]

20. In the Senate, a supermajority is needed for conviction.

I agree with the assessment that the impeachment of Clinton was political disastrous for the Republicans.

I think that impeaching Obama, while an option open to Republicans, would have been politically disastrous to them.

[lagomorph777]

19. If Russiapublicans had a 2/3 majority in the Senate, they'd have impeached for a tan suit.

I'm not kidding. The only standard of evidence is whatever the ruling party says it is.

[Hekate]

12. Your name is a number set, but can you count votes? Nancy Pelosi can. nt

[ehrnst]

16. Indeed. (nt)

[steventh]

6. Thanks for the info and link

Pelosi is a treasure. So is Amanpour. This program should be excellent.

[ffr]

7. Me too.

Love the tenacity of Ginsburg and Pelosi. Strong women with conviction.