Speaker Pelosi is scheduled to deliver an impeachment status update at 9 AM:
Will Pelosi fast-track impeachment as expected according to the “urgent new argument” CNN reports on below, or is all this talk of an expedited impeachment a briar patch gambit?
Democrats are injecting an urgent new argument into their already fast-moving impeachment drive: President Donald Trump poses such a flagrant threat to the republic that there is no time to waste.
Their emerging gambit is prompting Trump’s GOP defenders — who have long struggled to coalesce around a coherent strategy of their own — to launch a fresh counterattack, warning that that a rush to condemn the President proves the Democratic case is shallow and politically motivated. The President himself appeared to contradict that defense Thursday morning, tweeting, “if you are going to impeach me, do it now, fast, so we can have a fair trial in the Senate, and so that our Country can get back to business.”
I have no idea, but maybe this statement will clear that up. On Twitter, Trump is babbling about calling Schiff and Joe Biden in to testify in the senate trial. Giuliani is running around Europe right now doing the dirty work that Ukrainian President Zelensky did not have to do thanks to the whistleblower, i.e., manufacture dirt on the Bidens.
Interesting times. Open thread.
painedumonde
History will not be kind, if there is one. For we have always been at war with Eastasia.
Ceci n est pas mon nym
Can’t connect to CSPAN! Can’t connect to any site that might have the video! You people are clogging up the tubes! YEEAAAAARGH!
Betty Cracker
The short version: the Democrats are moving forward with impeachment.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I absolutely agree, but… do they really think they can get 20 Rs to go along by going faster?
John Dean had an interesting– I don’t know if it’s actually Constitutional– idea on twitter.
Cheryl Rofer
There it is. Articles of Impeachment to be drafted.
We knew this was coming, but she’s made it official.
Carefully crafted speech. She knows it’s going into the history books.
Elizabelle
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I like the John Dean/George Conway approach. Keep investigating.
We really, really need to see Trump’s financials and tax records, that he’s been hiding forever. Investigate, investigate, investigate.
It’s not just Ukraine. Although his transgressions there are certainly impeachable.
germy
Trump’s friend’s friend:
Betty Cracker
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: That is an interesting idea, and if it’s possible, it removes or at least mitigates one of the most dangerous aspects of Trump’s almost certain acquittal by the Senate Trumpublicans: that it will embolden him to commit even more outrageous crimes, including soliciting further foreign interference to rig the 2020 election in his favor.
Cheryl Rofer
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: The calculation is not simply getting some number of Rs to come along. Trump is a danger to the nation, and he’s rapidly getting worse.
Whether it’s dementia or his normal modus operandi of turning over ALL the tables, impeachment can’t drag things out. North Korea is threatening some sort of crisis, for one example. Our NATO partners are nervous.
Something to consider about an impeachment is that Trump will be weakened by it, no matter what the behavior of Republicans in the Senate. I’ve been saying this forever, and I’m finally seeing it in some of the more thoughtful and historically-based op-eds, one in the Times over the weekend.
Crashman06
@Cheryl Rofer: Honestly just curious but why do you think he’d be functionally weakened by an acquittal? From my admittedly amateur thinking, he’d have a concrete example of his party continuing to defend him. After the Mueller investigation, the story goes that he felt vindicated and immediately started this whole thing with Ukraine. Wouldn’t he feel the same way after this?
SFAW
Just can’t stop lying, can he?
Frankensteinbeck
@Crashman06:
I also question this. The press will move on. The press were already moving on. The ‘transcript’ confession moved the polls, but the hearings haven’t been. Trump won’t stop anything he isn’t forced to stop. McConnell won’t budge. Trump isn’t relying on convincing wavering congressmen to get him anything he wants. An impeachment will be a political statement, and that’s it. I was hoping it would happen late enough that it could be used as a club against McConnell in the general election. I’ll cross my fingers on that, but this seems too early.
Betty Cracker
@SFAW: Telling the opposite of the truth as usual. Giuliani ain’t running around Europe talking to discredited Ukrainian prosecutors without Trump’s blessing. So they’ll openly do what they were trying to get Zelensky to do: make up a bunch of shit about Biden.
James E Powell
@Cheryl Rofer:
Agreed, but are any of the Great Mass of Real Americans changing their minds about him? We need some movement.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Betty Cracker: not just trump’s blessing
Elizabelle
I see that Speaker Pelosi made her statement in suffragette white, beige, whatevs. A conscious choice.
Quicksand
Dr. Joseph Dolan: You know, it’s a shame about Ed.
Fletch: Oh, it was. Yeah, it was really a shame. To go so suddenly like that.
Dr. Joseph Dolan: Ahh, he was dying for years.
Fletch: Sure, but… the end was really… very sudden.
Dr. Joseph Dolan: He was in intensive care for eight weeks!
Fletch: Yeah, but I mean the very end, when he actually died. That was extremely sudden.
Frankensteinbeck
@Betty Cracker:
Leaks and his behavior have made it clear Trump believes the dirt is real and he’s not asking Zelensky to make up anything… but what about his people? Surely it takes a delusional dimwit of the highest order to believe Crowdstrike. Trump does. Does Rudy? I’m going with ‘yes’ because he has been incoherent on TV. But the rest must know it doesn’t exist and either be going through motions to placate Trump and get free European vacations, or trying to manufacture a fake.
Ceci n est pas mon nym
OK, finally watched it.
Why does nobody push back on the “do-nothing House” meme the Orange Idiot puts into every tweet? Today’s version is “so they can get back to business”. List the bills passed by the House. List the bills passed by the Senate, or even introduced.
It’s not the House which has been failing to do its job.
burnspbesq
@Betty Cracker:
Which will be pretty amusing if Biden ends up not being the nominee.
Cheryl Rofer
@Crashman06: Because of the historical precedents. Nixon’s impeachment never came to trial. The hearnings were enough to force him out of office. Johnson was severely weakened, and his bad actions curtailed. There were WaPo and NYT op-eds this weekend from historians on the Johnson impeachment.
At the beginning of the Nixon impeachment hearings, 19% of voters thought he should be impeached. We’re now at around 50%.
Okay, cite Clinton’s impeachment at me. That didn’t seem to weaken him much. The charges were fake, a Republican stunt, and everyone knew it. You can interpret that as part of today’s politics, so no change in Trump’s behavior. Additionally, as you say, Trump and his goons don’t care and will continue criming. That’s possible.
The unknown factor is whether Republican Senators and others of their political class really want to hold tight a president who acts like a crime boss. Mitt Romney and one senator I don’t recall said that Trump’s Ukraine has the server fantasy was wrong over the weekend and firmly sided with the intelligence community that Russia hacked the 2016 election. There are ever-present pusillanimous Republicans who complain anonymously to reporters that they’re unhappy with their boss. This is the way to find out where they’ll come down.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Cheryl Rofer:
I don’t know which case you’re thinking of, but I’m pretty sure Lindsey Fuckign Graham spoke up against the Ukraine conspiracy
Cheryl Rofer
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Wow! I’m not thinking of Graham, because I would have remembered him.
Frankensteinbeck
@Cheryl Rofer:
McConnell does. As long as McConnell does, who else does Trump need? Again, he’s not trying to convince senators of anything except confirming appointees, and he can go around that as long as McConnell blocks congress from acting to stop him. Hell, it’s no secret the congress hates Trump on a personal level and are supporting him for other reasons. I don’t see what he loses.
Baud
@Cheryl Rofer:
Has he gotten a blow job since? If confident that if he had another affair in the last 20 years, we would have learned about it.
tobie
I’ve learned not to second-guess Nancy Pelosi about much of anything. That said, I thought the Intelligence Committee hearings were really effective and I wouldn’t mind seeing more witnesses come before that committee. Lindsay Graham will orchestrate the entire next phase of the process not only to exonerate Trump but to smear Democrats, especially Biden and Schiff. FOX will lend him a hand to make the trial a perfect made for TV event. Americans will be confused and shrug and spout the bullshit line, “Both sides are so corrupt.”
Hoodie
@Frankensteinbeck: I doubt Trump really “believes” anything. He believes it to the extent he wants it to be true and because it serves his political interests, and I doubt Rudy is any different. Giuliani’s trip is about feeding the goobers with more conspiracy theories. He’s going James O’Keefe on this trip, doing an alternative facts pseudo-documentary. It’s ultimately incomprehensible what drives these guys except that whatever it is, it’s bad.
Crashman06
@Cheryl Rofer: Thanks for explaining. That’s interesting. I’m not quite sure I agree, but that may be my fatalism talking; I don’t have much faith in those Republican senators and I don’t know if historical precedent is much of a guide here. But I hope I’m wrong!
Betty Cracker
@Frankensteinbeck: I agree that Trump and Giuliani probably actually believe this bullshit and that the rest (Barr, et all) are just placating that pair of lunatics. If the leaked drafts are accurate, the Horowitz report will dump some cold water on their “deep state” claims. Wingnut propagandists who have perches in the MSM have been talking that report up for months (Hugh Hewitt, etc.), and its fizzle should blow up in their faces and reveal what a steaming load of horse shit the whole yarn is, but I’m too cynical to think it really will. We’ll see.
JMG
The difference between all three prior impeachments and Trump’s is that the first three were lame ducks. In 1868 Grant was going to be the next President and everyone knew it. There had just been a midterm when Clinton was impeached and the country made it very clear it opposed the idea. Nixon’s impeachment was in the sweet spot just before the second midterm and GOP members knew Nixon was an anchor around their necks. Trump is going to run again. I can’t imagine this helps him, however. Yeah, it’ll rile up “the base.” They’re always riled up anyway. It does allow Democrats to say, “we proved this man was a danger to the country and the GOP stood by him. Now it’s up to you to stop Trump.” It is always good politics to give voters the idea their vote is to do something important.
Cheryl Rofer
It’s tempting to look at things as they are now and assume the future won’t be much different. And certainly the Republicans have held fast to positions that, in the past, politicians would have found untenable.
But action changes the situation. The historical analogies are imperfect, but change happens. Demonstrations are being planned for the various steps in impeachment, and if you want impeachment and removal, get out there!
Things may move very fast now. If one Republican breaks ranks, others will.
Chyron HR
I’m shocked to hear people now complaining that Pelosi is moving too quickly with impeachment.
The Moar You Know
@burnspbesq: The writing has been on the wall since day one, but a lot of folks here didn’t want to acknowledge it; Biden is going to be the nominee.
rp
I think the politics of this change once he’s actually impeached. No matter how terrible the media is, and no matter how dug in his supporters are, seeing a President get impeached for the third time in U.S. history will have an impact, especially when that president is historically unpopular.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Cheryl Rofer: quick google only turns up Romney and Graham, but they’re the ones who would get the attention. Murkowski or Portman wouldn’t create many ripples
Bruce K
McConnell will be in Trump’s corner exactly as long as he believes Trump provides a net benefit to McConnell’s (and by extension, the GOP’s) chances to retain power. That will change the moment McConnell decides that Trump is a net liability to him personally, and that stabbing Trump in the back is the better play for McConnell personally.
The problem is, I don’t see any good options left for the GOP, just several varieties of suicide, and McConnell and the GOP may end up settling for the “taking you all with me” variety.
Leto
I hope if Trumpov calls Schiff and Biden to testify, they refuse the subpoenas and let the courts take until 2023 to decide things. Seems only fitting.
Chyron HR
@Cheryl Rofer:
Yeah, the Democrats made out like fucking Gangbusters in the 2000 election, didn’t we?
Cheryl Rofer
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Nah, it was someone else too. I recall thinking it was someone I didn’t know well.
Leto
@Chyron HR: Considering that this time in the Clinton impeachment the House had passed the articles (took 71 days total), yeah, they’re dishonest PoS. They’re the same people who bicker with the size of slice of cake you cut for them. Fuck’em
Crashman06
@Cheryl Rofer:
@JMG:
I do believe that impeachment is important for keeping our side engaged and energized before the election, even if it results in an acquittal. I think it benefits the Dems more than Trump supporters.
Betty Cracker
@JMG: Good points. The best case scenario (IMO) is a huge backlash against Republicans up and down the ticket. The worst case scenario is that the bullshit Giuliani and Co. come up with against Biden works like the bogus accusations of corruption against Clinton worked in 2016.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I see the truth in this. Will it be enough….? Who the fuck knows?
Cheryl Rofer
So the two who are disagreeing with me about Clinton in detail are agreeing with my larger thesis that impeachment itself weakens a president.
CaseyL
If this goes to a Senate trial, are the prosecutors limited to the witnesses who testified during the impeachment hearings, or can more witnesses be called? Can additional evidence be presented?
(I realize this may be a procedural issue that the Chief Justice decides.)
chopper
what i love is how the GOP has settled on the theory that 1) it was ukraine who interfered with the 2016 election, not russia, and 2) it’s fine for trump to ask that they do it again.
i mean, the first is just stupid, but the second is mind-boggling.
Hoodie
@Cheryl Rofer: One theory is that Republican senators are holding out until after the primary season. I was wondering why they were adopting a version of Trump’s “perfect call” defense, when a more practical alternative would be to say something like “yeah, it’s wrong, but not impeachable.” However, if you’re in the tank for Trump, it’s probably safer to go full immersion to keep him from turning on you, i.e., in for a penny and all that. That’s why Turley’s ridiculous “not enough evidence” defense might actually be important. They may want to give themselves the option to do the Claude Rains thing, e.g., as the trial proceeds, they get past the primaries and it looks like his numbers with the base are starting to fade, that can say something like “Well, I’m shocked he did all that!” and then jump on the bandwagon.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Betty Cracker: My political philosophy these days is, “Who the fuck knows?”, I am a typing shrug emoji, but I’ve been wondering if ol’ Uncle Joe actually testifying wouldn’t give him a “Have you left… no sense of decency?” moment.
Of course, being Joe, he’d churn out three minutes of word salad, with some “C’mon, man!” dressing. But people seem to like word salad.
JMG
@Betty Cracker: Twenty five years of calumny had given many voters the impression Hillary Clinton was dishonest. Plus, she was a woman. Joe Biden’s public persona, for better or worse, is cheery old Granddad who’s a bit of a bumbler, but with a heart of gold. Hard to play the “he’s a crook” card because it goes against the image. And while his son is an obvious grifter, bringing in the family tree is a double-edged sword for the Trump campaign.
low-tech cyclist
I agree, but unless the GOP wall in the Senate is crumbling, I don’t see how impeaching him reduces that threat.
Put me in the “pass Ukraine-related articles of impeachment, then pass Mueller-related articles of impeachment, then pass babies-in-cages-related articles of impeachment, and then keep going” camp.
Ruckus
@Frankensteinbeck:
It’s very difficult to tell what an delusional person actually believes or doesn’t. And most of the leading republicans are actually acting delusional, in that they believe things that just aren’t true. Even at their base level most of the drivel they believe isn’t life, it’s what they think it should be. It’s a delusional world they live in and they actively work at it. They desperately want it to be true, but that doesn’t make it so.
And no one can convince me that trump isn’t delusional. He may have been playing a game for decades but now? He believes things that just are not true, about himself specifically and about the world as well.
Betty Cracker
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I’m Team Fuckifino too.
@JMG: True about the double-edged sword, but Trump’s goal isn’t to convince anyone that he’s less corrupt (as if) but to muddy the waters enough that the media/low-info voters do the both-sides shuffle. That could totally work with the Bidens, IMO, while also diminishing what could be a giant mandate for Democrats up and down the ticket: to root out corruption more broadly.
Gin & Tonic
@chopper: Except it doesn’t even appear that they’re asking *Ukraine* to do it again – they are asking rogue and discredited Ukrainian ex-officials and shady oligarchs for help. Rudy went to Kyiv, and Zelensky’s people said a) they only found out about it from the media and b) they have no plans to meet with him. So all they’ve got is Shokin and Lutsenko and some people in the Pinchuk and Kolomoisky orbits.
rikyrah
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I am inclined to listen to John Dean, since, well, he knows what he lived.
The con man Conway…um,…no.
rikyrah
@germy:
$2.2 BILLION in money laundering?
Well…if you gonna be a crook…go all the way
waysel
@Cheryl Rofer: I saw a bit about that Kennedy guy changing his tune again, yesterday, but I didn’t click to read it.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@waysel: he said he doesn’t want to talk about Ukraine anymore. I think he very much wants to be a Very Serious Person, but politically needs to be a trump apologist, and he lost his balance a bit.
Kay
@low-tech cyclist:
Democrats hope it will harm vulnerable GOP Senators. They’re trying to distance themselves from Trump in a cowardly, absent way and this forces them to defend him.
The US House was already pre-cleared of moderate Republicans- they lost their seats in the 2018 wave- which is partly why you’re seeing such lock-step obedience to Trump there, but the Senate is different. They still have vulnerability there. That pays dividends in a presidential race too, because senate races are statewide and it there will be a D ticket – top two races (unless there’s a governor too).
Immanentize
@James E Powell: Actually, we only need a little movement either in the area of changed minds or the actuarial reality. Just a little and in the right places.
Kay
As usual with Trump he gets too much credit. It was easier to hold the House together because the more moderate Republicans who might have bucked Dear Leader had already lost their seats.
So, you know, “victory!” Whatever. It’s VERY pure and loyal. A minority now, to be sure, but a VERY obedient minority. And you all know what that gets you in a legislature. Nothing except a lot of yelling.
But Trump doesn’t give a shit about congressional Republicans. He only likes executive orders and strutting around insulting people anyway. The parts of the job he likes don’t need them at all.
Ceci n est pas mon nym
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Well, that’s interesting.
I don’t believe for a minute that Graham believed the official line, but he was obediently pushing it. Trump and/or Putin held something over him that kept him from straying. We all saw in 2016 how Graham went from never-Trumper to sycophant in one golf meeting.
So he’s obviously feeling safe in ignoring whatever he was being blackmailed with. Or feeling more pressure from another direction. Either way, I choose to take this as a positive sign that Trump/Putin are losing control of the minions and the dam is about to do some further bursting.
Ruckus
@Ceci n est pas mon nym:
Not one of those bills do the republicans feel is a good or appropriate bill. So with the wave of a dead brain cell they just don’t consider them as real at all. If they did their entire line of bullshit would smell to everyone, not just the non true believers.
kindness
Early on I read several legal folk say a President can only be impeached once. I have not seen that written in any laws. They may have been speaking of conventional wisdom but in the age of Trump we now understand the unwritten rules aren’t worth the paper we wipe our asses with (if you are a Republican). Anyhow, anyone know if this is true or not?
schrodingers_cat
Indian Finance Minister has landed in hot water for casteist remarks. Some background, the price of onions is soaring in India. Onions are a staple in the Indian diet except the ultra orthodox (some Brahmins and some trading castes). So when Nirmala Sitharaman was asked about it she said that she grew up in a family that did not eat onions, she was heh indeeded by another junior minister outside the parliament.
I even made a lol about it!
You can retweet if you want to give the BJP a sad.
jeffreyw
Felanius Kootea
My mom sent me an article this morning about 350 mental health professionals asking the judiciary committee to consider Trump’s mental state over impeachment. They want to testify before Congress. They think he will be a danger to the country and may induce “mass psychosis” in his followers. Actual petition info here. Since these folks are not supposed to diagnose people who aren’t their patients, they are potentially putting their livelihoods in jeopardy.
randy khan
@Bruce K:
Bingo, except that McConnell will stab Trump in the front if he thinks it’s more expedient.
geg6
@Cheryl Rofer:
Just finished reading the big biography of U.S. Grant and you are totally correct about Johnson (I admit I didn’t know much about the Johnson impeachment until reading it there). And the parallels are interesting. Yes, the impeachment failed. But Johnson went into it pretty unpopular (very unlike, say, Clinton or, much less so but still not super unpopular, Nixon), which is where Trump is. He acted like a total ass all throughout the process and damaged himself in the public eye even more. So even though he was not removed from office, he was so damaged that there was no way to come back. Don’t know if this will happen again, but I like to think so.
gvg
What would change everyone’s calculation is if some republican senator could challenge McConnell’s being majority leader. Does he have any rivals behind the scenes? If a bunch of them see polls that have them losing their seats, they should not just blame Trump, but also McConnell. Based on the way Mc has behaved even before Trump, I have honestly thought he himself could be arrested. I think it’s likely he has been doing financial crimes all along.
randy khan
I’ve long been thinking of impeachment in two ways.
First, and most important, is that it’s justified by Trump’s actions. There are many examples, but the Ukraine stuff is so obvious that the other things pale in comparison. The House needs to impeach because it has a Constitutional duty to do so.
Second is the political side. There is, I suppose, some political risk for the Dems, but I think there is more risk for the Republicans, particularly with strong pluralities (and actual majorities in a lot of polls) supporting it. Getting Republicans on record as supporting a President who sees nothing with using the office for his personal benefit will be helpful in a lot of races (and not just in the Senate). The Republicans know this, which is why they’re blowing so much smoke – they want to make people feel less certain about how bad the President’s actions were. But I really think that making the Senate vote on impeachment, and particularly if there’s a vote after a trial that the Senate Republicans try to curtail or turn into a farce, is a big problem for the Republicans. (And apropos of that, let them call Adam Schiff; I think they’d regret it.)
Elizabelle
@jeffreyw: All of Uncle Blazer’s comments make a lot of sense to me. I think that is the game plan. Thank you, Jeffrey.
PS: I loved the suggestion from a follower that Dems use Turley’s own testimony to advocating slowing down the process, if they find a need for that. Hey, he was the Republicans’ witness.
catclub
@germy: Co-conspirator. Trump has no friends.
chopper
@Chyron HR:
we’re democrats, we’re never happy.
chopper
@Gin & Tonic:
well, trump tried directly with zelenzky, didn’t he.
catclub
This is exactly the kind of thing that ISN’T in the constitution. Double jeopardy is actually mentioned, but not for impeachment. I bet any officer could be impeached for the same thing again and again.
MazeDancer
Trump will be Impeached. That is real. And forever.
It will be in the first line of his obituary. “Donald J. Trump, the impeached 45th …”
Forever shamed. Always and forever. Just like every GOP Senator who chooses to acquit him and place him above the law.
“Senator So-and-So, who voted to acquit Donald Trump…”
Watching the trial will be one, long, painful shamefest for Trump. He will retaliate daily. He will hurt people and the Constitution.
And every horrible thing he does increases the amount of grown women who will be in the streets fighting to bring him down. This week, a friend of mine told me about two wealthy Upper East Siders who were planning a trip from Manhattan to KY to help register voters.
We will win.
Gin & Tonic
@chopper: He tried, but he won’t try again.
chopper
@Gin & Tonic:
obviously.
catclub
@chopper: I think Peosi is being extremely thoughtful about the whole thing. For example, when Cipollone ranted that the whole thing is illegitimate because the House had not voted on an investigation. Any sane person’s first response to that asshole would be “fuck your feelings”, but Pelosi gave it some thought, decided there was merit in that rant, and got the vote.
Likewise on speed. There are merits on both sides.
get all the information – but that requires subpoenas and going through the courts to force testimony. Which might take forever.
Versus the urgency of protecting the upcoming election.
Balancing the two is hard.
Warblewarble
Impeachment IIS the business of house.
tobie
@JMG: Republicans are pretty good at smearing anyone. I thought Schiff was unimpeachable but Trump, FOX and the GOP have managed to convince their rabid base that he’s “shifty” and “shitty.” Trump tweeted something out about Schiff having invested in Franklin Templeton. I’ve got no idea what this is about but I’m assuming he’s playing into a prejudice about Jews and money. Anyhoo…no one’s safe from Republican swiftboating.
catclub
@Elizabelle: yes.
Do not reject all of the GOP arguments of Turley out of hand, just because he was the GOP witness. If they have merit, use them.
Patricia Kayden
tobie
@MazeDancer: I want to believe what you write but I also know that Lindsay Graham will orchestrate the Senate trial so that it ends up being all about Democrats, Crowdstrike, and the Bidens. Best to go into this knowing that in the Senate the Republicans have all the cards.
catclub
That is very strange. (Who knew that Trump could confuse things?)
a quick google search on “Templeton finance religion” shows that Templeton was all about it, in finance.
low-tech cyclist
@Kay:
I agree with all this, Kay, but I don’t see the connection. You’re talking about flipping the Senate effective 1/3/21, and removing Trump effective 1/20/21. Pelosi’s “no time to waste” argument only makes sense if impeachment can lead to Trump’s removal well before those dates.
If the evidence and arguments the public sees and hears can become more convincing (and ideally more enraging) by taking more time and finishing up in, say, April, then my takeaway from what you’re saying is that that would be the best approach, rather than Pelosi’s.
Baud
@tobie:
You realize that’s easier than taking candy from a baby (which actually isn’t as easy as you’d think!).
Jay
MJS
@tobie: There was no “convincing” involved. Schiff’s a Democrat, and therefore wrong, crooked, etc. etc., always and forever in the eyes of the “rabid base.” We need to not worry about what Fox News viewers believe. They are unreachable, but fortunately don’t make up anywhere near the majority of the electorate. If Graham and McConnell rig the Senate trial, that will be readily apparent to thinking people, i.e., those who don’t watch Fox News.
Jay
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-03/camp-pendleton-marine-arrested-at-border-on-suspicion-of-illegally-bringing-immigrants-into-u-s?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true
Good thing y’all are building that wall.
Jay
Somebody said Mifsud?
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/albertonardelli/joseph-mifsud-passport?__twitter_impression=true
MazeDancer
@tobie:
All true.
But it still won’t erase the “impeached” in front of Trump’s name. Forever. Yay, forever!
Plus, the media love Uncle Joe. One of the reasons I am slowly accepting the Wisdom of Black Elders, now that we’ve lost Senator Harris, and coming around to Biden is we can’t win without the media. They love Joe.
The media have consistently inserted “debunked” before Ukraine malarkey. One hopes they continue.
And the good thing about early impeachment is it gets all that garbage over with. And if it totally tanks Biden, well, time for Bloomberg and Steyer to fill in the White Guy role that the media demand.
As long as it’s not Bernie, don’t care who the nom is. Can put up with anyone repairing the damage for 4 years.
Michael Cain
@Ceci n est pas mon nym:
The last time I looked at the bill status information, there were at least 125 non-trivial Senate bills sitting idle in House committees — ie, had been passed in the Senate and sent over, but no hearings or votes were scheduled. Neither chamber is, of course, under any obligation to actually do something with the bills passed by the other chamber.
We have reached a point where the two parties have such different views on where the country should be headed that all but the trivial bills and the non-controversial budget bills are just posturing — there’s no chance that they will ever get to the President’s desk. Most likely, it will end badly.
germy
germy
Barbara
At some point, there just needs to be this one question response to every other defense or tweet or whatever that Trump or Republicans spew: “Hey, Trump, why don’t YOU (and Mulvaney and Perry and McGahn and Bolton) testify and clear this mess right up if there really is nothing there?”
Enhanced Voting Techniques
For the impeachment to work the investigation has to be methodical and relentless so the public understands what happened. I think this call to get it done now is more toddler reverse philology on Trump like what happened to him at the NATO summit. (and will Trump sulk off to one of his resorts after the Dem leadership is “caught” on tape mocking him, we can hope)
japa21
It seems to me that there is a simple solution to the Senate trial. All Senators are considered jurors. Any juror who has been tampered with by the defendant by such means as offering special campaign funds, special lunches at the WH, etc., should be disqualified and expelled from the juror pool. If a guilty verdict requires 67% of those voting, getting rid of all the GOP senators that would fall into that category should do it.
psycholinguist
The arguments that republicans are holding their water post-primary makes some sense to me, and I tend to think if that impeachment poll moves another 3 points there would be a large exodus of senate republicans in competitive districts – he impeachment poll was at 53% at that point Nixon resigned
It also provides the only plausible explanation I can see for Niki Halley’s weird behavior the last several months – I really think she’s anticipating a resignation and scramble for a republican candidate. I think she’d be formidable if that came about.
Betty Cracker
@MazeDancer: What makes you say the media loves Biden? They don’t seem to hate him as much as they hate Hillary Clinton, but the NYT was teeing up a multi-part Biden corruption in Ukraine hit piece by Ken Vogel when the whistleblower interrupted their plan. It’s possible the media will be just as horrible and relentless about Biden as they were about Clinton. He’ll probably give them more material to work with since he’s not nearly as sharp as she was.
MJS
@MazeDancer: The media will love Uncle Joe right up to the point he becomes the nominee. Then it will be “a gaffe machine”; “not up to the job”; ” maybe there’s something there with Hunter/Ukraine.” I hope he and his team are ready for it.
Jay
@Betty Cracker: yup, double yup.
Omnes Omnibus
How will he do this?
Bill Arnold
@Cheryl Rofer:
Read the transcript but haven’t listened to it.
It’s a bit busy intellectually, but pretty good. I liked the end:
I hope this gets noticed, bold mine:
He can’t be impeached for his actions as a candidate, but these actions will not be forgotten, or forgiven.
catclub
Sounds like you and I would also like a pony.
catclub
Why not? Judge Porteous was impeached for acts before he was a judge.
Jay
MazeDancer
@MJS:
Yes
@Betty Cracker:
Going heavily with the Morning Joe scale. Joe, Mika, Mike, lots of their guests are constantly harping on how the Dems need to nominate someone who can appeal to the WWC and disaffected GOP. Like Joe. (Or Pete, Mika has a thing for Pete. She hates all the women, of course.)
Rest of the silly media don’t fight the Morning Joe line.
Yes, the media will turn on Biden. But constant “Pochohantas” and “Socialist” and “She can’t pay for her ideas” along with “Why didn’t the Dems nominate someone who could appeal to white people” won’t be any better. At least we can erase those 4 things.
For every “not up to it” there is the same deal with Trump, so seems like an old guy wash.
And we got two shots at getting a good VP – Harris, Abrams – with a centrist white guy nom. Or Gillum with Klobuchar, but that won’t happen.
When Harris left, I lost passion. Thought she was the only exciting nom with a chance to win. Going with practical now. Like Black Elders in SC.
japa21
@catclub: I’d prefer a unicorn.
grubert
Just a note to everyone.. When asked by a pollster, people can say they’re loyal to “dear leader,” but not actually support him.
I don’t think the polling captures that.
brantl
@Cheryl Rofer: The only kind of president that is weakened by impeachment is one who does care about appearances, which would be default mean he would have to be a democrat, in order for him to care.
zhena gogolia
@MazeDancer:
YOU SOUND JUST LIKE ME. Did you crawl inside my head?
phdesmond
@kindness:
it sounds like the doctrine of double jeopardy, which i’ve never heard of except in connection with criminal court cases.
trnc
@Chyron HR:
Clinton’s impeachment didn’t impact the 2000 election very much, if at all. Repubs tried to make something out of it early on, but it fizzled because everyone knew Gore had 0% to do with anything related to the impeachment. Some people think Gore could have done better if he hadn’t sidelined Clinton, given Clinton’s campaign skills, but that’s a pretty indirect relationship to the impeachment.
Betty Cracker
@MazeDancer: I don’t watch Morning Joe, but I am unsurprised to hear they love Biden. I disagree that Biden is in any way the “practical” choice. The man has been running for president since I was a college student, and now I have a daughter in college. The “walking gaffe machine” isn’t just a media invention — it’s who Biden is.
Klobuchar — now there’s a practical choice. Solid record of accomplishment in congress without a truck-load of baggage due to bad votes. Wins even wingnut districts in a swing state. A woman, which would make a great antidote to the sexist swine currently in office. If we have to go “safe,” she’d be safer.
Biden? I think he’ll get the nomination, FWIW, but I also think it’ll be disastrous for Democratic turnout to nominate the elderly retread. I’ll drag my ass to the polls, hold my nose and fill in the oval, but I’d do the same for literally anyone currently running as a Democrat, including Tulsi, Bernie and the Unicorn Lady.
Oh well. It might not matter since Trump is such a train wreck. I sure hope that’s the case.
zhena gogolia
@Betty Cracker:
I’m kind of disappointed in you for this.
We’re fighting fascism.
smintheus
@Chyron HR: Pelosi indicated at the outset that she wanted to have a quickie impeachment. That shouldn’t have been pre-determined. I think it’s a mistake to sideline other impeachable offenses on a range of things and not pursue the relevant evidence/testimony through the courts, particularly since Trump’s Russia corruption is both parallel to and linked to his Ukraine corruption. In any case, politically it is harder on Republicans if they dismiss a wide array of articles of impeachment than if they stonewall on a couple articles narrowly focused on a single issue.
smintheus
@brantl: Trump cares only about appearances. He desperately needs to be admired.
zhena gogolia
@Betty Cracker:
I just read this again and it really upsets me. You think he might be the nominee yet you call him an “elderly retread.” You lump him in with Gabbard (who’s supported by the GOP and Putin), Bernie (about whom Russian military intelligence said in 2016, don’t criticize him, “we like him,” see Mueller Report, vol. 1), and Marianne Williamson. If an astute, intelligent person like you is talking like this, I despair of our chances in 2020. It will be “but her e-mails” all over again.
phdesmond
@kindness:
it sounds like the doctrine of double jeopardy, which i’ve never heard of except in connection with criminal court cases.
@schrodingers_cat:
for some reason i free-associated to ancient egypt, where onions were a staple of the work gangs at the pyramids!
http://www.sirc.org/timeline/3100bc.shtml
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Betty Cracker:
that reminds me of the people who say O’Mally could have won, but Clinton “cleared the field” and didn’t give him a fair shot. There was similar talk from the PUMAs in ’08, basically that it wasn’t fair for Obama to have been a better candidate who ran a better campaign. If Klobuchar can’t get more traction than Biden– to say nothing of Bernie, Yang and I don’t know who else– how could she beat trump? I like her, I think I’d rather have her as President than Biden or a lot of other people in the Dem field, but as a candidate she has little to no charisma and no handle on how to communicate with aspirations of significant parts of the Dem party (which Biden can only do because of the Obama association, but he has that and she doesn’t)
J R in WV
@Bill Arnold:
You gotta be you, but in my book, Trump could be and should be impeached for the illegal election conspiracies he executed in 2015-2016. Actually, I think he could be and should be indicted, tried and imprisoned for those crimes, regardless of impeachment and trial in the Senate.
We could watch him trying to be Presidential at the Super-Max in Florence, CO, which I encourage everyone to look up on Googlr Earth/Maps. One desolate place on the high desert flats just east of the Rocky Mountains.
Betty Cracker
@zhena gogolia: Like I said, I’ll vote for Biden if he’s the nominee, but I don’t think he has a fucking clue about what we’re up against. I’m lumping him in with other candidates I don’t like only in the sense that they would also have my vote even if I think they’d be shitty nominees; I’d vote for any one of them because the judiciary matters. If it were a choice between Biden and Gabbard, I’d prefer Biden, FWIW.
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: The person I was replying to claimed Biden is the “practical” choice. I disagreed and said why. That’s it, no accusations of clearing the field, etc.
zhena gogolia
@Betty Cracker:
Just voting for him isn’t enough, as it wasn’t enough in 2016.
JoyceH
I’m on the slow-down side of the impeachment issue. Impeach in February, trial in March. There are so many more things that the Dems could uncover just on the Ukraine issue if they would take a little more time. Bolton testifying? He’s made it clear he wants to. How about Parnas testifying in public about what happened in that Hanukkah Party pull-aside? The Republicans keep saying that nobody can specifically tie Trump to the quid pro quo – there are people who could, we just have to ask them.
I just don’t see the point of rushing to hold a trial that you know you’re going to lose. Why not wait a little longer and see if you can get more and better evidence? Don’t think it would change any Republican senators’ minds because they’re not acting in good faith, but could move some voters. And so long as the investigation continues, Trump is off-balance, acting out, and incriminating himself further.
But if they rush to impeach and the Senate acquits in January, then it’s Trump Unbound and almost a year till the election!
Warblewarble
Malta has always been a crossroads. Now it is a clearinghouse for money much of it ending up in Miami. FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Bill Arnold
@catclub:
Tx, though I’m still walking through the refs on the wikipedia page; what was prior to when he was made a judge (1994)?
@J R in WV:
I’m fine with the second (it’s what I was indirectly suggesting), and with the first if it would work politically. Thinking back, “whitewater” was well prior to W.J.Clinton’s presidency.
grubert
Nixon may have resigned before being impeached because the Constitution limits pardon power with the phrase “except in cases of impeachment.”
Just being impeached may make it impossible for Trump to be pardoned .. by Pence or whoever.