Constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe wrote an op-ed for The Post suggesting a compromise that would allow the Impeach the Motherfucker NOW! crowd and Team Proceed Cautiously Because 2020 Is Everything to meet in the middle. The compromise is predicated on the notion that a House impeachment needn’t function explicitly as a prosecutor or grand jury that refers its findings to the Senate for trial — Tribe says the House can conduct an inquiry “in which the target is afforded an opportunity to participate and mount a full defense” and skip the referral.
He cites precedent during the Watergate impeachment proceedings, when Nixon’s attorney appeared to defend Nixon against charges leveled by the House. Since Nixon subsequently resigned, there was no need to refer the articles of impeachment to the Senate, but Tribe says the House Judiciary Committee in that era drafted findings that included “determinations of fact and law and verdicts of guilt to be delivered by the House itself, expressly stating that the president was indeed guilty as charged.” On that basis, Tribe surmises that “an impeachment inquiry conducted with ample opportunity for the accused to defend himself before a vote by the full House would be at least substantially protected, even if not entirely bullet-proofed, against a Senate whitewash.”
Here’s Tribe’s conclusion:
The point would not be to take old-school House impeachment leading to possible Senate removal off the table at the outset. Instead, the idea would be to build into the very design of this particular inquiry an offramp that would make bypassing the Senate an option while also nourishing the hope that a public fully educated about what this president did would make even a Senate beholden to this president and manifestly lacking in political courage willing to bite the bullet and remove him.
By resolving now to pursue such a path, always keeping open the possibility that its inquiry would unexpectedly lead to the president’s exoneration, the House would be doing the right thing as a constitutional matter. It would be acting consistent with its overriding obligation to establish that no president is above the law, all the while keeping an eye on the balance of political considerations without setting the dangerous precedent that there are no limits to what a corrupt president can get away with as long as he has a compliant Senate to back him. And pursuing this course would preserve for all time the tale of this uniquely troubled presidency.
Go read the whole thing — I almost certainly bollixed up some key points by summarizing. But if I’m understanding Tribe correctly, he offers an intriguing alternative here.
Since the Senate won’t do its job, the House will need to get creative, and televised hearings that fully explore Trump’s corruption and abuse of power while not subjecting the process to a Republican cover-up sounds like a good option to me. What say you?
bbleh
I think “televised hearings that fully explore Trump’s corruption and abuse of power while not subjecting the process to a Republican cover-up” are a good idea, whatever they’re called.
I think the principal impediment at present is not what label is slapped on the hearings but rather the maximal stonewalling by the Executive, which at present means that the House must work to get the Judiciary on their side. It MAY eventually be helpful to that effort to label the hearings as “impeachment” hearings, but for right now, the House is winning about as hard and fast as possible in the courts — judges are all but laughing the WH out of court — so they’re not yet at that point.
Otherwise, the only effect I can see of the label they apply to the hearings is on the emotions of the two portions of the electorate — the 40% or so that will vote for Trump almost no matter what and the 40% who will never vote for him. Which one it would excite more, and when, and what would be the implications for 2020, is quite beyond me, and I would guess it’s beyond anyone to predict reliably, but I don’t think it’s going to change any of their minds.
So I guess my bottom line is … eh, whatever. Have the hearings, get the documents and the witnesses. What they’re called — just hearings, or impeachment hearings, or impeachment-hearings-plus a la Tribe … it’s sound and fury signifying nothing predictable and maybe nothing at all.
Kay
I don’t care what they do but they have to do something. The level of corruption is unsustainable. If this becomes the new lower standard the country will collapse and it will become the new lower standard. It already is. It has to be actively undone. Russia aside, these people are deeply corrupt. In nearly every area. None of them work for the public. It’s a feeding frenzy.
Skepticat
D’accord.
DCrefugee
I’m old enough to have lived through Watergate. Live, televised hearings over 1973 and 1974 did the trick. Before it was over, even Republicans were saying Nixon would be removed from office if he didn’t resign.
There’s so much more we don’t know, beyond the Mueller report. But keeping this front and center for the next, say, 18 months is the only sure way to get rid of Agent Orange.
If it’s done right — which it won’t — support for the R team would be down around the Crazification Factor. It’s a golden opportunity to show the public what both Dems and Rs are made of.
Rick Smeltzer
Nope. Broadcast TV gets too many $$$ from political campaigns. The local channels especially reap a ton of reward during election cycles. They won’t give up that sweet cash, so they will bend over backwards to both-sider the shit out of this. We’re truly fucked until we have public campaign financing, which we all know will never happen.
Costa Rica is sounding better and better with each passing day…
MattF
It’s interesting, but… lawyerly. People are already misinformed and confused about what the House may or may not do. As long as Trump’s criminality and lying are explicitly up front, though, whatever it may be called, I’m OK with it. The point, as the Speaker has noted, is that Trump should be in prison.
hells littlest angel
As someone who thinks the best course is to investigate Trump until he
develops an eating disorderhas a stroke, I heartily approve. Leaving Mitch McConnell’s corrupt Senate majority out of the process is a brilliant strategy.cmorenc
All these fine distinctions would be lost on the father-son pair I had a brief, courteous encounter with yesterday on a public access walkway to the beach – both were wearing “Make America Great” logo sunhats. OTOH, I was riding a bicycle down the 600 ft walkway, and they patiently, courteously waited for me to arrive at a wider seating area before proceeding with their cart full of beach gear (cooler, chairs etc) and greeted me with some friendly nonpolitical small-talk when I got to the wider landing, as if to assure me they were totally cool with waiting for me rather than to proceed and try to work out narrowly passing one another on the walkway.
That’s the pardox of many red-area Trump supporters: in many ordinary face-to-face situations, they are very decent, courteous people, yet the man and policies they ardently support are utterly corrosive, divisive, and often outright evil. And yet, other than their political inclinations, they behave like ideal neighbors, even as those inclinations are paving the way for ruination of this country.
rikyrah
Why do black voters support Biden? They just want to beat Trump.
The pragmatic politics of race.
By Theodore R. Johnson
Mike in NC
Our entire foreign policy is now based on who puts the most money into Fat Bastard’s pockets.
bbleh
@hells littlest angel: Yes yes yes. This is essential. Have all the hearings you want, but no impeachment articles or impeachment vote! If they actually impeach — pass articles — then the process moves to the Senate, and McConnell will stage-manage the best possible propaganda victory for Trump that his devious lizard brain can devise.
One other point: as Pelosi has observed, a lot of the public don’t even know what “impeachment” means. Many think it is synonymous with removal. As MattF observes, Tribe is splitting this hair even further. It’s way-inside baseball. To ring a very loud bell, especially when a lot of people don’t know what it signifies, is risky. And once rung, it can’t be un-rung. This suggests to me that Pelosi is right to be very cautious about dropping the I-bomb.
rikyrah
@Kay:
This is why I believe Kamala Harris should make this her issue. Say, ‘ I am not Kamala the Cop, but I AM Kamala the Prosecutor. And, the level of corruption needs to be cleaned up.’
dm
I think the process in the House would quickly turn into a political liability for the Republican Senate as it starts to look like they’re protecting Trump from justice and not protecting the American people from corruption and a would-be dictator.
Betty Cracker
@Kay: Fahrenthold is a national treasure. I hope he gets some documents related to the multi-million dollar charges Trump’s 1K-strong entourage racked up at Qatari-owned hotels in London this week. You’re right — this isn’t sustainable.
rikyrah
I liked the suggestion in Silverman’s post from the other day that they appoint a special committee on the corruption of this Administration. Make them the overarching go-to committee. Have someone who is good on tv be head of it – like Ted Lieu.
Jeffro
Just. Fucking. Open. Impeachment. Hearings. Already.
And then parade all the evidence of corruption and betrayal before the American people.
And then vote.
And then put it all on ol’ Mitch. Let him be the face of the trumpov-enabling GOP. Let the whole party try to deny/deflect/gaslight about what Americans see and hear in those House impeachment proceedings.
Mitch can rocket-docket an impeachment show trial and aquittal all he wants, Twitler is already damaged beyond re-electing. It’s not like The Turtle’s “seal of approval” is going to win back the large-and-growing majority of Americans who won’t vote for trumpov next fall.
Jeffro
@dm: Ay-men!
Another Scott
@Rick Smeltzer: I’d be wary of thinking about moving to Central America, myself. I can’t find any numbers for Costa Rica, but a strong case can be made that Honduras’s huge crime problems are a consequence of the very high lead levels used in gasoline until the late 1990s. Costa Rica phased out lead at the same time.
Cheers,
Scott.
dww44
@DCrefugee: This would be a nice bonus if voters in 2020 kicked both Trump and his GOP enablers to the curb. We are long overdue for a comeuppance to Republicans that is non-deniable. I’m afeared that won’t happen until we fix the electoral system in the country.
O/T scrolled by George Will on MSNBC early yesterday evening opining about his new book. The chyron across the bottom of the screen read “Trump is not a conservative”. I didn’t tune in to find out what he was calling those who voted for him or who support him in the Congress. I so badly wanted to ask him, “if Trump isn’t a conservative, how did the conservative movement make him the nominee of their party?”
Ohio Mom
Of course there must be extensive hearings (they don’t have to be titled Impeachment Hearings), and a written record created. That’s already underway and must be followed through on.
Even if the eventual results are not all what we hope they will be, that’s the House’s job. It’s what they swore to do.
Now all those Benghazi hearings did not convince the diehards that there was no there there, but the truth is documented for prosperity. I have to believe that matters. I can’t give in to that much cynicism.
mrmoshpotato
@Mike in NC:
Has been since the 2016 election. Even the transition team was corrupt as fuck. See Flynn Sr., Michael J., etal
dww44
@Jeffro: This.
Betty Cracker
@bbleh: That’s a good point about many folks not knowing what “impeachment” means, but the whole point of Tribe’s proposal is to deny McConnell a chance to fake-exonerate Trump by NOT referring articles of impeachment. I’m not sure it’s the right approach, but it is designed to take that risk off the table while giving the Trump people a chance to defend Mango Mussolini before the House and giving the House an off-ramp before a referral. It might very well be too much inside baseball, but it’s an intriguing prospect because, while there are definitely risks involved with traditional impeachment, there are also very real costs associated with not impeaching an obvious criminal.
schrodingers_cat
@rikyrah: Agreed. I would also like her to take on immigration head-on. As a child of immigrants she is in a unique position to do so. And not just the asylum process or DACA but also legal immigration.
dww44
@dww44: and George Will’s sheer arrogance has always annoyed the bejesus out of me! Like that interview with Ted Koppel on CBS Sunday Morning this past week!
NotMax
@dww44
His bow tie constricts blood flow to the brain.
WereBear
Precisely why I am hoping this will thread the needle.
Because you keep the battle on your turf. Dems hold the House: show people why.
Raoul
If nothing else, an impeachment inquiry would propel a narrative that isn’t driven constantly by Trump’s tweets. The press (and to varying extents, many on the left) react to each utterance with outrage, sputter and some component of fear. But react is the key.
No I don’t think Trump is a genius. I think he’s tap dancing as fast as he can. But everyone is still fascinated by it, even if 52 or maybe 55% of us are just hoping he trips and does a header off the stage.
Months of weekly televised hearings (dribble it out, but also to allow each component of corruption, incompetence, and malice to be digested) would reduce Tweetle-dumb’s effect, I think.
JimV
Trump’s defense would not occur by his representatives testifying before the inquiring committees (he would refuse to send any) but by tweets and Fox News and Limbaugh, et al. I suppose we should go ahead anyway as a matter of form, but at this point people are either with Trump or against him, and aren’t likely to change their minds. (Unless we could get rid of Fox News and Limbaugh, et al. That’s what we need a plan for.)
One of my best friends at GE, a draftsperson, used to work with his radio tuned to Limbaugh all day. (It seemed like.) We would give each other our right arms if necessary, I think. Maybe his BS-detector is tuned to liberals and mine to conservatives.
Anonymous At Work
Trump won’t make Nixon’s mistake in sending a defense attorney. He’ll expect the House Freedom Caucus to make any defense and stonewall any witnesses or documents. They’ll play for time to prevent any hearings from starting. “Contempt of Congress” will be met with pardons, I expect. Total shitshow and as rancorous as possible, so that “both sides”ers can lament the bitter partisanship and get a lot of viewers to tune out the entire thing as “politics = not working, get ‘outsider’ to ‘disrupt’ things”.
That’s the thought-path of Pelosi and it’s hard to argue against it as a matter of politics. Do I really think that she’s ignoring, ignorant, blase, and/or biased against the ethical imperative side of things? No. But being high-minded got us President Nader in 2000.
Raoul
@bbleh: I take your second paragraph seriously, but I also wonder at what point does this escalate anyway? Yes, so far House moves to gain documents or subpoena testimony have had wins in the first tier of court. But with appeals and the packing of courts by (ptuh, ptuh, feh) McConnell, will that hold? And how long can the stalling be drawn out?
A formal impeachment inquiry may be necessary just to blast through the stonewalling. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but it seems the inter-branch ‘co-equal’ crisis is already rolling, and it just isn’t quite sinking in for the public.
bbleh
@Betty Cracker: Ok, but but but, isn’t the best way to avoid referring articles of impeachment to McConnell simply (to quote Arnie) … don’t do that? And isn’t that entirely independent of whatever they choose to call the hearings, or whoever is invited to participate?
Look, whatever they’re called, and whoever is invited, and whatever other rules they put in place, the whole thing will be a circus. Democrats will squabble and botch parts of the rollout, Republicans will grandstand and squirt ink and throw bombs, the media will garble the story and confound it with their own agendas … what they’re called and who shows up (other than perhaps Robert Mueller, or some modern-day John Dean like McGahn) will be a big gemisch. But they CAN get information out — imperfectly, to be sure — and in doing so they can fulfill all those noble Constitutional mandates and at the same time weaken Trump’s re-election bid. Hearings good.
But as long as they don’t actually vote articles — which presumably Pelosi has absolute control over — who cares about the details? They’ll just get lost in the noise imo.
Sab
@Kay: I love the way in Ohio we voted out the mildly corrupt guys like Taft and Petro who were embarrassed to be called out, and then voted in the shamelessly corrupt guys like Kasich, Mary Taylor, Josh Mandel who simply retended there was nothing bad going on there, and everyone believed them.
NotMax
@Sab
Mandel is a prime argument for never voting for anyone who hasn’t passed through puberty.
:)
Brachiator
Has this already been discussed?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/05/29/president-trump-impeachment-2020-election-professor-allan-lichtman-sot-nr-vpx.cnn
burnspbesq
Tribe is every bit as wrong as Dershowitz, albeit for different reasons.
Betty Cracker
@bbleh: I am not a lawyer, nor have I recently stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, but I gather from Tribe’s article that it does matter what type of hearing it is because the subject (Trump) has to be afforded an opportunity to defend himself, which happens via referral to the Senate in a traditional impeachment? Again, I may be off base and have zero expertise on this subject, but that was my takeaway.
Bill Arnold
@burnspbesq:
Please explain. (I and others respect your opinions.)
UncleEbeneezer
@Betty Cracker: When Pelosi inevitably gets pearl-clutching questions about civility, norms and refusing to let the Senate follow tradition, I would love to hear her respond by pointing out that Mitch McConnell and the GOP members of the Senate have proven that they cannot be trusted to follow any rules or norms or even the faintest whiff of Oversight. She could also say that there are just too many clouds of suspicion regarding ties to Russia for them to be trusted.
The Moar You Know
If true, this is a smart way forward. Timing is the next issue. You want these investigations and hearings to be going forward during all of 2020, with the “verdict” coming in…oh, when did Comey make his speech, about a week before Election Day? That sounds about right.
@Kay: This is literally the worst reason to do anything and is guaranteed to fail. Focus on a goal and work towards that. “Do something, doesn’t matter what” is what drowning people do. And it rarely ends well.
RinaX
@DCrefugee:
There was not a propaganda network back then dedicated to disputing everything that came out of those hearings. Republicans also would not immediately dismiss any news that came from those hearings. And so-called “liberal” networks did not feel compelled to have Republicans come out and lie about what people heard to provide a sense of “balance.”
Having said that, the hearings could help swing those margin voters even if they don’t necessarily shift opinions among hard-core Republicans. I’m fine with televised hearings airing out the Trump admins dirty laundry. I have yet to be convinced that an impeachment vote would have any additional effect.
Cheryl Rofer
I’m fine with this. I’m not hard over on impeachment per se, but I’m with Kay:
JaySinWA
@dww44:
I would expect a “no true Scotsman” defence.
The Moar You Know
@Rick Smeltzer: Huh. Brand-new nym with the message that nothing can be done and we should all give up and leave America.
1. Pied.
2. Fuck you, it’s my country, arguably more so than theirs and I am not leaving.
bbleh
@Betty Cracker: Does he have to be given a chance to defend himself if no articles are voted? Why? The House is not a court, and hearings certainly are not an indictment. (Tribe even says this.) My take on it was, this is a possible way to have a quasi-trial, with a quasi-VERDICT, without a referral to the Senate. I don’t think there’s any due-process-like issue. Congress sets its own rules.
That said, I agree with anonymous above that Trump would never cooperate. Leave it to the Freedom loonies and the Senate. Why risk things going sideways on him?
All of which gets back to … eh. Call it whatever. Beware of when you ring the bell. Just NO VOTE ON ARTICLES!
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Kay: In fairness they’ve been trying to do something and the trumps– the family and the larger outfit– are just ignoring them. I hoe the courts will continue to side with the Dems, with the idea of co-equal branches of government and oversight and checks and balances and all that good stuff– but from Kavanaugh to the recently elevated Judge Vitter to god knows who else, I’m not overly confident in the judiciary.
japa21
All of this talk about hearings and how it was the hearings that got Nixon to the point where he needed to resign, forget a couple things.
1) Yes, everybody watched the Nixon hearings because there really wasn’t much else to watch. We didn’t have 5,000 cable channels to escape to at that time.
2) We assume people actually want to find out what is really going on. Not sure that is an accurate reading of the population of this here USofA.
3) The likelihood of the media actually portraying any hearings accurately is somewhere between slim and none, leaning toward the latter.
4) We are truly fucked.
Cheryl Rofer
@The Moar You Know: Now that I’ve seen your comment, I’ll add that the “something” means, to me, “something to show the country that one political party still cares about goood governance and get the MF out of office.” I suspect it does for Kay too.
Brachiator
@UncleEbeneezer:
If this is the case, then she needs to drop the idea of Impeachment, and lay down the hard truth. That an unknown number of Republican senators are traitors, and that the only hope for democracy is for people to vote for Democrats in 2020.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I see on twitter that Joe Scarborough went all “will this be a turning point for trump?” this morning because The Beast read a speech. Now Andrea Mitchell and Lester Holt are getting all gooey because trump was, as Holt just put it, “appropriate”, and seemed genuinely moved.
My god.
Mandalay
@Kay:
From Farenthold’s article:
Because the obvious choice of hotel when you are getting medical treatment in Baltimore is in downtown DC?
But wait! There’s more…
Betty Cracker
@bbleh: If I answered your questions, I’d be guessing — again, not a lawyer. My interpretation of Tribe’s piece differs from yours, but I have no idea which of us is right.
lofgren
I am not very sympathetic to the argument that hearings would be “divisive.” The country is divided right now. We need hearings so that we can all start to get on the same page. Either I’m delusional, or the people claiming that the Mueller report completely exonerated Trump are. Let’s have those hearings and get to the bottom of this.
burnspbesq
@Bill Arnold:
The process described in the Constitution is the process we have. The process described by Tribe might be superior to the process described in the Constitution, but you can’t get there without amending the Constitution. At least that’s my initial reaction, and I think it’s backed up by The Federalist 65 and 66; the indictment-and-trial analogy that Tribe wants to get away from is pretty clearly what the Framers had in mind (to the extent you believe Hamilton).
James E Powell
@burnspbesq:
Agree completely. The last thing we need is a $#%@# law professor, especially one from &@#%€# Harvard.
rikyrah
For many black voters, 2020 isn’t about pride or making history. It’s about beating Trump
By MARK Z. BARABAK
JUN 06, 2019 | 3:00 AM
Brachiator
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
These people never learn.
Betty Cracker
@rikyrah: So far, I’ve asked three Democrats I know IRL who are supporting Biden WHY they’re supporting Biden. Every single one supports him not because they think he’s the best qualified in the field or because he inspires them or they think he’d be a much better president than any of the others but because they think he has the best chance to beat Trump. They’re scared shitless of a Trump win, and I don’t blame them. I just disagree with their risk assessment.
James E Powell
@Brachiator:
Are they calling it a pivot?
Casey Leichter
I wonder if there’s also some way to publicize a running total of the $$ 45 has siphoned to himself and his family – not merely via skimming the budget, but also using foreign policy to extract bribes from foreign potentates – and juxtapose it with, say, farmer bankruptcies, people losing their businesses and jobs, etc. etc.
It might enable people to make the connection between GOP-style corruption and the deterioration of their own prospects.
burnspbesq
@James E Powell:
Should we infer from this that you’re not a Warren fan? Or was the taint purged when she moved to the Senate?
rp
@Betty Cracker: I just had the same conversation with my father.
CaseyL
I wonder if there’s also some way to publicize a running total of the $$ 45 has siphoned to himself and his family – not merely via skimming the budget, but also using foreign policy to extract bribes from foreign potentates – and juxtapose it with, say, farmer bankruptcies, people losing their businesses and jobs, etc. etc.
It might enable people to make the connection between GOP-style corruption and the deterioration of their own prospects.
(PS: Apologies if this posts as a duplicate; it didn’t seem to go through the first time, so I’m trying again!)
Major Major Major Major
Folks. This is not aimed at the media or Trump voters, nor will its constitutionality ever be tested by the courts, at least not in a way that matters: this is aimed squarely at democratic representatives of the “but what about the senate?” variety.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
A look at anti-impeachment Dems. I’m okay with those who say “hearings, not impeachment”, I think televised hearings are a key to moving public opinion whatever the ultimate outcome, and are essential for 2020, but this “we need to move on” shit is really weak (specifically, Jeff Van Drew of NJ).
Kay
@rikyrah:
I love that. They can’t just let what Trump did stand. He ran on “the swamp”. He IS the swamp. The absolute cynicism of that can’t be ignored. It’s pure sleaze. It’s everywhere, too. From his low quality hires to his gross deadbeat “children” who can’t pass up a free trip on the public dime. They’re shameless.
Haroldo
@rikyrah:
This. ^^^^
P.S. I turn my back and the formatting has sprung spring-like into bloom.
Gravenstone
@dww44: That’s just the timeworn construction of “conservatism can’t fail, it can only be failed”.
Baud
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
“He didn’t embarrass us” is the media’s bar for GOP presidents.
Litlebritdifrnt
I am utterly fizzing mad. I just read a tweet from Halle Jackson that the US Normandy event was delayed so that Twitler could get his daily knob polishing from Ingraham. So he left 90odd year old D Day Vets waiting in the sun so he could appear on Fox. Then once on he trashed Mueller and Pelosi. The piece of shit has absolutely no fu**ing shame, none.
Kay
If impeachment meant it was more likely Democrats would lose, would you do it? Would that be worth it? I think that’s what you have to consider when introducing an unknown. They know what they have now. They don’t know what they have + impeachment.
Baud
@Litlebritdifrnt:
Looks like I posted my comment at #69 too soon.
Baud
@Kay:
No.
Mandalay
@Kay:
From Farenthold’s article in WaPo:
Because the obvious choice of hotel when you are getting medical treatment in Baltimore is in downtown DC?
But wait! There’s more…
“There has never been a President that’s been more transparent than me or the Trump administration.”
RinaX
@rikyrah:
Things can change, as they did for Obama in 2008. But this jibes exactly with what I’ve heard from my friends and family. They want Trump gone, and none of the lines of attack against Biden have convinced them he won’t sign any progressive legislation that makes it to his desk. There is also a strong desire to have foreign leaders take us seriously again. He appears to be the best chance to get conservative-leaning Independents votes. It is not about being kumbayah, it is about getting through to those with a few brain cells in their head, even if they don’t see anything wrong with flying a Confederate flag on their truck.
I don’t know if the calculation is correct, but it is what it is at this point. The only two candidates I personally have anything against are Bernie because the ho ain’t loyal, and Tulsi Gabbard because, well, everything.
jc
Pelosi needs to do a much better job of making the case against Trump to the public. Nadler does a pretty good job of this, but if the Dem leadership is going to dot their ‘i’s and cross their ‘t’s, they also have to get out there every day and explain to the public why Trump so richly deserves to be impeached. Make accusations, make news, make a stink.
FFS, playing to the court of public opinion is all Trump does every day: control the narrative and spin, lie and misdirect.
Brachiator
@japa21:
Ultimately, it wasn’t about convincing the public to back Impeachment. A sufficient number of Republicans in Congress saw that Nixon had to go. Today, the GOP will probably back Trump no matter what.
Democrats may want to proceed anyway.
From a June 2018 Vox story
Curiously, in 2018 you had much of the same whining over whether Trump voters might be energized, only here it was about the midterm elections.
The Democrats need to do whatever they need to do to bring attention to Trump’s crimes.
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/22/17492450/poll-trump-impeachment-nixon-watergate
Kay
@Baud:
They are up 9 on the generic ballot – congress. Maybe they’re “I’ll take that”. Purely political analysis. Do we hate them because they’re not principled or because they are bad at politics? Because it would be perfectly rational to stay the course. Maybe bad idea! But not crazy.
Baud
@jc:
Given that support for impeachment is increasing, I don’t see a reason to fault what she’s doing.
Fleeting Expletive
Who i s paying Hope Hicks’ lawyer, Robert Trout, and how far will they be willing to finance the legal strategy of defying a Congressional subpoena?
Betty Cracker
@Kay: I’m unsure a decision to not impeach Trump guarantees a return to the pre-Mueller report status quo. I think there’s a cost associated with inaction that must be calculated too. The House can hold hearings and investigate the copious corruption — that has to be done regardless. But not impeaching Trump means you’ve seen this flagrant crime and basically said “shruggies, politics.”
Baud
@Kay:
Your question assumed that it was impeachment made it more likely that we would lose. If that were my prediction, I wouldn’t impeach.
That to me is a different question than whether we should impeach in the face of uncertainty about whether it will hurt us. That’s more of an “it depends.”
Major Major Major Major
@Mandalay:
There was a good-spirited argument at work this morning over whether transparency, used in this way, should actually mean “impossible to see or describe in a meaningful way.”
James E Powell
@burnspbesq:
Warren went to Rutgers. She was who she is before the Harvard teaching gig. I feel like it’s just one of those things she did because she could. It definitely isn’t who she is. Tribe, on the other hand, is all Harvard, all academic, and completely useless to a political process. I wish he would stay out of it.
Gravenstone
@Fleeting Expletive: Last I saw reported, she’s actually complying with the subpoena as it relates to campaign related documents. Has something changed?
James E Powell
@Kay:
In national elections during my lifetime, the party that was scared always lost. Do we believe Trump is corrupt and committed crimes in office? If yes, we have to impeach him for it or we cannot argue that we ought to be elected.
FelonyGovt
@Kay: I think the constant grifting, and wholesale transfer of money to Trump’s hotels and other properties, and the resulting influences on US foreign policy, are grossly underreported. I think public, televised hearings on that subject (if not on others) might penetrate the brains of the majority of people who don’t follow politics.
Of course, that assumes that the hearings ARE televised… don’t know if we can assume that in this day and age.
Cacti
Professor Tribe also thought there was no way that SCOTUS could side with Dubya in the Bush v. Gore election theft.
trollhattan
@Litlebritdifrnt:
After 2+ years it still boggles my mind that he sees the entirety of his presidential role through the lens of a B-list reality show “star.”
Kay
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Around here they are the Lefty construction trades union. My son is a member and he’s a Bernista. We’re having a friendly competition, Warren v Bernie. I think I’m winning but he hardly talks at all so that may be just my yammering at him until he’s exhausted :)
rikyrah
@Kay:
She can do this and blunt Biden’s ‘ but, Trump is an anomaly, by pointing out the level of corruption, up and down with the GOP, bring up Turtle and his wife and those articles about them from this week.
Plato
@Kay:
Or…
Baud
@Kay:
Why is the Warren campaign staffed with electricians?
Mandalay
@Betty Cracker:
For weeks the media has been shamelessly pushing quotes from anonymous White House sources insisting that Trump is scared shitless of running against Biden, while treating Biden with kid gloves.
I guess it’s possible that Trump really is scared of Biden, but I find it far more likely that he believes he can easily beat “creepy Joe”, who has repeatedly shown himself to be a mediocre and gaffe prone campaigner, and actually wants to run against him.
So the Administration deliberately feeds total bullshit to our gullible media, which obediently regurgitates it for their clueless readers.
Cacti
@Mandalay:
Our only hope is the guy who honeymooned in the Soviet Union, and called Venezuela a model for Latin America. ;-) ;-)
Another Scott
@Mandalay: No link, but there recently was a brief story about Biden’s $1.mumble Trillion climate change proposal. The usual suspects were screaming “Plagiarism” before the ink was even dry. You know that there’s a warehouse full of banker’s boxes out there of Uncle Joe’s “gaffes” that the GOP, and the press, can’t wait to use. They paid good money for it, after all…
“We must feed the narrative!!11”
Cheers,
Scott.
Omnes Omnibus
@James E Powell: Do you really think that Warren is perceived as a successful Rutgers Law grad and not a former Harvard Law professor?
lumpkin
To put it bluntly but as politely as possible: The Democrats are too timid to do this.
trollhattan
@Kay:
Good times. ;-)
Has she, or anybody, tackled a federal response to right-to-work states, which have virtually neutered unionization?
rikyrah
@Betty Cracker:
I read a comment the other day at another blog, and can’t find it anymore. But, to this person, they believe that progressives aren’t looking deep enough to why Southern Black voters are going for Biden. They have no illusions as to where they live, nor with the people that they live with….which is why they look to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT for protection against the state governments, which are nothing but hostile to them. Remember, these state governments were no less hostile to them during 44’s Administration, but, they had a FEDERAL APPARATUS which they believed, provided a layer of protection for them. They see what NOT having that – in Dolt45….and, they want it back. They don’t need to be ‘ inspired’. They just want some sort of barrier of protection.
I hadn’t thought of it that way, but, it makes a lot of sense.
Cacti
I often find that whatever the kneejerk position of the BJ front page is on any issue du jour, the opposite is usually true.
Betty Cracker
@Another Scott: I’m hoping Biden flames out early, as he has in past runs. It’ll be harder to wash out this time since he upgraded his career beyond anything he could have personally accomplished by serving as PBO’s wingman. But the self-own on the Hyde Amendment, the cringey jokes, etc., tell me he’s probably up to the task.
Kay
@trollhattan:
No, but that’s a good question. Campaign people work hard and God knows the candidates raise enough to pay them decently. They should organize.
Ruckus
This is what I have been wanting all along, as the senate is bought and paid for and until that is blatantly clear to most everyone, including the senate, impeachment goes nowhere. The senate will not do the right thing until it’s obvious that not doing the right thing is far worse for them. And they may not do it then.
Tribe just says it better.
rikyrah
They can start with his impeachment ??
Barr: “It’s Not a Crime” for Trump to Demand Staffers Lie to Investigators https://t.co/m2ZFObqhvx
— Muckmaker™ (@RealMuckmaker) June 5, 2019
TenguPhule
@bbleh:
That’s already starting to change.
Trump appointees are already ruling IOKIYAR.
Plato
Yet another potential pitfall.
TenguPhule
@Kay:
Come sit by me.
rikyrah
Trump’s approval rating is currently more than a dozen points (12!) underwater in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa — all states he won in 2016 https://t.co/IZBIjOk09E
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 5, 2019
Kay
@Baud:
LOL
The “high voltage” electricians make fun of the “data” people because the data people are smarter and yet they make less. I assume it’s because they came in later, when we decided we had to pay everyone lower wages to fund obscene CEO bonuses.
This is amusing to them. “Okay, brainiac, now who is boss?”
There may be a culture clash when Warren’s policy nerds come in :)
Major Major Major Major
@Cacti:
Don’t impeach trump
Hooray for straight pride parades
Let’s invade Iran
Ducks are ugly
There is no threat to election security
Joe Biden is a young progressive hero
Campaign donations are futile
Cacti
@Major Major Major Major:
Dronez are teh worst thing evar!
Abandon the ACA becuz no public option!
Bernie will be good for the 2016 race and will pull Hillary to the left!
Julian Assange is a hero!
Edward Snowden is a hero!
Glenn Greenwald is a true progressive!
Shall we continue?
Ruckus
@NotMax:
Facts not in evidence.
You haven’t established that there is a brain for blood to flow to.
Another Scott
@Betty Cracker: +1.
Just about every story about Biden – as a candidate – since he’s announced has been bad.
TheCut:
He, and his campaign, are trying to have it both ways. It won’t work – not now. If his campaign can’t keep him on message on something as obvious as the Hyde Amendment, then they need to find another line of work.
Why didn’t he go to the CADems convention? Afraid he’d say something controversial again?
tl;dr – He shouldn’t be running, he should be retired and acting as a “wise-man/surrogate”. As it is, he’s sucking valuable oxygen out of the room…
Cheers,
Scott.
Another Scott
@Another Scott: Moderation? Really??!!
Help?
Cheers,
Scott.
Major Major Major Major
@Cacti: you’re largely just listing things Cole says, and he doesn’t even read this blog. And perhaps my memory is faulty but I thought we were “pass the damn bill” central in 2010.
rikyrah
???
Who’s Paying For Trump Jr., Eric, Lara and Tiffany Trump’s U.K. State Dinner Trip? https://t.co/Ov2ruao7x9
— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) June 6, 2019
TenguPhule
@Kay: Roberts court has already ruled that Unions must coddle free riders because “Fuck you, Unions.”
Kay
@rikyrah:
That makes me smile. They’ll come out of the woodwork, though. His supporters are rabid.
Ours are perpetually disgruntled. We can’t even get them to vote the whole ballot. They “drop off”, which I always picture as despair and exhaustion- literally dropping to the floor :)
“That’s IT. That’s all I can do”
TenguPhule
@Baud:
To keep her well grounded.
Betty Cracker
@Major Major Major Major: The food here SUCKS! And the portions are SO SMALL! ?
Cacti
@Major Major Major Major:
Selective amnesia is a common malady for you cool kids club members. ;-)
Kay
@TenguPhule:
I think it’s in flux, though. I don’t think it was the death knell that Roberts intended. This is a resilient idea, organizing and collective bargaining. No one has ever come up with anything to replace it. There aren’t endless ways to do everything. This is an old idea! People keep insisting on doing it. There’s state power- regulation- and then private org power- unions. There aren’t 15 other choices. West Virginia teachers were interesting. They weren’t allowed to strike. But that’s the collective action. Does someone have a better idea? Call it whatever you want, they said, and then went on strike.
TenguPhule
@Major Major Major Major:
Perhaps you could ask the Warren campaign to help with that. //
TenguPhule
@Kay:
Problem is that Unions need money too. What Roberts did was to cut them and wait for them to bleed out. Those assholes who refuse to pay dues but insist on receiving all the benefits of Union representation are parasites and enough parasites feeding on a host will inevitably weaken it.
And employers can use that against the Unions. Appealing to people’s selfishness tends to be sadly too successful.
Kay
@TenguPhule:
I actually think Fight for Fifteen was genius. Because no one had done that before. No one had said “we’re not in a union but we’re going to act like we are”. That opened up a world of possibilities, like “that’s a wildcat strike!” in West Virginia. They say “okay whatever, counselor,- see ya!” The acting is the thing.
TenguPhule
@Kay:
Actually its older then you think. Of course, back then it was common for employers to use violence to intimidate and crack down on that sort of behavior.
The bad news is that it only works the first couple of times. Eventually the employers start to fight back and there is a large resource difference between them and individual workers.
Mandalay
@TenguPhule:
I live in a so called “right to work” state (Florida) and for several years I worked for a Fortune 500 company. Every employee was required to watch a 15 minute video every year, which savaged unions and explained why any employee who was invited to join a union should reply by saying “Fuck off and die in agony you maggot!”. (Perhaps not the exact words but that was definitely the sentiment.)
The company itself was no better or worse than your average Fortune 500 company, and they did all the usual moves to give themselves a veneer of respectability: token black faces in anything promoting the company, hurricane help, donating to charities, supporting the local community, etc. But when it came to unions the gloves came off and their dark (true) side came out. They hated the very concept of unions with an irrational zeal.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Jesus
this was the Laura Ingram interview he held up the whole ceremony for. But he managed to read his whole speech from a teleprompter
chopper
@Major Major Major Major:
also, this place was in no way bernie central. at all.
TenguPhule
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Trump needs to be considered an open target for attack while overseas by Democrats.
The old norms no longer apply. I hope the party realizes this before its too late.
TenguPhule
@Mandalay:
I assume this means they fucked with your vacation, medical, work hours and retirement planning. And considered everyone human resources instead of employed human beings.
Major Major Major Major
@chopper: haters, as they say, gonna hate.
rikyrah
5 GOP senators running in states where Trump is underwater in approval in Morning Consult polls:
Cory Gardner
Joni Ernst
Susan Collins
Martha McSally
Thom Tillis
1 Dem in state where Trump has positive net approval:
Doug Jones
Ds need +4 (or 3+VP) to take Senate control.
— Steven Dennis (@StevenTDennis) June 5, 2019
Emerald
@Brachiator: Actually I think Lichthman did not get the 2016 election correct. His calculations are based on the popular vote, which Twitler lost by a lot.
James E Powell
@Omnes Omnibus:
I wasn’t talking about how she is perceived. She is and has been so much more than a Harvard law professor. And most of that was before she worked there.
Cacti
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
The RNC chair told us only days ago that D-Day is a day when we should be honoring Trump.
Even lifelong R corruption apologist George Will has finally broken down and acknowledged that his party has degenerated into a cult.
TenguPhule
Trump has corrupted the DHS from the top all the way down. its 1984 in 2019.
TenguPhule
His dementia is getting worse.
rikyrah
@TenguPhule:
so, if they are ‘ rented babies’, then it doesn’t matter if we keep up with them…
see….this lie to cover their deliberate ‘losing’ of these children.
Matt
Solve the McConnell problem the straightforward way: impeach his ass simultaneously. I have 100% confidence he knew exactly where the NRA was getting all that dark money, and he and his wife have been going for the gusto with graft this whole time. A criminal shouldn’t get to run his co-conspirator’s trial.
janesays
The only scenario in which McTurtle would allow Trump to be convicted in a Senate impeachment trial is if he calculates that the cost of not removing him would far exceed the cost of keeping him in office – specifically, he must be convinced that not only is the White House a lost cause in 2020, but that he’s going to lose 5 or more senate seats and his majority in the process if he doesn’t allow for conviction. The senatortoise has no genuine loyalty to this president, he views him as a means to an end. The guy who will give him the judges he tells him to appoint and signs the laws he tells him to sign. If Cocaine Mitch knows that he’s not only going to lose that guy but also his ability to thwart the Democrats because of his loyalty to the president, he’ll abandon him.
Mel
@MattF: Agreed. We would need to have honest, impartial media that would “translate” it and / or nutshell it for the people who either won’t watch it because it’s too “boring” or because they feel it would be too complex and full of legalese to follow, or who are working hours that don’t allow them time to watch it or read full transcripts. And we know how likely full, impartial coverage is…
We seem also have a lack of Dems who are ready and willing to break down the complexities of what’s going on into palatable, catchy sound bytes. I hate like hell to think that’s necessary to communicate with voters, but 2016 and Faux News have clearly demonstrated that, sadly, a lot of people in this country form the entirety of their opinions based upon catch phrases and emotive media clips. So maybe it’s high time that we hit back consistently and repeatedly with some of the same techniques, since being reasoned and reasonable seems to get lost in the greater wall of sound byte noise being generated by Repubs.
Ted Lieu stands out as one of the Reps who calls it like it is, and can communicate the gist of things in Twitter sized statements. The problem is that he and others who are calling it like it is are not getting front and center media exposure. How many average voters are going to actively seek out Ted Lieu’s Twitter feed, unless they first see and hear him on the good old tv news,
Sen. Tammy Duckworth is another person who isn’t afraid to state the truth and clearly call out the BS that’s taking place. But the general media only gives her a blip of time when her comments are related to something military. Her expertise in military issues and her dedication to fighting for service people are a good part of what she speaks about and works for on a daily basis, but why aren’t we making sure that she gets airtime and exposure for all the other issues she fights for, and all the times she calls BS on both siderism, as well?
Of course, we have AOC who is a Twitter Queen and uses social media brilliantly. But we need more of our Reps and Senators out there, highly visible, being given time and opportunity to take the fight to the venue that seems to count most with undecided voters or less engaged individuals, and that, sadly, is tv “news”. So, why aren’t voters regularly seeing Sharice Davids, Maxine Waters, Ben Lujan, Sherrod Brown, etc., so that people hear their words, see and remember their faces, and get their messages?
How do we get there? I don’t know. Maybe the communication problem is partly a technique or policy issue (again with the calm, non-confrontational, and reasonable approach, which we’d like to work but which isn’t working); maybe it’s an issue of news outlets just not allowing equal time and / or not soliciting or not airing full commentary from Dems that come out swinging.
Whatever the barrier is, we need to get vocal, loud, and extremely visible to EVERYONE assp, and keep on being so. If Tribe’s suggestion helps even a little with that, I’m good with it.
rikyrah
Trump’s Approval Rating Drops in Some Red States
rikyrah
Anyone else interested in that movie where the guy wakes up from an accident and nobody has heard of The Beatles?
It’s called Yesterday.
James E Powell
@rikyrah:
The size of his margins was increased across the board by hatred of Hillary Clinton. Some of that was the bizarre concoction of conspiracy theories and twisted, inconsistent beliefs about her personally, but most of it was plain old misogyny. Has anything reduced the plain old misogyny since 2016? I think that, more than anything, is creating the glut of boring white guys who think that being white male Democrat is enough to beat Trump in 2020.
I’d bet all his +/- margins will improve for him once he is running against any Democrat. Republicans’ hatred of us is more powerful than their love of their own.
Dan B
@Betty Cracker: Harry Reid’s former staffer said the lesson should be drawn from Merrick Garland. Dems coukd have used stronger measures to force Mcconnell’s hand but didn’t. They assumed Hillary would win and appoint Garland. Politics first rule is use the power you have when you have it. If you don’t you have surrendered that power.
What’s not being discussed by Pelosi is what happens uf Trump wins in 2020. It looks to be a very corrupt election. Which would be followed by a surge of corruption and purges. Suppression of the media and kangaroo courts.
So a Panel to coordinate inquiries would be great. Especially as a minority with a target on my back. If Trump / Pence / Pompeo / Miller etc have their way unobstructed for two years and a couole years of trials after 2020, or dog forbid 2024, it feels urgent. For refugee kids who are being denied medicine and bkack and trans who are being ginned down it’s already too late.
janesays
@Matt: That will never happen, if for no other reason because Pelosi would never allow the House to launch an impeachment inquiry against one of her own congressional colleagues in the senate. I don’t believe any member of Congress has ever been impeached in our entire 243 year history. As far as I know, the only way to remove a member of Congress is for the chamber of Congress to which the member belongs to vote to expel the member themselves.
Dan B
@schrodingers_cat: Yes! Go Kamala!! Imagine if T steals election 2020. Will all brown, black, and Muslim Green Card holders be subject to extra “interviews”? Will Federalist judges skirt any oretense of the rule of law?
Betty Cracker
@Dan B: I heard something about Reid’s former staffer’s comments (Jentleson, I think?). Will have to take a look at that. I’m not sure what stronger measures they could have used, but if there were options left on the table, yeah, what he said. That was theft of a seat, plain and simple.
Philbert
@James E Powell: yup. Also disapproval of Trump is different from actually voting for the Dem, similar to support for Generic Democrat vs any actual Democrat. Dammitall. I think we need an extra 5%, plus gerrymandering. We need a strong win to win. Bribery and cash corruption is easily understood, much more so than the labrinth of Trump-Russia. Bring on the hearings!
AM in NC
@Kay: When I was a grad student at the University of Iowa we organized and won the right to unionize. UBEW was the union who would have us.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@janesays: A Senator was impeached by the House in the 1790’s. As the piece on the Senate’s website notes, he was expelled by his colleagues and the Senate did not convict(he was already gone).
rikyrah
Finally watching Maddow from last night.
So, because the Irish Government wouldn’t meet Dolt45 at his phucking Golf Club…
They forced the meeting at some room AT THE PHUCKING AIRPORT?
Even after being offered a CASTLE, where other Presidents have attended meetings.
THE.GODDAMNED.AIRPORT?
ARE.YOU.SERIOUS???
UncleEbeneezer
@Brachiator: Would love to see that happen, but not holding my breath…
J R in WV
@Kay:
Pretty sure our Republican-controlled legislature just did pass a mew edumacation bill, which pours money into “Charter Schools” AND makes it yet more illegal for teachers to go on strike.
Now, I thought it was already illegal for teachers to go on strike. But what’s a poor school board to do?
There’s already a shortage of teachers, unless they decide to hire minders for the classrooms, and have one teacher for each grade at the Board officer, broadcast into each classroom, one teacher for first grade, one for second grade, etc. Think parents would go ballistic that very day!
J R in WV
@Matt:
Can’t be done… I’m pretty sure the Senate decides who sits in the Senate, and same for the House. So as long as a bare majority of Senators approve of Senator McConnell, R-Russia, he’s good to keep on running America down. Could be wrong, not gonna look it up, but that’s how they keep corruption out, the body seats it’s members. Hahah.
sgrAstar
@Major Major Major Major: don’t forget:
Great Danes are loozers and not at all cute or lovable
Cat Rescue Sucks
ActBlue donations are pointless
Another Scott
@Another Scott: RawStory – Biden caves after massive backlash:
As BooMan noted at WaMo, even if he eventually ended up at the right place, Biden showed that he’s not a reliable ally and has greatly weakened his chances of getting the nomination.
And there hasn’t been a single debate yet…
Cheers,
Scott.