Watch it here: c-span.org/video/?c482043…
Pelosi opened by stressing that the House continues its legislative work, trying to lower the cost of prescription drugs, finalize a US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, etc.
She's echoing past press conferences, saying that we must follow the facts, impeachment is serious so we must be careful and deliberate, etc.
They “feel a sense of urgency," but they want to proceed responsibly and deliberately.
When deciding whether to litigate the obstruction time is an important consideration.
Pelosi emphasizes that in a phone call, Trump admitted that the call as summarized took place. Trump said it was “perfect.” She said it was wrong.
They stressed the danger in the president’s actions in calling those who come forward with evidence against him “spies” and “traitors”:
It’s an attempt to intimidate witnesses and “incite violence.”
Pelosi: “Absolutely not." She then stepped aside for Schiff to answer.
Schiff: The Framers were concerned with foreign interference in American affairs. . .
From Schiff: It’s hard to imagine a situation that would have alarmed the founders more than what happened during the Zelensky-Trump phone call.
Schiff (I'm summarizing): My GOP colleagues who minimize Trump's actions will have to answer: If this conduct isn't impeachable, what is?
To determine the depth of the president's misconduct, we have to know:
💠What was the State Department’s role?
💠What was the AG’s role?
Pelosi then distinguishes what behavior is impeachable and what is not.
Impeachment is for behavior that:
💠endangers national security. . .
💠undermines the constitution by stripping away checks and balances (for example, when Trump says Article II means he can do whatever he wants) and
💠Undermine election integrity.
She said that all three were evident in Trump’s phone call.
Schiff and Pelosi's stated goal is to conduct a hearing that is fair and worthy of the founders.
Another obvious goal: Draft Articles of Impeachment so compelling that:
💠The GOP stops shield this president, or
💠They'll have a lot to answer for.
Litigating may be unnecessary. Silence and stonewalling can be taken as an admission of guilt.
Just as litigating the obstruction may not be necessary, jailing people, too, may be unnecessary, distracting, and time consuming.
Democracy isn’t—and should be—a boxing match.
The winner is the one who saves democracy.
For why Democrats should avoid hardball tactics, please see Prof. Levitsky:
end/
Democracy isn’t—and shouldn't be—a boxing match.
Also, personal note: I dislike jails. I don't think that prison works as a deterrent or anything else.
I cringe when I hear anyone say "lock them up."
Some people . . .
Schiff and Pelosi were obviously going for the "we're the calm measured adults in the room, trying to be fair and conduct a proceeding worthy of the founders."
20/ "The President of the United States ordered me to do it," is a pretty good defense. I never had a client with such a good defense.
Arguably it overlaps with "duress," which is a recognized defense.
The duress defense goes like this. . .
OK, "POTUS Ordered Me To Do It" isn't that strong, but people targeted by Trump are put in danger.
(I'll also post it on my author facebook page)