The Liberal Gun Club Forum

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.' "

The California Democrat said that while it is Justice Department protocol not to pursue any charges against an incumbent — the reason former special counsel Robert Mueller said he couldn't charge President Trump with a crime no matter the outcome of his report — that should be changed. "The Founders could never suspect that a president would be so abusive of the Constitution of the United States, that the separation of powers would be irrelevant to him and that he would continue, any president would continue, to withhold facts from the Congress, which are part of the constitutional right of inquiry," Pelosi said.

The constitutional recourse for a lawbreaking president per the Constitution is impeachment. Article II, Section 4 instructs that the president "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." 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. Pelosi did not shift her position on impeachment and said Congress would continue to follow "the facts and the law." The speaker also said Congress should also clarify the limits of when a president can invoke a national emergency.

"The president should not be able to interpret the National Security Act as something that gives him free rein to do anything he wants by his personal declaration that something is an emergency," she said. Pressure could be ramped up on Pelosi and Democrats to act further amid reports that Trump had an improper conversation with a foreign leader, which a whistleblower within the intelligence community then reported. The conversation is reported to have been urging Ukraine to look into former Vice President Joe Biden — the current Democratic presidential front-runner who could be Trump's 2020 foe — and his son Hunter Biden. Trump has said the conversation was "totally appropriate."

Pelosi called the whistleblower's complaint "very alarming" and said "this is in a different class in terms of [Trump's] behavior." "This case has a national security piece to it that is very alarming. It is very alarming because the inspector general is appointed by President Trump." She said the law is clear that the information must be submitted to the intelligence committees in Congress. "Right now they are breaking the law" by not providing that information, she said. In a statement released after the NPR interview, Pelosi went even further, saying the reports raise "grave, urgent concerns for our national security" and that the president and his administration must conduct "our national security and foreign policy in the best interest of the American people, not the President's personal interest."

"If the President has done what has been alleged," she said, "then he is stepping into a dangerous minefield with serious repercussions for his Administration and our democracy."

highdesert wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2019 11:34 am That's my opinion too TT.

TrueTexan wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:34 pm We also know that Clinton was sued and lost while in office. There is nothing stopping civil suits against the president. Criminal Indictments would have to come from his own DOJ, like that would ever happen. The state or local D.A. to bring indictments is a big if and can we imagine Sheriff Joe trying to arrest Obama. The days of Pierce and Grant being arrest goes back to a simpler time. I don’t see that happening today, although seeing the current occupant of the WH being frog marched out in cuffs is a joy to imagine.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:30 pm But any federal prosecutor who does that will be immediately fired.

Eris wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:44 pm

YankeeTarheel wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:30 pm But any federal prosecutor who does that will be immediately fired.

It doesn't have to be a federal prosecutor.

senorgrand wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:01 pm I think it would be a stupid law and very unlikely to be signed by any president. Maybe look at reforming the presidency to make it more accountable to the other branches? Every modern president since Teddy Roosevelt has successfully increased the power of the presidency...it's simply too much.

senorgrand wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:28 pm The Democrat's obsession with Trump will be their downfall. Other than Bernie and Warren, I don't know any of the positions of the democrat presidential candidates, except "Trump and Gunz R Bad."

K9s wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:49 pm

senorgrand wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:28 pm The Democrat's obsession with Trump will be their downfall. Other than Bernie and Warren, I don't know any of the positions of the democrat presidential candidates, except "Trump and Gunz R Bad."

Double-edged sword. If they ignore Trump while he attacks (which I would prefer), his propaganda somehow beings to "seem" true to the media because they just repeat it to viewers/voters. In 2015-2016 the media played all his propaganda for free and assumed Americans would be horrified (many weren't).

My guess is that 40% will vote for Trump no matter what, 45% will vote against Trump no matter what, and the rest feel voting is pointless and have to be motivated to vote for something.

senorgrand wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:56 pm

K9s wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:49 pm

senorgrand wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:28 pm The Democrat's obsession with Trump will be their downfall. Other than Bernie and Warren, I don't know any of the positions of the democrat presidential candidates, except "Trump and Gunz R Bad."

Double-edged sword. If they ignore Trump while he attacks (which I would prefer), his propaganda somehow beings to "seem" true to the media because they just repeat it to viewers/voters. In 2015-2016 the media played all his propaganda for free and assumed Americans would be horrified (many weren't).

My guess is that 40% will vote for Trump no matter what, 45% will vote against Trump no matter what, and the rest feel voting is pointless and have to be motivated to vote for something.

My guess is that 40% will vote for Trump, 40% will vote for the dem and 20% will stay home, with the electoral college giving Trump the win.

As a dem, you can't win unless you convince people there is a reason to get up off the couch and vote for you. Look at Obama and Clinton first wins...I can still tell you three of Clinton's campaign promises. I'm not sure what ANY of the dem candidates top three campaign promises are, except guns r bad. We are heading towards 2004 I'm afraid.

K9s wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:13 pm

senorgrand wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:56 pm

K9s wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:49 pm

senorgrand wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:28 pm The Democrat's obsession with Trump will be their downfall. Other than Bernie and Warren, I don't know any of the positions of the democrat presidential candidates, except "Trump and Gunz R Bad."

Double-edged sword. If they ignore Trump while he attacks (which I would prefer), his propaganda somehow beings to "seem" true to the media because they just repeat it to viewers/voters. In 2015-2016 the media played all his propaganda for free and assumed Americans would be horrified (many weren't).

My guess is that 40% will vote for Trump no matter what, 45% will vote against Trump no matter what, and the rest feel voting is pointless and have to be motivated to vote for something.

My guess is that 40% will vote for Trump, 40% will vote for the dem and 20% will stay home, with the electoral college giving Trump the win.

As a dem, you can't win unless you convince people there is a reason to get up off the couch and vote for you. Look at Obama and Clinton first wins...I can still tell you three of Clinton's campaign promises. I'm not sure what ANY of the dem candidates top three campaign promises are, except guns r bad. We are heading towards 2004 I'm afraid.

I really think it depends on your state, district, and personal situation. Marginalized communities have a good reason to vote right now no matter what. A majority of white men and women are Trump voters, so they will vote to get the next SCOTUS judges and to protect themselves from... caravans or socialists or something... or to flip their blue district.

I think the idea that "Trump n gunz r bad" is the only Dem message seems to be a California thing? Maybe you aren't around a lot of Red Hats so you don't hear actual people say actually frightening things. I hear the GOP side here, mostly, and it is all essentially a call to oppression, fear, hatred, authoritarianism, and oligarchy. The choice is pretty clear and it is frightening.