Pelosi: "We have arrows in our quiver that I'm not about to discuss right now."

[pdq]

Lemon Drop wrote:
[quote=pdq]
I think she may be referring to increasing the size of the Supreme Court.

Or maybe something else. But I don’t know how the House is otherwise involved.

Another impeachment of Trump could happen, or an impeachment of Barr (or both) that the Senate would have to take up before they could do a SCOTUS confirmation.

She won't rule it out.
Huh. That’s clever. But they (the House) would have to pass it first.

[sekker]

I wonder if the investigation into the illicit use by his campaign of $$ is enough for an impeachment vote.

A careful calculation, do not want to lose the White House for the dog and pony show of an impeachment that will not go anywhere.

Let's see what gets leaked over the next 48 hours.

[Bill in NC]

"pack the court" didn't work out so well for a previous Democrat...and at the time he was a heck of a lot more popular than any politician today.

would be fun to watch a second impeachment of Trump, though.

[Sarcany]

"We have arrows in our quiver that I'm not about to discuss right now."

Translation: "I still get paid even if I do nothing."

[samintx]

Please no second impeachment. Do what you can but don’t do silly things just because you can.

[sekker]

samintx wrote:
Please no second impeachment. Do what you can but don’t do silly things just because you can.

Pelosi was asked about this earlier today and her non-answer suggested her arrows were more than impeachment.

[pdq]

samintx wrote:
Please no second impeachment. Do what you can but don’t do silly things just because you can.

I would say rushing through a Supreme Court nomination just before an election on a party-line vote when the body is still warm is silly, when most of that party is on record as saying it would be wrong just 4 years ago.

I've heard them floating the justification that it's different now, because the presidency and the Senate is controlled by the same party.

That's no sort of justification; that just happens to be the situation they're taking advantage of, just because they can. I think it's entirely fair in that case for the House to take advantage of what they are allowed to do under the constitution.

Not the way I want politics to go, but the Dems didn't start this.

[Filliam H. Muffman]

I would hope anything that Pelosi initiates would not be a second impeachment, but would be something to get truly widespread viral attention by the deplorables and suppress their votes.

Does such a thing truly exist?

short of...

[SteveO]

Agree with Sarcany. I don't have much faith in her or other D leadership. At all. They have proven time and again they are inept at making anything stick to the flypaper that is Trump. So whatevs. Put up or shut up, Pelosi.

[vision63]

SteveO wrote:
Agree with Sarcany. I don't have much faith in her or other D leadership. At all. They have proven time and again they are inept at making anything stick to the flypaper that is Trump. So whatevs. Put up or shut up, Pelosi.

Ridiculousness. The Democrats control one half of 1 of the 3 parts of the government. She's absolutely held her caucus to task and effectively kept the bleeding to a fraction of what it could be.

You agree that "she still gets paid" as the translation of her statement because that's what she's about? She's "never" been about that. It's clear that you don't really know who she is.