CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 24, 2019 01:30 PM UTC

Impeachment: It's On

  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE #2: Colorado Public Radio looks at how Colorado’s congressional delegation is responding on the question of impeachment and the Ukraine controversy.


UPDATE: The Washington Post reports–the dam has officially burst:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to announce a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump, a dramatic turnaround by the Democratic leader that sets up a constitutional and political clash pitting the Congress against the nation’s chief executive.

Pelosi (D-Calif.) is slated to make her announcement later on Tuesday after a closed-door meeting with her caucus, according to Democratic officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely describe private deliberations.

Impeachment is a rare and extraordinary step that would overturn the decision of U.S. voters in 2016 to elect Trump. Pelosi’s decision foreshadows an intensely partisan fall, triggering pushback from Trump allies with repercussions for the 2020 campaign.


Rep. Jason Crow (D-Aurora)

Congressman Jason Crow (D-Aurora) is one of seven freshman Democrats — all with military or defense/intelligence backgrounds — signing on to an editorial published in today’s Washington Post that makes a strong case for investigating what they call “impeachable offenses”:

The president of the United States may have used his position to pressure a foreign country into investigating a political opponent, and he sought to use U.S. taxpayer dollars as leverage to do it. He allegedly sought to use the very security assistance dollars appropriated by Congress to create stability in the world, to help root out corruption and to protect our national security interests, for his own personal gain. These allegations are stunning, both in the national security threat they pose and the potential corruption they represent. We also know that on Sept. 9, the inspector general for the intelligence community notified Congress of a “credible” and “urgent” whistleblower complaint related to national security and potentially involving these allegations. Despite federal law requiring the disclosure of this complaint to Congress, the administration has blocked its release to Congress.

This flagrant disregard for the law cannot stand. To uphold and defend our Constitution, Congress must determine whether the president was indeed willing to use his power and withhold security assistance funds to persuade a foreign country to assist him in an upcoming election.

If these allegations are true, we believe these actions represent an impeachable offense. We do not arrive at this conclusion lightly, and we call on our colleagues in Congress to consider the use of all congressional authorities available to us, including the power of “inherent contempt” and impeachment hearings, to address these new allegations, find the truth and protect our national security. [Pols emphasis]

Crow is a former Army Ranger who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

House Democrats appear to be moving closer to initiating impeachment hearings in the wake of an alleged whistleblower complaint regarding threats by President Trump to withhold military aid to Ukraine unless it investigates former Vice President Joe Biden for some sort of invented transgression.


25 thoughts on “Impeachment: It’s On

  1. Here's hoping Rep. Crow soon has occasion to organize with other Democrats AND some of his Republican peers (like Rep. Waltz, the one he parachuted with in the celebration to commemorate the Normandy D-Day invasion) to point out how the Trump Sad!-ministration is not living up to the oaths of service and ought to be impeached.

  2. And, checking again.  One of the Colorado Representatives is not on the list clearly favoring an impeachment inquiry. Still on WAPO's list of 77 who want to "Continue existing investigations." As of yesterday, his tweeted "position" appears to be favoring SOME form of action:

    19h19 hours ago

    Rep. Ed Perlmutter Retweeted Adam Schiff

    We need to follow this paper trail. Americans deserve answers and, by law, Congress has a right to see the whistleblower complaint. 's lawlessness will not be tolerated.

    As of this morning, the count for impeachment investigation is now 159 Democrats, 0 Republicans, 1 Independent. Among the most recent to sign on: Rep. John Lewis, “the conscience of the House.”

    1. Update:  Perlmutter says he wants the impeachment investigation.

      Rep. Ed Perlmutter @RepPerlmutter

      I have and continue to support the impeachment investigation. President Trump needs to be held accountable and he will be.

      Ernest Lee Luning @eluning

      While @ABCPolitics might not have noted it, CO's @RepPerlmutter has long been in favor of the House opening an #impeachment inquiry. He told me he wants to see what an investigation yields before going further, but without question wants the House to investigate. #copolitics

  3. Conservative columnist Ross Douthat has a new take on whether 'tis better to impeach or not:

    None of this, I should stress, adds up to an airtight argument that the Democrats should not impeach. Nine months ago I made a case against impeachment, and many of the arguments in that essay might apply to this case — depending on how far it turns out Trump went in pressuring Ukraine. But politics is a contact sport, a field for combat as well as for maneuver, and just because someone wants a fight doesn’t mean that you should never, ever give him one. The dictum about wrestling a pig (you get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it) doesn’t hold up if the pig keeps punching you; the dictum that it’s better to beat Trump at the polls than lose a Senate vote probably doesn’t hold up if you talk yourself into looking permanently supine in the face of indubitable corruption.

    Much of the Trump era has consisted of politicians of both parties waiting for someone else to give Trump a knockout blow. So there’s something to be said, at the level of spiritedness if not necessarily strategy, for House Democrats to take a swing themselves.

    But my ultimate guess is that none of this matters quite as much as some impeachment arguers suppose. An impeachment effort could be both foredoomed and unlikely to influence the 2020 outcome all that much, so Nancy Pelosi might be wise to forestall one but also find herself with few regrets if one gets forced on her.

    The nature of the Trump era is that yuge events recede far more rapidly than anyone expects. So it might be with impeachment: Have the vote or don’t have it, we’ll be arguing about something completely different by the time Americans are going to the polls.

    How's that Blue Oyster Cult song go again?

  4. I knew that Leader Pelosi was going to have to jump out in front to "lead" her caucus at some point. Glad that it's sooner rather than later. As my father used to say, "Let's get this show on the road!"

    1. Wise leaders know it's best to get in front of their followers once they're headed into a single direction.

      A wise leader also knows not to get too far in front lest she gets shot in the ass.

    2.   There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.

                                                                                —  Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin

  5. In related news, the Senate Intelligence Committee sent a letter signed by Chairman Burr and Vice-Chairman Warner to the counsel for the whistleblower. They ask for a meeting by Friday between the whistleblower and bipartisan committee counsel.

  6. The transcript is almost meaningless, by itself. The statement by the Whitest House is that they are planning to release it before the end of the week. Will we see it tomorrow? I don't think so.

    Will we see it on Friday? Very doubtful. 

    How many times do you suppose the OD has said, "the check is in the mail"? They are stalling.

    1. I'm reminded of Nixon sitting in front of his edited transcripts back in 1974. Every third word was [expletive deleted]. And then he asked Senator John Stennis – who was deaf and blind – to listen to the tapes and confirm the veracity of the transcripts.

    2. It looks like I was wrong. The "transcript", which Jeff Pegeuys of CBS says is more like "notes" instead, came out this morning. I guess it didn't take them long to edit it.

  7. Just now the White House advisers realize they've screwed the pooch

    Ms. Pelosi told fellow Democrats that in a private call that she had with the president on Tuesday, he said he was not responsible for the whistle-blower complaint being withheld from Congress, according to Democrats.

    And being the well-oiled team that they are:

    Inside the White House, recriminations have begun over how the situation devolved to a point where a formal impeachment inquiry has been announced, people briefed on the situation said.

    But not to worry, they have their patsy already lined up:

    Some of his longtime critics blamed Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, for not acting more forcefully. But most blamed Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, for aggressively digging for dirt on the Bidens in Ukraine and inserting himself into official dealings with a Ukrainian official through the State Department — as well as his public statements about his efforts.

    They're pretty sure this will all blow over soon, and they are assuring Trump he’ll get his Nobel Prize right after he's re-elected in a landslide.


    1. Oh this can have some really serious repercussions …..

      If Rudy Giuliani's pro bono client fires him, he may end up with a paying job which in turn will lead to him being ordered to pay Judith Nathan aka Judith Giuliani some alimony.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

42 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!