Quantcast
Connect with us

Pelosi quietly whipping votes for impeachment — 7 centrist national security Democrats are on board

Published

on

The Washington Post revealed Monday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was exploring where her caucus was on impeachment votes as President Donald Trump generated another international election scandal. In a separate piece, The Post also reported that seven major national security Democrats had decided the latest scandal had gone too far.

According to the list, the key leaders are Reps. Gil Cisneros of California, Jason Crow of Colorado, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Elaine Luria of Virginia, Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Abigail Spanberger of Virginia. They are all freshman Democrats who have much at stake in the 2020 election.

ADVERTISEMENT

Houlahan, in particular, detailed on Twitter why it was important for someone with her national security background to come out for impeachment right now.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

“Pelosi, according to multiple senior House Democrats and congressional aides, has asked colleagues whether they believe that Trump’s own admission that he pressured a Ukrainian leader to investigate a political foe is a tipping point,” said The Post. “She was making calls as late as Monday night to gauge support in the caucus, and many leadership aides who once thought Trump’s impeachment was unlikely now say they think it’s almost inevitable.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Julián Castro, who has a close relationship with Pelosi, said on MSNBC that Pelosi has “laid down the gauntlet.”

“Wait a second, so you think that’s it?” MSNBC’s Chris Hayes asked. “That’s essentially the straw that breaks the camel’s back, which is if they don’t provide the whistle-blower complaint, it’s not a subpoena or fight in the courts, the compelling requires it moving forward formally with impeachment?”

“Right,” Castro replied.

ADVERTISEMENT

Read the full reports at The Washington Post.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Catholic leaders promised transparency about child abuse — but they haven’t delivered

Published

on

It took 40 years and three bouts of cancer for Larry Giacalone to report his claim of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a Boston priest named Richard Donahue.

Giacalone sued Donahue in 2017, alleging the priest molested him in 1976, when Giacalone was 12 and Donahue was serving at Sacred Heart Parish. The lawsuit never went to trial, but a compensation program set up by the archdiocese concluded that Giacalone “suffered physical injuries and emotional injuries as a result of physical abuse” and directed the archdiocese to pay him $73,000.

Even after the claim was settled and the compensation paid in February 2019, however, the archdiocese didn’t publish Donahue’s name on its list of accused priests. Nor did it three months later when Giacalone’s lawyer, Mitchell Garabedian, criticized the church publicly for not adding Donahue’s name to the list.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Mike Pompeo’s behavior is straight out of Nixon VP’s playbook: historians

Published

on

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s expletive-laden dust-up with NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly is on message for the Trump-led Republican Party. Complaining that Kelly’s question about Ukraine was “another example of how unhinged the media has become in its quest to hurt President Trump and this Administration,” Pompeo has rallied the Republican base by slamming a journalist doing her job.

Whether he knows it or not, Pompeo is drawing from a playbook written a half century ago and perfected by a politician once voted the worst vice president in American history. Secretary Mike Pompeo, meet Vice President Spiro Agnew.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

‘Our chances of ever exiting the nightmare are shrinking’: Paul Krugman explains how the GOP is getting worse

Published

on

It is a great detriment to civil discourse that the divide between left and right in the United States is often depicted as being purely cultural — as if one’s politics were solely mediated by aesthetics, such as whether one prefers shooting guns or drinking lattes. This fabulist understanding of politics is harmful inasmuch as it masks the real social effects of the policy agendas pushed by left versus right. Seeing politics as aesthetic transforms what should be a quantitative debate — with statistics and numbers about taxation and public policy, questions of who benefits more or less from policy changes — and devolves it into a rhetorical debate over values.

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image