Home | About | Donate

Warren Becomes First 2020 Contender to Announce Support for Impeachment Proceedings Against Trump

Warren Becomes First 2020 Contender to Announce Support for Impeachment Proceedings Against Trump

Julia Conley, staff writer

Sen. Elizabeth Warren became the first 2020 Democratic presidential candidate to call for impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump on Friday.

The Massachusetts Democrat decided to call on the House to move to impeach Trump shortly after reportedly reading the redacted Mueller report on Thursday.

2 Likes

Another good idea from Liz!

6 Likes

I think I agree with Ezra Klein who argues that since the Senate will almost certainly never convict, then it will simply be a win for Trump with Democrats looking like partisan time-wasters. Instead, if Democrats simply keep investigating, keeping Trump’s criminalities and near criminalities in the public’s mind, then Trump gets no boost in popularity and is simply stuck with his base.

3 Likes

That was the thinking about Nixon too.

2 Likes

I like EW’s way of thinking and it is right in step with what the report says and calls for, for Congress to do it’s duty.

3 Likes

For Trump this sort of attack is a"gimme" as they say in golf. How insane can the corporate Democrats get in giving Trump victory after victory with these silly attacks. The only way to beat Trump is with substance. Candidates like Sanders and Gabbard have substance. All the rest are neoliberal charlatans.

8 Likes

Shush, in a low voice… “Instead…if Democrats simply keep investigating, and investigating, and investigating, keeping Trump’s criminalities and near (even a smidgen nearer) criminalities in the public’s mind, then Trump gets no boost in popularity and is simply stuck with his base.” That’s the ticket! (Oh wait, it isn’t working. And it helps Trump! Duh.)

6 Likes

Sen. Warren should listen to the Greenwald --David K. Johnston debate from Democracy Now!.
The Democratic candidates are hellbent on riding this tired horse right into the ground, then finding out it was stolen by the U.S. Cavalry, to boot. It’s an illegal inside job by the supposed good guys; which implicates everyone who even gets this horseshit on their shoes. By all means, Sen. Warren. don’t start helping with the shoveling, too.
Let Democratic Congressional leadership in safe districts pursue this family of no-good criminals. There’s a lot of ways to get these career criminals; unfortunately for Dimocrats, impeachment through the Senate isn’t one of them.

4 Likes

That’s fine.

It’s moot. The time and energy that might have gone in that direction got squandered in the “Russiagate” malarkey.

As of 2019, it’s a feelgood thing that no one in her base is likely to criticize her for too harshly, and a project that can never be checke.

To distinguish herself in the field of candidates, if that’s the idea, she needs to take on something with a bit of edge. The economic program is good as far as it goes, given the competition, and it will be tough to elect the people who go farther.

But there are a whole lot of things that a lot of her base would approve were she to go out on a limb and try them. She will be somewhere in the mix as regards social programs. She will be preaching to the choir about rights for women and minorities, and people will believe and disbelieve her for how she looks.

What would set her apart would be to part with some of the party with some statements like some that Tulsi Gabbard has made. She could show some courage and stand up for freedom of the press rather than pointedly avoiding the matter because the current high-profile case is that of Julian Assange. whom the Wall Street Democrats do not approve.

She will not do that, for the same reason that she withdrew her acknowledgement that the '16 nomination had been stolen–whatever that could have been.

The other possibility is to come out against some part of the campaign of many wars across the world. But there’s no real sign that she is even tempted to do that. If she were, surely it would be vetoed by the same folks who removed her acknowledgement of election fraud.

Of course, those same people work hand in glove with the financial system that Warren wants to criticize and sometimes does, quite effectively, again, as far as she goes. And in this one not unimportant area, she does go to the same sort of post-FDR area as does Sanders.

But given her obedience to some part of this team with respect to war and with respect to individual liberties and with respect to information, why are we to imagine that she will disobey significantly once in office as president?

I suppose she might with some reason hope that she gets a tip-in when the Sanders outdraws his competition, DNC takes out Sanders, and Biden and Harris each shoot themselves in both feet.

Since that appears to be a given, what do her voters hope for? What is she herself running for, what with a fairly safe post in Massachusetts that allows her more room to move as regards the issues that appear to move her?

5 Likes

Yes, but they started earlier, and there were clear felonies that had been actually been committed against the Democratic Party and others, and these had already been documented fairly completely before the election had even taken place.

Here the Democratic Party led a wild goose chase to distract from the looming conviction of some of their big players. That means that a lot of people’s hands are tied and a lot of people’s credibility broken–not only with the public, but with all sorts of people through the legal and governmental apparatus through which any impeachment will really be tried, mostly outside of court.

No, the Democratic Party, and with it the judicial system as it operates in this context, are far too deeply and precipitously compromised to do more than bark loudly.

More’s the pity, since it sure doesn’t make Mr. Trump innocent of anything.

2 Likes

Can’t accuse senator Warren of being spineless. Question about the Michael Avanatti charges. Does still smell like a revenge and retaliation?

1 Like

Mueller has sent out 12 referrals to various jurisdictions, redacted in the report. Plus, the SDNY ( Southern District of New York ) has got a couple of solid cases waiting; which will possibly put the Trumpsters into the dumpsters, for a long time.
Sen. Warren has the sweat of desperation on her brow here for the first time. This is a House matter, not a big primary campaign nail to hang your hat on, imo.

1 Like

Has the senator taken leave of her senses? Talk about a self defeating move, both from a practical and empirical point of view. Russiagate is in full collapse, a concocted tale by Clinton operatives that never made any sense. Trump is going to run on this fraud, a gift from Senator Warren’s friends in the Democratic Party, and now she wants to prolong this through to the next election? It would take well over a year to do a proper Impeachment, some of us remember the stupid impeachment of Bill Clinton and how the leaders of that farce ended up looking like fools. It was Republican pay back for Nixon.

8 Likes

Russiagate in full collapse? That is one silly idea. And even if the Russia story meant nothing, so what? There’s LOTS more to the whole story. That said, impeachment could well work to Trump’s favor. Just keep investigating and let the evil endlessly ooze from Trump’s sordid doings.

1 Like

I was leery on impeachment myself, but I’ve changed my mind on the matter and think Pelosi et al. need to at least keep it on the table. The precedent set by Trump’s lawless behavior is dangerous.

1 Like

I agree with you, as much as I want trump gone, I don’t want to see him impeached right now. Having him impeached will only give us pence.
What Mueller has may get trump impeached, but what will get him in prison where he belongs is the investigations still going on by the Southern District of New York. Let those investigations continue without the country hung up on watching impeachment programing all day for months.

1 Like

It’s not Pelosi or anyone that isn’t connected, even tangentially, to the Clintonistas who own this three-legged, wobbly table, though. " If you don’t have a seat at the table, you’re on the menu. "
The Clintonistas have gambled at this table, and lost. It’s no table a smart gambler, or a smart campaign strategist, would sit down and play at.
Even if Warren needs the campaign cash infusion ( I have given Warren hundreds of $$$ in the past, not currently ), this cash comes with a very high % of vigorish.

Not to be rude, but I am not sure I really understand your comment. The Clintons aren’t in power and Pelosi is her own woman. She’s not taking orders from anybody, and certainly the chairs of jurisdictional committees aren’t either.

My feeling is—and I acknowledge reading some of the report has changed my views—that taking impeachment off the table serves zero purpose. Why not keep it on? You can hold hearings, defer to the evidence, and see where things take you without saying Trump’s “not worth it.” Maybe that seemed wise a month ago, but not anymore. He’d be facing trial if he wasn’t the president, after all.

2 Likes

Well, first off, the standing rule at DOJ is that Trump can’t be indicted while sitting in the Oval Office. So, if you read the thing, I’d suggest getting better glasses.
Secondly, so I’m now tasked to do some " downsplainin’ " to someone who’s still " not to sure " about healthcare being a human right? Your positions are not " progressive " and if I had to peg you, I’d put you in the Clintonista, Klobuchar, The South Bend Buddha, Biden and Sawell camp of the Democratic Party.
Your not that dumb; you used the " on the table " riff I didn’t, and you’re just on the wrong side of history on the future of progressive politics.
Just sayin’.
P.S. Do you get " my drift " or is that too hard for you to take in- I’m not trying to be rude here, but try to catch up and keep up.
I read your comment and didn’t try to hang a dead puppy on your collar, don’t do that in so many words, to me. Savvy?

I never mentioned a thing about indictments, just that I no longer feel impeachment should be off the table. In other words, I think House leadership needs to change its tune. Other than that, I didn’t understand your comment. Something about Clintonistas and Pelosi. Now I see you are just accusing me of not being as progressive as you, which you are free to think.