Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

The revolution will be supervised.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

I was promised a recession.

I’m pretty sure there’s only one Jack Smith.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

The republican caucus is already covering themselves with something, and it’s not glory.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

We still have time to mess this up!

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

A last alliance of elves and men. also pet photos.

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

“Everybody’s entitled to be an idiot.”

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

“Squeaker” McCarthy

Come on, man.

I’d like to think you all would remain faithful to me if i ever tried to have some of you killed.

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.

Fuck the extremist election deniers. What’s money for if not for keeping them out of office?

The words do not have to be perfect.

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

You are here: Home / Politics / Impeachment / Ben Ray Lujan (NM03) Town Hall

Ben Ray Lujan (NM03) Town Hall

by | 16 Comments

This post is in: ,

About 120 people turned out for Ben Ray Lujan’s town hall tonight. He’s the representative for Northern New Mexico and the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House of  Representatives.

No obvious MAGATs. The district is pretty thoroughly Democratic.

Lujan gave an overview of legislation the House has passed, but of course not the Senate, and then opened things up for questions.

The one question I was interested in was about impeachment. It was from a woman who said she was from Las Vegas, NM, and came from a Democratic family and had been a Democrat all her life.

The question was a little scattered, although she seemed to be disappointed in the Democratic Party – “not what it used to be” – I took this to be for not being more assertive on impeachment. Luhan started his answer with a short recap of bills passed. I think this was a bit defensive in response to the criticism, which he may have taken differently than I did.

He became visibly emotional when he addressed impeachment. “I don’t think I should look forward to investigating the President of the United States.” Coming out in favor of impeachment hearings seems to have been a difficult decision for him. He talked around the question a bit and was clearly uncomfortable in a way he wasn’t with any other question. “I don’t pride myself on this.”

He also said that Nancy Pelosi is in a different place than Jerrold Nadler on impeachment, but didn’t expand.

Reader Interactions

16Comments

  1. 1.

    PsiFighter37

    I’m sure Nadler would love to sic the dogs on Donnie, but Nancy is pretty lukewarm on going in guns blazing on impeachment.

    As for Lujan, he’s running for the Senate and has his eyes on bigger things. He probably would prefer the House doesn’t do anything to rock the boat so as to make his shot of taking Tom Udall’s seat easier.

  2. 2.

    smintheus

    Any Democrat who isn’t backing impeachment hearings ought to feel uncomfortable. Voters should point out to them that they’ll remain embarrassed for the rest of their lives on the subject unless they act on principle. Anyway, staking your political future on avoiding doing the right thing may turn out to be a sucker’s bet.

  4. 4.

    Another Scott

    Thanks for the report!

    CFR interview from June:

    ZAKARIA: Do you think that the country is ready for impeachment hearings?

    PELOSI: Here’s my thing. Our Founders—we were so blessed with our Founders, and many of us are history buffs—it’s why many of us are here—and we do believe that foreign policy should be nonpartisan, should stop—that debate should stop at the river’s—water’s edge. It doesn’t always. But, basically, coming back to one guidance that our Founders gave us, of all the great documents—and thank God they made the Constitution amendable—but with all the greatness of the documents they gave us, they gave us a guidance—E pluribus unum—from many one.

    They couldn’t imagine how many we would become or how different we would be from each other. But they knew that we had to be one, and in all that we do, in my role as Speaker of the House and I believe my—most of my colleagues subscribe to it, is try to find as much common ground as you can. Strive for oneness rather than division.

    I don’t think there’s anything more divisive we can do than to impeach a president of the United States, and so you have to handle it with great care. It has to be about the truth and the facts to take you to whatever decision has to be there. It should by no means be done politically. You shouldn’t impeach politically and you shouldn’t not impeach politically.

    But we must always remember we have a responsibility for oneness because that is the strength of our—that is the strength of our country. I always say our diversity is our strength. In our caucus, we are very diverse. Our diversity is our strength. But our unity is our power. That’s what gives us leverage in the rest of the world, that we are the United States of America.

    ZAKARIA: There are several Democrats who are running for president who are calling for impeachment.

    PELOSI: Yeah, I know.

    ZAKARIA: Elizabeth Warren. If one of them gets nominated, the two leaders of the Democratic Party will be somewhat at odds on this issue.

    PELOSI: Well, you never know where we’ll be by the time one of them gets nominated, but it is—again, we are on—legislate, that’s our responsibility. We promised lower healthcare costs, bigger paychecks, rebuilding the infrastructure of America, cleaner government—introducing legislation to make our government clear of—taking out voter suppression, all of that.

    So that’s what we promised, that’s what we’re doing. We’ve passed legislation to that effect, and we continue to do so. Legislate, investigate—we have cause, there was an assault on our country, an assault on our democratic institution of elections. We have a responsibility to get to the bottom of that, and because of the resistance that we’re getting from the White House, we must litigate. So as we investigate and litigate, we’ll go where the facts take us with all due respect to whoever may be president of the United States. It really doesn’t matter. What matters are the facts. It’s not about partisanship, it’s not Democrats and—not about partisanship. It’s about patriotism, about what we must do.

    And the—how can I say this? I love the press. They are the guardians of our democracy. Freedom of the press is so important—right, David Bradley? Right? However, they just have an obsession with talking about impeachment, and every time one of my members says that foreign—oh, pressure is on. Pressure is not on. I respect everybody’s opinion about where they think we are on this, but I also respect the work of our chairmen in terms of legislate, investigate, litigate. And we have that responsibility to find out what happened.

    What’s sad for us is that this is a(n) admitted assault on our democracy. Every agency—intelligence agency has high confidence that this happened, there is proof, and the rest. The Mueller report subscribes to that, and the president of the United States says it’s a hoax. A hoax.

    The president of the United States should be the one taking the lead to look into what happened there, and instead he’s saying, they could do it again. There’s something very wrong with this picture.

    So, in any event, the facts, the truths, what’s right for our country in the most unifying way, not dividing way.

    I think it’s clear where she stands. Remember that she said she wants to see him in prison.

    But she wants the case to be strong enough that it doesn’t tear the country apart. That means following the evidence, building the case, and making it as strong as possible.

    My $0.02.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  5. 5.

    Ohio Mom

    The nationwide denial surrounding the obvious fact that Trump needs to be impeached is beyond staggering. Just the emoluments violations alone are enough.

    It’s the opposite of mass hysteria. It’s weird, really.

  7. 7.

    stinger

    @Another Scott: Agreed, and I think she’s right in that approach. I also try to bear in mind that she’s second in line to the presidency. If impeachment takes out both Thrump and Halfpence, she’s in the White House. She really can’t be seen to push too hard without clear and solid evidence, as it would look like pure self-interest.

    Not that that would stop any Republican, of course.

  10. 10.

    Ezra

    “I don’t think I should look forward to investigating the President of the United States.”

    Well, do you look forward to having some of those bills the House passed ever being enacted? Do you look forward to Democrats having control of the Senate/White House? Do you look forward to your party being able to implement policies/appoint judges/put people on, e.g., the NLRB? So investigating Trump is how you get there. Don’t be shy.

  12. 12.

    O. Felix Culpa

    @Cheryl Rofer: He did that after the Democratic Party of Santa Fe County sent him a resolution urging an impeachment inquiry. We like to think there’s a causal effect. :)

  13. 13.

    BlueDWarrior

    @matt: it’s that sense of “it shouldn’t have to come to this” that some pro-impeachment Congresspeople try to project.

    That this isn’t about getting rid of a Republican because he’s doing things we don’t like (this is how a lot of the right-wing want to spin it), but getting rid of a manifestly incompetent and dangerous asshole (which is how most of us would spin it).

  16. 16.

    sam

    @?BillinGlendaleCA: Pelosi is one of the best, if not the best, whipper and vote counter in recent history. The truth is she doesn’t WANT to have the votes. She could turn the holdouts in a week if she wanted to.

Comments are closed.