Pelosi Says Congress Should Pass New Laws So Sitting Presidents Can Be Indicted

[Cardinal]

Nancy Pelosi is resolute in not considering impeachment, even in light of possibly the most egregious and impeachable offense by Trump in bullying a foreign leader to interfere in our elections.

I'm at a point where Pelosi's stance on impeachment makes so little sense that there's only one argument that could convince me she's right: she must present compelling evidence that she's from the future, and this is how she knows that avoiding impeachment is the right thing to do.

But if she's not from the future, then she's gambling that Trump won't continue to be emboldened by the combination of the DOJ's rule against indicting a sitting President and the refusal of Congress to consider impeachment. She's betting that Trump won't respond to the House's paralysis by just going ahead and dismantling what little remains of the integrity of our electoral process.

Raise your hand if you think Trump will continue to commit crimes...and much worse ones..after Pelosi kills the possibility of impeachment.

In an exclusive interview with NPR, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she has not changed her mind on pursuing impeachment but is ready to change the law to restrain presidential power and make it clear that a sitting president can, in fact, be indicted.

"I do think that we will have to pass some laws that will have clarity for future presidents. [A] president should be indicted, if he's committed a wrongdoing — any president. There is nothing anyplace that says the president should not be indicted," Pelosi told All Things Considered host Ari Shapiro and NPR congressional correspondent Susan Davis on Friday. "That's something cooked up by the president's lawyers. That's what that is. But so that people will feel 'OK, well, if he — if he does something wrong, [he] should be able to be indicted.' "

But despite the growing chants among Democrats for an impeachment inquiry in the House, Pelosi has remained reluctant about recourse. She fears it could alienate swing voters ahead of next year's elections and imperil moderate Democrats who were critical to her party's taking back the House last November.

And Pelosi is going to need the hell out of those swing voters after she's completely alienated and demoralized the entire Democratic base.

Pelosi did not shift her position on impeachment and said Congress would continue to follow "the facts and the law."

That's great. Pelosi has just made it clear that the House's role in the face of Trump's continued high crimes and misdemeanors is to be a helpless bystander. That's very inspiring.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi On Indicting A Sitting President : NPR

I have no intention of responding to whataboutisms and false equivalencies.

 

[Rexedgar]

Can’t pass laws and make them retro-active; does little for today’s dilemma.

 

[Cardinal]

Can’t pass laws and make them retro-active; does little for today’s dilemma.

Trump will be terrified by the possibility that future Presidents will be held accountable to the law.

 

[Anthony60]

Would be unconstitutional anyway.

 

[Mycroft]

Pelosi continues to blow smoke up the ass of the useful idiots.

1. She has no intention of impeaching Trump. That is counterproductive to her goal, which is to cause Trump to lose the 2020 election.

2. She has no intention of passing a law so sitting presidents can be indicted. Such a law would apply to Democrat presidents as well as Republican presidents.

Sorry folks, if you think Pelosi is going to do something "about Trump" you are going to be disappointed.

 

[Rexedgar]

Trump will be terrified by the possibility that future Presidents will be held accountable to the law.

If you believe Parscale, Trump-Kushners will be with us for a while.

 

[Rexedgar]

Nancy Pelosi is resolute in not considering impeachment, even in light of possibly the most egregious and impeachable offense by Trump in bullying a foreign leader to interfere in our elections.

I'm at a point where Pelosi's stance on impeachment makes so little sense that there's only one argument that could convince me she's right: she must present compelling evidence that she's from the future, and this is how she knows that avoiding impeachment is the right thing to do.

But if she's not from the future, then she's gambling that Trump won't continue to be emboldened by the combination of the DOJ's rule against indicting a sitting President and the refusal of Congress to consider impeachment. She's betting that Trump won't respond to the House's paralysis by just going ahead and dismantling what little remains of the integrity of our electoral process.

Raise your hand if you think Trump will continue to commit crimes...and much worse ones..after Pelosi kills the possibility of impeachment.





And Pelosi is going to need the hell out of those swing voters after she's completely alienated and demoralized the entire Democratic base.



That's great. Pelosi has just made it clear that the House's role in the face of Trump's continued high crimes and misdemeanors is to be a helpless bystander. That's very inspiring.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi On Indicting A Sitting President : NPR

I have no intention of responding to whataboutisms and false equivalencies.

Is there even a law or is there just the 1970s DOJ memorandum?

 

[JasperL]

Can’t pass laws and make them retro-active; does little for today’s dilemma.

More than that, laws won't really do it. It's the courts that have, for example, enshrined executive privilege into law, and it's DoJ policy in part because of legitimate concerns about tying up a President in endless lawsuits or trials that determined the current policy.

Besides, let's say that law existed today. Barr would just say, "Nope, I don't see an indictable crime here. Go pound sand Nancy." And that would be that. The PROPER remedy for a lawbreaking President is impeachment, not trying to get the executive branch to criminally prosecute their BOSS. All Pelosi is doing is passing the buck, absolving herself of her duty and that of Congress. If she believes Trump has committed a crime - impeach. That is the remedy. Anyone who believes passing more laws is the answer here is an idiot and a fool, and is embracing political cowardice IMO.

 

[Cardinal]

Is there even a law or is there just the 1970s DOJ memorandum?

Memorandum. There is no law that specifically prevents indictment. But here's the thing: if DOJ employees believe they can't indict a sitting President, then that's as good as there being a law to that effect. in any case, your post highlights just another inanity in Pelosi's position.

 

[roguenuke]

Pelosi is not going to bring impeachment charges up until/unless there is solid information those charges would make it through and lead to an actual impeachment. Senators aren't going to do that at this time sk what would be the point?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Cardinal]

Pelosi is not going to bring impeachment charges up until/unless there is solid information those charges would make it through and lead to an actual impeachment. Senators aren't going to do that at this time sk what would be the point?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Pelosi hasn't defined a standard for bringing impeachment. Which makes her an awful lot like a trump supporter when you think about it: refuse to define a standard so you won't have to be held to it later after that bar has been met.

 

[Rexedgar]

Just like Moscow Mitch, not bringing any legislation before the Senate that POTUS isn’t behind..

 

[Mach]

What's sad/funny is that's almost what Trump tried to do when he obstructed justice in trying to make sessions say he would not investigate Trump but WOULD investigate future presidents. Maybe Trump has dirt on Pelosi and she's taking queues from his playbook.

The reality is that Democrats do lack central leadership without a president, and the candidates are not yet narrowed down to give real momentum yet, so it is a sort of impotent limbo. We do not have a FOX news/Rus, etc., that drives the narrative.
And, since Nancy is the highest ranking Democrat in a leadership position, it does, unfortunately, fall on her shoulders. She's more of a backroom political deal-worker politician...not a charismatic leader.

What can we do?
Write congress?
get involved
donate
sign impeach trump petitions (all of them)

 

[Mach]

Just like Moscow Mitch, not bringing any legislation before the Senate that POTUS isn’t behind..

I likey. Quite a bit like that isn't it.

 

[apdst]

Can’t pass laws and make them retro-active; does little for today’s dilemma.

Such a law would be useless, anyway. The stupidity of this idea boggles the mind.

Indict a president all you want, convict them even. They'll still be president...lol

 

[JasperL]

Pelosi is not going to bring impeachment charges up until/unless there is solid information those charges would make it through and lead to an actual impeachment. Senators aren't going to do that at this time sk what would be the point?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I don't agree with that viewpoint at all. If the Democrats believe what they say about Trump, which is he's committed serious crimes and isn't fit for office, and this latest just piles onto that evidence, then their duty cannot be contingent on what they think McConnell might do. And if the Senate votes to acquit, that's how it works, and it's a recorded vote and every Senator voting against conviction is on record saying, e.g., that conditioning foreign aid on investigating the President's likely opponent in the election is what America stands for - that's the bar of acceptable behavior. It's acceptable to these Republicans that President ignore the law with regard to whistleblowers. It's OK if President obstructs justice. It's OK if he uses the office to enrich himself. If those are true, and are demonstrated, and the GOP says - OK, that's all fine with me - let them vote that and live with it.

If Democrats don't impeach, they are IMO saying those same things. They're willing to say stuff, write and release statements, go on Twitter with their outrage, but they don't care enough to take the step outlined in the Constitution to REMEDY the problem, which is remove the President. If they're not willing, why should voters actually give a damn? The Congress doesn't care enough to hold hearings and a VOTE, so why should anyone in the electorate care or believe the statements of outrage, and promises to hold them account?

 

[Helix]

Pelosi Says Congress Should Pass New Laws So Sitting Presidents Can Be Indicted

i agree, and it's sad that such a law is even necessary. no one is above the law.

 

[Cardinal]

What's sad/funny is that's almost what Trump tried to do when he obstructed justice in trying to make sessions say he would not investigate Trump but WOULD investigate future presidents. Maybe Trump has dirt on Pelosi and she's taking queues from his playbook.

The reality is that Democrats do lack central leadership without a president, and the candidates are not yet narrowed down to give real momentum yet, so it is a sort of impotent limbo. We do not have a FOX news/Rus, etc., that drives the narrative.
And, since Nancy is the highest ranking Democrat in a leadership position, it does, unfortunately, fall on her shoulders. She's more of a backroom political deal-worker politician...not a charismatic leader.

What can we do?
Write congress?
get involved
donate
sign impeach trump petitions (all of them)

My congressman is thawing to the idea of impeachment, but I once called his office after the Mueller report came out urging him to move forward with impeachment, and I swear the person who took my call responded dismissively.

While Democrats have always had a greater love of civil norms over fighting for principle, the amount of spinelessness they've demonstred surprises even me.

As usual, Republicans fight for what's wrong while Democrats refuse to fight for what's right.

 

[NeverTrump]

Nancy Pelosi is resolute in not considering impeachment, even in light of possibly the most egregious and impeachable offense by Trump in bullying a foreign leader to interfere in our elections.

I'm at a point where Pelosi's stance on impeachment makes so little sense that there's only one argument that could convince me she's right: she must present compelling evidence that she's from the future, and this is how she knows that avoiding impeachment is the right thing to do.

But if she's not from the future, then she's gambling that Trump won't continue to be emboldened by the combination of the DOJ's rule against indicting a sitting President and the refusal of Congress to consider impeachment. She's betting that Trump won't respond to the House's paralysis by just going ahead and dismantling what little remains of the integrity of our electoral process.

Raise your hand if you think Trump will continue to commit crimes...and much worse ones..after Pelosi kills the possibility of impeachment.





And Pelosi is going to need the hell out of those swing voters after she's completely alienated and demoralized the entire Democratic base.



That's great. Pelosi has just made it clear that the House's role in the face of Trump's continued high crimes and misdemeanors is to be a helpless bystander. That's very inspiring.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi On Indicting A Sitting President : NPR

I have no intention of responding to whataboutisms and false equivalencies.

This is where The Good Place finale is very timely. *SPOILERS* Michael trying to get the good place to change all the rules, b/c it's too hard for humans to get into it. The good place is all about rules and regulations and following procedures. They care more about filing the proper paper work and considering things but it'll take 400+ years to actually begin to get anything accomplished. Then another 1000 years to get that thing accomplished. I was crying watching that scene knowing that this is the current state of US politics... The good guys are bad at being good while the bad guys are great at being bad.

 

[Torus34]

The concept that a sitting president cannot be indicted has some merit. It is not law, but until the DoJ undergoes a reversal of opinion, it has the same effect. Congress does have the process of impeachment at its command, but that is a political and not a legal process.

One possibility open to the Congress of the United States of America would be a law for federal crimes [Ed.: States would holler like mad if it extended to state/city crimes,] extending the statute of limitations to, say, two years after the official leaves public service. It would be fun to see the statements of the opposition to such a law.

 

[Surrealistik]

Nancy Pelosi is resolute in not considering impeachment, even in light of possibly the most egregious and impeachable offense by Trump in bullying a foreign leader to interfere in our elections.

I'm at a point where Pelosi's stance on impeachment makes so little sense that there's only one argument that could convince me she's right: she must present compelling evidence that she's from the future, and this is how she knows that avoiding impeachment is the right thing to do.

But if she's not from the future, then she's gambling that Trump won't continue to be emboldened by the combination of the DOJ's rule against indicting a sitting President and the refusal of Congress to consider impeachment. She's betting that Trump won't respond to the House's paralysis by just going ahead and dismantling what little remains of the integrity of our electoral process.

Raise your hand if you think Trump will continue to commit crimes...and much worse ones..after Pelosi kills the possibility of impeachment.





And Pelosi is going to need the hell out of those swing voters after she's completely alienated and demoralized the entire Democratic base.



That's great. Pelosi has just made it clear that the House's role in the face of Trump's continued high crimes and misdemeanors is to be a helpless bystander. That's very inspiring.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi On Indicting A Sitting President : NPR

I have no intention of responding to whataboutisms and false equivalencies.

Progressives tried to warn you, and many others on the board who gushed bottomless praise for this abject coward, about Pelosi's lack of judgement and spine in particular; both leading reasons we wanted her replaced by someone with fire who would not leave their duties in dereliction.

Certainly here, I was met with nothing but evidently incorrect denials and resistance, save among other progressives.

 

[Airyaman]

How do you pass a law that the president won't sign, or one that would get killed by Moscow Mitch before it even made it to Trump's desk?

Pelosi needs to resign as speaker.

 

[PLizzy]

Nancy Pelosi is resolute in not considering impeachment, even in light of possibly the most egregious and impeachable offense by Trump in bullying a foreign leader to interfere in our elections.

I'm at a point where Pelosi's stance on impeachment makes so little sense that there's only one argument that could convince me she's right: she must present compelling evidence that she's from the future, and this is how she knows that avoiding impeachment is the right thing to do.

But if she's not from the future, then she's gambling that Trump won't continue to be emboldened by the combination of the DOJ's rule against indicting a sitting President and the refusal of Congress to consider impeachment. She's betting that Trump won't respond to the House's paralysis by just going ahead and dismantling what little remains of the integrity of our electoral process.

Raise your hand if you think Trump will continue to commit crimes...and much worse ones..after Pelosi kills the possibility of impeachment.





And Pelosi is going to need the hell out of those swing voters after she's completely alienated and demoralized the entire Democratic base.



That's great. Pelosi has just made it clear that the House's role in the face of Trump's continued high crimes and misdemeanors is to be a helpless bystander. That's very inspiring.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi On Indicting A Sitting President : NPR

I have no intention of responding to whataboutisms and false equivalencies.

Are there swing voters out there that actually approve of Trump trying to bribe the Ukraine for dirt, steal money from the DoD and FEMA, float pardons to officials who break the law on his behalf, and use the presidency for personal financial gain?

Because those sound a lot like straight-up Trump supporters.

She needs hearing aids, because she's obviously tone deaf.

 

[Surrealistik]

How do you pass a law that the president won't sign, or one that would get killed by Moscow Mitch before it even made it to Trump's desk?

Pelosi needs to resign as speaker.

She should have never been reelected as speaker in the first place.

No hindsight here by the way; my vision on this was 20/20 from the start.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Nancy Pelosi is resolute in not considering impeachment, even in light of possibly the most egregious and impeachable offense by Trump in bullying a foreign leader to interfere in our elections.

I'm at a point where Pelosi's stance on impeachment makes so little sense that there's only one argument that could convince me she's right: she must present compelling evidence that she's from the future, and this is how she knows that avoiding impeachment is the right thing to do.

But if she's not from the future, then she's gambling that Trump won't continue to be emboldened by the combination of the DOJ's rule against indicting a sitting President and the refusal of Congress to consider impeachment. She's betting that Trump won't respond to the House's paralysis by just going ahead and dismantling what little remains of the integrity of our electoral process.

Raise your hand if you think Trump will continue to commit crimes...and much worse ones..after Pelosi kills the possibility of impeachment.





And Pelosi is going to need the hell out of those swing voters after she's completely alienated and demoralized the entire Democratic base.



That's great. Pelosi has just made it clear that the House's role in the face of Trump's continued high crimes and misdemeanors is to be a helpless bystander. That's very inspiring.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi On Indicting A Sitting President : NPR

I have no intention of responding to whataboutisms and false equivalencies.

Something is clearly wrong with her. I wonder if there's a chance she's compromised.

She's not allowing the Democratic House to do what it was elected to do.