Greg Palast and many others are reporting that while there is some suffering among the Venezuelan people, the problem is caused by the US sanctions, the US stealing funds due to the Venezuelan government for oil sold through the Citgo brand of gasoline and also sold to the same Koch refinery in Houston to which the Keystone XL pipeline is to connect, and which is instead given illegally to Guaido, and the UK impounding Venezuelan gold reserves held in British banks and making it impossible for Venezuela to make short-term loans common in international trade.

Not even the US could stand up under such economic war. Instead, the US is again about to violate the Nuremberg codes to wage aggressive war for foreign oil. The law is only for those who oppose the US and who don't kneel at the feet of Trump.

Ivanka Trump granted trademark for 'voting machines' in China

China grants more trademark approvals for Ivanka Trump firm - including voting machines

Just sayin' ...

Has anyone noticed how upholding the rule of law in a democracy is a political "problem"for Democrats but no political "problem" is cited for the Republicans who would protect a serial lawbreaker in their own party who currently occupies the White House. Why is doing the right thing always a political risk for the Democrats (whether it be pushing a progressive agenda or bring the Republicans to account)? Somebody, please cite for this benighted poster the public mewlings of ANY pundit bewailing the coming day of reckoning for the ambitions of the heedless Republicans who seek both total rule for themselves and the perpetual immiseration of the weak.

The possible REAL reasons Ms. Pelosi is claiming that the "I" word is off the table?

She is making a calculation based on what happened to Clinton and does not want to give the Rs a chance to rally to Trump and save his presidency. The American public saw through the Rs acts against President Bill Clinton and she does not want a repeat that could on this occasion rescue Trump. I would offer that it is more than clear that Trump today is not analogous to Clinton then. At that time the Republicans quite simply sought to overturn an election and used the Lewinsky "scandal" as their causus belli excuse. The trouble for them is that everyone knew this and Dole's cry of "Where's the outrage?" was the plaintive response to the public's ability to see through the R's efforts. Of course, then Speaker Newt Gingrich's own unpopularity with the public and his smug repulsiveness (and open hypocrisy) did not the help the R's case against Clinton. As evidenced by their showing in the 2018 midterms it is clear that the Dems don't have these problems, as even rank and file Rs admit in recent polling that Trump is an unindicted, serial lawbreaker. Clinton was wronged by the Republicans and all knew it then; Trump is not being wronged by the Democrats and all know it now. The fly in the ointment is that the Rs don't care that Trump is a crook, a buffoon, and a liar. They LIKE this about him: he's THEIR crook, buffoon, and liar.

In reply to Desi's observation regarding "a failed impeachment": I offer that the calculation may not perceive the loss of "a failed impeachment" to be limited merely to Senate rejection but that it could extend to a Democratic loss of the House and failure to retake the Senate. Not getting the impeachment is not the worry that Nancy may have. Rather, being voted out and triggering a return to Republican rule of the legislature is the real "failure" that may keep her up at night. The concern for "dividing the country" is not Ms. Pelosi's fear; her fear is that the division could benefit the Republicans and put them back in control of the House and help them keep the Senate. If you are going to divide the country, you want the division to favor your side. If your side improves life for the people who believe in a progressive agenda it should do the same for those who voted for the other side. You can't do that if you don't have power. Nancy, given her history, may not yet think the winds will blow in the good direction for the Dems in the very short term. They only have the House now and not the whole legislature, and they don't have the Supreme Court. The first goal is not the impeachment itself; the first goal is not to LOSE what little power you just gained. It is worth noting that this calculation must admit that, despite the prospect of shrinking power in the years to come (even with the gross unfairness as seen by the majority of Americans due to the way the Senate allocates power to low population states) the Republicans do have the Democrats spooked. That took years to achieve and it will take time for the Dems to "unspook" themselves.

Back in the Nixon's time even with the Southern Strategy beating they took, there was no Dem handwringing over impeaching Tricky Dick. Those Dems had not yet been spooked so they went for it. To this day the used-to-winning, maximalist Republicans do not have such inhibitions. Indeed, they had planned "impeachment" hearings based on "two years worth of material lined up" (said former Congressperson Jason Chaffetz in 2016 as quoted in a WaPo piece of that time) for the coming Hillary Clinton administration. But of course, no sane person believes that impeaching a Democrat would "divide the country"; that's an effect that only follows investigating Republicans.

Another matter to consider may be that Nancy wants to allow the investigations to be airtight to the extent that IF impeachment in the House goes forward the purpose of it would be to put on record those who would protect the blindingly guilty Criminal-In-Chief. She understands the salutary symbolism of an impeachment but the effort to put one out there would still have to be such that the symbolism will not be the only characteristic that it will have. In other words, while the symbolism will be good the substance under it would also need to be able to withstand even the harshest of bad-faith scrutiny. There must be no risk that anyone could mistake this for "Ben-GAH-zeee!" Of course, symbolism working only to put the Rs on the defensive such that they would fall onto history's "naughty" list is not likely worth the effort since the Rs simply don't care. Naughty is a feature, not a bug, of the Republican Party. Impeachment without hope of removal could still lead to Trump being a one-term president --- but that calculation may not be as strong as Ms. Pelosi likely hopes that it, by rights, should be.

How about this? What if Nancy is only drawing fire to provide cover for Maxine Waters and Rashida Tlaib in their efforts to pursue the prospect of an impeachment? It seems unreasonable that she would buck her caucus when that caucus is largely convinced that the nation is being led by a documented lawbreaker. Proof? Has anyone noticed that Ms. Pelosi has not actually shut down her caucus members who want Trump's scalp? All she does is give lip service to impeachment being off the table; that is quite different from actually punishing her caucus members for their public comments - which she has NOT done. Speaker Pelosi, no radical she, is NOT a "blue-dog conserva-Dem". She could easily shut her more outspoken and progressive members down - again, which she has NOT done. Oh, yeah, sure, she ostentatiously rolled her eyes at the Green New Deal. However --- where are her efforts to shut that initiative down? Hmm.

Ok, maybe this. Susie Madrak on SIRIUS XM on the show "Make It Plain" suggested that Nancy may be trying to becalm Trump into a false state of security so that he does not take any action that could threaten what the House is currently doing by, say, trying to rally the Rs to stonewall them. It is true that Nancy is 'way smarter than Trump and has shown an ability to think rings around him like she did during the shutdown. She may be at it again, only this time to simply make the malefactor think that he is safer than he really is. The question, of course, is "from what?"

You tell me.