#NNPA BlackPress
Pelosi vs. Fellow Democrats on the Pros and Cons of Impeachment
NNPA NEWSWIRE — Since special counsel Robert Mueller spoke publicly for the first time about his finding that he could not exonerate the president, the number of House members calling for either the start to an official inquiry or an outright impeachment vote on Trump has grown to 52, according to a list maintained by NBC News.
By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Correspondent
@StacyBrownMedia
Is Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi standing in the way of a potential impeachment of President Donald Trump?
Reports indicate that there are strong signs that the pro-impeachment forces in the House are both larger than what Pelosi portrays – and growing.
That is, there’s a lot of iceberg under the surface, according to NBC News
Since special counsel Robert Mueller spoke publicly for the first time about his finding that he could not exonerate the president, the number of House members calling for either the start to an official inquiry or an outright impeachment vote on Trump has grown to 52, according to a list maintained by NBC News.
That includes several committee chairs, several members of the Judiciary Committee — which would consider possible articles of impeachment first — lawmakers from safe districts and swing districts, and one Republican: Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, the network reported.
Still, not all citizens are onboard – even those who said they can’t wait until Trump leaves office.
“At this point in time, impeachment is a terrible idea and could potentially play into President Trump’s own narrative – victimizers sometimes play the role of the victim in order to justify their own abusive behavior, reframe perceptions, establish false equivalence, energize advantageous divisions, and intensify or gain support,” David Pring-Mill, a consultant to startups, NGOs, and political causes, told NNPA Newswire.
“The President took advantage of shortcuts in human psychology. He used demagoguery to rile up the voters who could get him elected. But that shortcut became a long cut,” Pring-Mill said.
“His statements on race, Muslim bans, immigrants, and international relations have compromised his moral authority and severely impaired his ability to execute on an agenda and, instead of accepting some responsibility for disparaging others, he fires people ‘Apprentice’-style and claims that he has been disparaged,” he said.
Matt C. Pinsker, an Adjunct Professor in the Homeland Security & Criminal Justice Department at the L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs at Virginia Commonwealth University, said he’s read Mueller’s report and the evidence is insufficient to charge, let alone convict the president of collusion or obstruction of justice.
“It would be legal malpractice and grounds to bring a criminal charge,” said Pinsker, a former federal prosecutor who teaches criminal justice at VCU.
“The reason why impeachment is talked about is simply for political reasons. Unlike the criminal justice system which requires a burden of proof and due process, impeachment is a political maneuver and there is no such thing as ‘malpractice’ for Congress,” he said.
Steven Isaac Azizi, a Senior Partner at Miracle Mile Law Group, said the Democratic majority in Congress is hesitant to impeach Trump for a couple reasons.
“I believe the foremost reason is that Congress is rejecting the idea is due to the sheer reputational damage it would instill in the international world’s eyes,” Azizi said.
“Another may be the ignition of pro-Trump supporters. These are without a doubt the cons of any potential impeachment,” Azizi said.
The attorney also speculated that a potential plus to a Trump impeachment would be the riddance of the rhetoric that he brings along with him.
“In any event, impeachment would be accompanied by severe consequences that would reverberate around the whole world,” Azizi said.
Pelosi has argued, to great effect with her caucus, that there are significant risks in rushing toward impeachment when the public isn’t supportive of the move and it would take 20 Republican votes in the Senate to oust the president, NBC News reported.
Part of the Democratic strategy is rooted in concern that forcing an impeachment showdown, especially one that fails to result in Trump’s removal from office, would benefit the president politically.
Never mind the prospect — more unlikely than it is conceivable — that he could be impeached, removed from office and re-elected.
But Pelosi has also said the House should not choose to impeach or avoid impeachment based on political considerations.
Mueller found that he could not exonerate the president, and he has now given a near-equivalent of public testimony to that conclusion.
So, according to an NBC News analyst, it stands to reason that the longer Democrats wait to start a formal process, the more it will look like they are not confident the Mueller report includes evidence of possible high crimes and misdemeanors.
Perhaps most Democrats will, or already have, reached that conclusion.
“The 2020 election is fast approaching. If Americans feel that Trump needs to be prosecuted, they should support Kamala Harris in the primaries and caucuses,” Pring-Mill said. “That [prosecuting crimes] is what she does best.”
#NNPA BlackPress
Recently Approved Budget Plan Favors Wealthy, Slashes Aid to Low-Income Americans
BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — The most significant benefits would flow to the highest earners while millions of low-income families face cuts

By Stacy M. Brown
BlackPressUSA.com Senior National Correspondent
The new budget framework approved by Congress may result in sweeping changes to the federal safety net and tax code. The most significant benefits would flow to the highest earners while millions of low-income families face cuts. A new analysis from Yale University’s Budget Lab shows the proposals in the House’s Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Resolution would lead to a drop in after-tax-and-transfer income for the poorest households while significantly boosting revenue for the wealthiest Americans. Last month, Congress passed its Concurrent Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2025 (H. Con. Res. 14), setting revenue and spending targets for the next decade. The resolution outlines $1.5 trillion in gross spending cuts and $4.5 trillion in tax reductions between FY2025 and FY2034, along with $500 billion in unspecified deficit reduction.
Congressional Committees have now been instructed to identify policy changes that align with these goals. Three of the most impactful committees—Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means—have been tasked with proposing major changes. The Agriculture Committee is charged with finding $230 billion in savings, likely through changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps. Energy and Commerce must deliver $880 billion in savings, likely through Medicaid reductions. Meanwhile, the Ways and Means Committee must craft tax changes totaling no more than $4.5 trillion in new deficits, most likely through extending provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Although the resolution does not specify precise changes, reports suggest lawmakers are eyeing steep cuts to SNAP and Medicaid benefits while seeking to make permanent tax provisions that primarily benefit high-income individuals and corporations.
To examine the potential real-world impact, Yale’s Budget Lab modeled four policy changes that align with the resolution’s goals:
- A 30 percent across-the-board cut in SNAP funding.
- A 15 percent cut in Medicaid funding.
- Permanent extension of the individual and estate tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
- Permanent extension of business tax provisions including 100% bonus depreciation, expense of R&D, and relaxed limits on interest deductions.
Yale researchers determined that the combined effect of these policies would reduce the after-tax-and-transfer income of the bottom 20 percent of earners by 5 percent in the calendar year 2026. Households in the middle would see a modest 0.6 percent gain. However, the top five percent of earners would experience a 3 percent increase in their after-tax-and-transfer income.
Moreover, the analysis concluded that more than 100 percent of the net fiscal benefit from these changes would go to households in the top 20 percent of the income distribution. This happens because lower-income groups would lose more in government benefits than they would gain from any tax cuts. At the same time, high-income households would enjoy significant tax reductions with little or no loss in benefits.
“These results indicate a shift in resources away from low-income tax units toward those with higher incomes,” the Budget Lab report states. “In particular, making the TCJA provisions permanent for high earners while reducing spending on SNAP and Medicaid leads to a regressive overall effect.” The report notes that policymakers have floated a range of options to reduce SNAP and Medicaid outlays, such as lowering per-beneficiary benefits or tightening eligibility rules. While the Budget Lab did not assess each proposal individually, the modeling assumes legislation consistent with the resolution’s instructions. “The burden of deficit reduction would fall largely on those least able to bear it,” the report concluded.
#NNPA BlackPress
A Threat to Pre-emptive Pardons
BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — it was a possibility that the preemptive pardons would not happen because of the complicated nature of that never-before-enacted process.

By April Ryan
President Trump is working to undo the traditional presidential pardon powers by questioning the Biden administration’s pre-emptive pardons issued just days before January 20, 2025. President Trump is seeking retribution against the January 6th House Select Committee. The Trump Justice Department has been tasked to find loopholes to overturn the pardons that could lead to legal battles for the Republican and Democratic nine-member committee. Legal scholars and those closely familiar with the pardon process worked with the Biden administration to ensure the preemptive pardons would stand against any retaliatory knocks from the incoming Trump administration. A source close to the Biden administration’s pardons said, in January 2025, “I think pardons are all valid. The power is unreviewable by the courts.”
However, today that same source had a different statement on the nuances of the new Trump pardon attack. That attack places questions about Biden’s use of an autopen for the pardons. The Trump argument is that Biden did not know who was pardoned as he did not sign the documents. Instead, the pardons were allegedly signed by an autopen. The same source close to the pardon issue said this week, “unless he [Trump] can prove Biden didn’t know what was being done in his name. All of this is in uncharted territory. “ Meanwhile, an autopen is used to make automatic or remote signatures. It has been used for decades by public figures and celebrities.
Months before the Biden pardon announcement, those in the Biden White House Counsel’s Office, staff, and the Justice Department were conferring tirelessly around the clock on who to pardon and how. The concern for the preemptive pardons was how to make them irrevocable in an unprecedented process. At one point in the lead-up to the preemptive pardon releases, it was a possibility that the preemptive pardons would not happen because of the complicated nature of that never-before-enacted process. President Trump began the threat of an investigation for the January 6th Select Committee during the Hill proceedings. Trump has threatened members with investigation or jail.
#NNPA BlackPress
Reaction to The Education EO
BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — Meanwhile, the new Education EO jeopardizes funding for students seeking a higher education. Duncan states, PellGrants are in jeopardy after servicing “6.5 million people” giving them a chance to go to college.

By April Ryan
There are plenty of negative reactions to President Donald Trump’s latest Executive Order abolishing the Department of Education. As Democrats call yesterday’s action performative, it would take an act of Congress for the Education Department to close permanently. “This blatantly unconstitutional executive order is just another piece of evidence that Trump has absolutely no respect for the Constitution,” said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) who is the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee. “By dismantling ED, President Trump is implementing his own philosophy on education, which can be summed up in his own words, ‘I love the poorly educated.’ I am adamantly opposed to this reckless action, said Rep. Bobby Scott who is the most senior Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee.
Morgan State University President Dr. David Wilson chimed in saying “I’m deeply concerned about efforts to shift federal oversight in education back to the states, particularly regarding equity, justice, and fairness. History has shown us what happens when states are left unchecked—Black and poor children are too often denied access to the high-quality education they deserve. In 1979 then President Jimmy Carter signed a law creating the Department of Education. Arne Duncan, former Obama Education Secretary, reminds us that both Democratic and Republican presidents have kept education a non-political issue until now. However, Duncan stressed Republican presidents have contributed greatly to moving education forward in this country.
During a CNN interview this week Duncan said during the Civil War President Abraham “Lincoln created the land grant system” for colleges like Tennessee State University. “President Ford brought in IDEA.” And “Nixon signed Pell Grants into law.” In 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush which increased federal oversight of schools through standardized testing. Meanwhile, the new Education EO jeopardizes funding for students seeking higher education. Duncan states, PellGrants are in jeopardy after servicing “6.5 million people” giving them a chance to go to college. Wilson details, “that 40 percent of all college students rely on Pell Grants and student loans.”
Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC) says this Trump action “impacts students pursuing higher education and threatens 26 million students across the country, taking billions away from their educational futures. Meanwhile, During the president’s speech in the East Room of the White House Thursday, Trump criticized Baltimore City, and its math test scores with critical words. Governor West Moore, who is opposed to the EO action, said about dismantling the Department of Education, “Leadership means lifting people up, not punching them down.”
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
Target Takes a Hit: $12.4 Billion Wiped Out as Boycotts Grow
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Undocumented Workers Are Struggling to Feed Themselves. Slashed Budgets and New Immigration Policies Bring Fresh Challenges
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
BREAKING Groundbreaking Singer Angie Stone Dies in Car Accident at 63
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of February 26 – March 4, 2025
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
NAACP Legend and Freedom Fighter Hazel Dukes Passes
-
Arts and Culture4 weeks ago
Beverly Lorraine Greene: A Pioneering Architect and Symbol of Possibility and Progress
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
Trump Kicks the Ukrainian President Out of the White House
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
Apple Shareholders Reject Effort to Dismantle DEI Initiatives, Approve $500 Billion U.S. Investment Plan