Hoyer Admits Why They're Not Impeaching Trump: Partisan Political Calculations, Despite All The Mounting Evidence-- SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!

Wednesday morning Pelosi and Schumer headed over to the White House to discuss an already doomed infrastructure plan (and to be booted out by the always gracious Señor Trumpanzee). A reporter asked her about the closed door Democratic Party caucus she had just left (not even chiefs of staff were allowed in-- just members). She told him-- and his tape recorder: "It was a very positive meeting, a respectful sharing of ideas. And I think a very impressive presentation by our chairs. We do believe it is important to follow the facts, that no one is above the law, including the president of the United States. And we believe that the president of the United States is engaged in a cover-up. A cover-up. And that was the nature of the meeting." I wish I had been there to gage how "positive" and "respectful" it really was. Tensions inside Pelosi's caucus are... intense-- and headed towards brittle.

The Republican wing of the party-- the Blue Dogs and New Dems-- are freaking out as more and more rank-and-file congressional Democrats are demanding Pelosi start formal impeachment procedures. The Hill is keeping a woefully incomplete and non-updated whip list of which members are openly calling for impeachment. Examples: Jamie Raskin (R-MD), a member of the Judiciary Committee told the Washington Post that "the logic of an impeachment inquiry is pretty overwhelming at this point." Other members of the Judiciary Committee left the same way: Ted Lieu (D-CA): "This inquiry could lead to impeachment, or it could lead to nothing. But I think if McGahn doesn’t show, we have to at least start it." And Pramila Jayapal (D-WA): "We are now at the point where we must begin an impeachment inquiry. I don't say that lightly. We've taken every step we can w/subpoenas and witnesses." Joe Neguse (D-CO): "The findings detailed in the Special Counsel’s report, and the Administration’s pattern of wholesale obstruction of Congress since the report’s release, make clear that it is time to open an impeachment inquiry." Freshman Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA): "No one is above the law. The time has come to start an impeachment inquiry because the American people deserve to know the truth and to have the opportunity to judge the gravity of the evidence and charges leveled against the president."

But on the right-fringe of the party, particularly among the Blue Dogs and New Dems who the DCCC helped win in red districts, there is panic and anger and little support for impeachment, since these are some real dummies who are sure impeachment would lead to the end of their careers in Congress. Take Staten Island/Brooklyn lunkhead Max Rose, a sniveling Blue Dog, who told Politico that if Democrats decide to begin impeachment hearings, "Then they should warm to the idea of going back to the minority. Right now we’re in this incredibly childish game of impeachment chicken, and everyone has to start acting like adults... let’s go back to actually doing the work of the American people that they sent us here to do." Sounds like something he heard from someone at a Problem Solvers meeting.

One of the few Democrats further to the right than Rose, New Jersey Blue Dog scum Jefferson Van Drew barked "If there really isn’t something significant enough there to impeach-- which I don’t think there is at this point-- then let’s move on and get the work of the people done." Elissa Slotkin (MI), one of the very worst of the freshmen New Dems agreed with that line the Republican wing of the party is pushing: "The thing that I’m concerned about is that we constantly risk losing focus on the legislation that affirmatively helps people’s lives, not going in the right direction right now."

These are not members who give a crap about helping peoples lives. Rose, Van Drew and Slotkin are among the right-of-center minority of Democrats refusing to co-sponsor most of the legislation proposed that does affirmatively help people’s lives-- like Pramila Jayapal's new and improved Medicare For All Act or AOC's Green New Deal Resolution. All three have putrid ProgressivePunch crucial vote scores and each one is rated "F."

• Max Rose- 64.29%
• Elissa Slotkin- 50.0%
• Jefferson Van Drew- 35.71%

Yesterday, Jake Sherman reported that Pelosi "has an uncanny ability to stay unflinchingly focused on a goal, without getting panicked or itchy or changing course... At the moment, Pelosi’s goal is quite clear: to avoid rushing to impeach [Señor Trumpanzee]. If you talk to her allies, her advisers and people close to her, they’ll tell you she believes the impeachment route is an all-around loser right now. Pelosi allies firmly believe that if Democrats impeach Trump, they will lose the presidency and the House in 2020-- period. They also don’t believe Congress or the American public is behind impeachment at the moment. Further, they say that launching an inquiry that isn’t airtight could backfire as they pursue other legal options to extract documents from the White House. House Democratic leaders are keeping a very close eye on who comes out in favor of impeachment, but so far, they see mostly Judiciary Committee members who are living the day-to-day back-and-forth over document production and stonewalling, and progressives who have long been on the path to impeachment. Here is what Pelosi-world is thinking, and the points they are making privately":

• Their Go-Through-The-Courts Play Is Working: House Democrats scored a big victory this week when a federal judge ruled that Mazars Group, Trump’s accounting firm, needed to hand over the president’s financial records. Pelosi and her team believe they will score other victories in court and ultimately get many of the documents they are seeking. Impeachment, many of them argue, is not a magical key to unlock a trove of documents. And there’s a fear, too, that a rush to impeachment could undermine some of these court efforts.
• The Leadership Team Is With Pelosi: yes, Reps David Cicilline (D-RI) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD) have called for impeachment, but notice who has not: Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Jim Clyburn (D-SC) and Cheri Bustos (D-IL). And that’s important. The cracks at her leadership table are at the bottom, not the top. [Editorial Note: Is Politico hiring morons now? Or do they just assume their readers are morons?]
• Democrats Are Planning to move a package of contempt citations in June. That’s the next punishment they are meting out.
• There Is, At The Moment, A Remarkable sense of unity atop the leadership. They recognize that the angst is rising in the rank and file. No one seems completely convinced Democrats can hold this position for 18 months. Yes, the majority of the caucus opposes impeachment at the moment-- but for how long?
• The Internal Politics Are Complicated. Democrats have been taken aback at how Trump has injected himself personally into the decisions to withhold documents and block testimony, which has corresponded with rising blood pressure among many of the rank and file.
• What To Watch For... Top Dems are absolutely convinced that if Trump defies a court order to fork over documents, then they will be forced to begin impeaching him.

And speaking about Pelosi's leadership team, one of her toadies opposing impeachment is Ben Ray Luján. Watch Luján "change his mind" on impeachment now that his primary opponent, New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, has officially announced she's behind the push for impeachment. "Today, I’m calling on the U.S. House of Representatives to begin an impeachment investigation," she told New Mexicans. "Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report lays out the facts: a hostile foreign government set out to influence our 2016 election in favor of Trump and Trump welcomed their help. Then, as President, Trump obstructed the investigation into Russian interference. Congress has the constitutional authority and responsibility to defend our democracy and hold Trump accountable. Based on what we know from the Mueller report, we have more than enough evidence to start the impeachment process. I’m speaking out today to demand the House do its job and begin impeachment proceedings. We can both hold this President accountable and push for our progressive priorities-- and don’t let anyone tell you differently. We will continue to fight for bold ideas like Medicare For All and a Green New Deal, expanding voting rights, protecting a woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions, and fighting our student debt crisis. We can and we must pursue both impeachment and other policy initiatives. Our democracy exists to protect the people, not the President-- and protecting the people means both learning the truth about the Trump campaign’s relationship with Russia and continuing to fight for legislation that will make our communities and our country stronger."

I almost feel sorry for Luján. Almost. This is what happens when there are strong, vibrant primaries-- which is exactly why Cheri Bustos, Pelosi and Hoyer and trying to obliterate them.

Well, they might as well start preparing, because that is exactly what Trump is doing. Even Hoyer admitted that 'To say there’s no political calculus would not be honest for any of us in the Congress. The political calculus is: What is the reaction of the American people? What do the American people think we ought to be doing?"

As Hoyer once knew-- he's 80 and increasingly senile now-- the American public opposed the impeachment of Nixon until Congress started the process and exposed all his crimes on TV... and then they backed it. Same with the Senate. Conservative senators were against it until there were televised hearings... and then they told Nixon he had to either resign or be impeached and convicted. He resigned. In Clinton's impeachment, the public opposed it, saw no credible evidence from the GOP leading the effort and the public never stopped opposing it, which is what led a Republican Senate to find him "not guilty" on all impeachment charges.

Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL) is both a New Dem and a member of the Progressive Caucus-- and a 2020 Republican target. She said that Trump is "acting as an authoritarian leader, which I have seen many times in Latin America, and it is very dangerous. I want the people living in South Florida, people living in my community, to understand what is written in that report, and we can’t do that unless we have these hearings." Sounds a lot more reasonable than what we're hearing from the people, like Rose, Van Drew and Slotkin, who follow the advice of Matt Penn and Nancy Jacobson of Problem Solvers.

Anti-impeachment Blue Dog Cheri Bustos recruited some cockamamie conservative Republican to run against Mike Siegel is TX-10. I wonder how the Bustos-DCCC candidate feels about impeachment. When I asked Blue-America-endorsed Mike Siegel how he feels about it, he told me that "We can't enforce our laws only when it is politically convenient. The supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution, requires Congress to exercise oversight of the Executive Branch, including use of the impeachment power to prosecute high crimes and misdemeanors. Every day, Trump and his cronies obstruct justice, by ignoring federal subpoenas, tampering with witnesses, paying off co-conspirators and lying to the American people. When the RNC gives $2m to McGahn's law firm just as he refuses to testify before Congress, they make a mockery of our government. This goes beyond tactical considerations for an electoral cycle; American democracy is under assault. We must empower Congress to do their duty, and investigate the President's crimes." Do you agree with Mike's approach? Please consider chipping in at the Take Back Texas ActBlue thermometer on the right. Last year Mike nearly won the district with the DCCC ignoring the race entirely. This year he'll have to fight Trump-enabler Michael McCaul and Cheri Bustos and her corruptly-funded the DCCC!