Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Roe isn’t about choice, it’s about freedom.

A lot of Dems talk about what the media tells them to talk about. Not helpful.

Bad news for Ron DeSantis is great news for America.

Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.

Wake up. Grow up. Get in the fight.

Dead end MAGA boomers crying about Talyor Swift being a Dem is my kind of music. Turn it up.

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

Dear Washington Post, you are the darkness now.

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

We need to vote them all out and restore sane Democratic government.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

Don’t expect peaches from an apple tree.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

Putin dreamed of ending NATO, and now it’s Finnish-ed.

Ah, the different things are different argument.

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

Battle won, war still ongoing.

“I never thought they’d lock HIM up,” sobbed a distraught member of the Lock Her Up Party.

You come for women, you’re gonna get your ass kicked.

At some point, the ability to learn is a factor of character, not IQ.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

“The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.”

Innocent people don’t delay justice.

It looks like winning debates is a black job!

You are here: Home / Politics / Impeachment Inquiry / Impeachment articles are out

Reader Interactions

86Comments

  1. 1.

    Wag

    The second article is the one that is most critical for our nation’s political culture going forward, and is the one that would resonate across party lines. Of course, it won’t resonate with the dead souls of the GOP until there’s another Democrat in office, if that’s ever allowed to happen.

  2. 2.

    guachi

    Easy guilty on Article 1. Probably guilty on Article 2. I haven’t seen any legal justification for not complying with the subpoenas, so I’d likely vote guilty on t

  4. 4.

    guachi

    I’m actually surprised they didn’t have “bribery” as an article of impeachment. It’s right there in the Constitution! No real arguing over it being too vague.

  5. 5.

    Kelly

    Guilty on one count will remove him from office. Seems unlikely that any R senator will vote to convict or very many R voters will be swayed. My best hope is this will bestir the less engaged voters to vote against R’s next year.

  9. 9.

    catclub

    @guachi: Probably guilty on Article 2.

     

    Frankly, FAR more guilty on this one. Repeatedly, on purpose, for explicit obstruction of Congressional investigations.

  10. 10.

    LarrytheRed

    What a waste – no mention of the Mueller report, or of emoluments clause violations. Too little, too late, IMHO.

  12. 12.

    piratedan

    @FlyingToaster: when the smoking gun is a quid pro quo or bribery or extortion or 50 shades of perfidy, the muddied waters of what actually constitutes a crime versus what is diplomatic cooperation made this a slam dunk for anyone who dealt with understanding any kind of context,  Unfortunately, with multiple propaganda outlets masquerading as news organizations and the relentless amount of water carrying performed by the GOP and  their social media troll army introduces just enough wiggle in this argument to see how deflection and distraction perform their own manner of distinction to make this argument less compelling than the other two… because people may quibble that buying propaganda cover for smearing your political opponent has no real tangible “value” that can be quantified.

    you know he’s guilty

    the Dems know he’s guilty

    the GOP knows he’s guilty

    Trump certainly knows he’s guilty since he’s readily admitted it

    and yet there are still people who willfully grasp any semblance of a stray straw to clasp to their collective bosom despite all evidence otherwise.

  15. 15.

    Matt McIrvin

    I can say there should have been about 46 articles and this is political malpractice, but this is backseat-driver stuff and I don’t actually trust my own expertise in politics. What I want is one thing; what is actually going to have some kind of positive political effect (given that the Senate will never convict)… eh, I have no idea.

  18. 18.

    hitchhiker

    I’m the sort of person who can’t tolerate uncertainty. Like, if I’m enjoying a mystery book or movie, I skip to the end or read the spoilers so I won’t have to be stressed. (mr hitchhiker and hitchhiker daughters are baffled by this.)

    When my team is on the field, I sometimes have to just go outside and not watch until the game is over and I can enjoy whatever happened on reruns, without the tension.

    Like, I really hate it, even when there’s nothing at stake … and right now, with so much at stake, it’s just hell. In 2018 on election night I was frantic for about half an hour, thinking we might have failed to get the House. I had to go and take a bath and not watch.

    I logged off twitter last night. I canceled all the political podcast subscriptions. I don’t know how I’m going to get through the next 11 months without getting sucked in, but I know I have to because this shit is destroying my peace of mind — and there’s nothing I can do but watch & hope.

  19. 19.

    Another Scott

    Kinda-sorta related to other news today. CNN:

    […]

    A nine-member working group of House Democrats had met for months with US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer behind closed doors to seek changes related to pharmaceuticals, environmental and labor protections, and enforcement provisions in the deal. Neal praised Lighthizer on Tuesday, saying he was “entirely honorable with the way that he dealt with us.”

    Neal said the negotiations with the administration often got heated, joking that he believes he and Lighthizer set a world record for how many times they hung up the phone on each other.

    The new version of the deal between the US, Mexico and Canada will get rid of controversial protections for biologic drugs entirely, a decision certain to receive criticism from a number of congressional Republicans who have long supported including exclusivity provisions for pharmaceutical companies in trade deals. Democrats opposed enshrining the protections in the agreement because they wanted Congress to be able to legislate on drug pricing issues without being bound by the trade agreement.

    Most GOP lawmakers are unlikely to side against Trump on the deal, although the agreement is far from the free trade orthodoxy the party had embraced prior to the President’s election.

    The new version of US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement would also involve monitoring provisions, including the establishment of an interagency committee to monitor Mexican labor reform efforts and a set of benchmarks for Mexico to meet in implementing the reforms.

    “This no longer NAFTA lite,” said Rep. Jimmy Gomez, who was involved in the talks. “This is a new trade agreement that the working group and the Democrats have achieved in consultation, of course, with our partners.”

    The announcement came after AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka endorsed the deal in a statement on Monday. Democrats had sought approval from organized labor, a key constituency for many in the caucus, before moving ahead.

    […]

    FWIW.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  20. 20.

    Kent

    I think they did the right thing.    Go with your strongest and simplest case.  Yes, they could have dropped a 40 point articles of impeachment with everything from firing Comey to emoluments clause violations.  That would have just muddied the waters and allowed the GOP and their talking heads to focus laser-like on the weakest arguments or the articles that are most easily bullshitted and gaslighted.

    By keeping it simple and focused on the most easily proven articles the Dems are focusing the debate where they want it.  Directly on Trump.  And not on Mueller or anything else.

    This isn’t a homework assignment where you get extra credit or more points for volume.  And loading down the articles with a lot of extra stuff doesn’t make it any more likely to pass the Senate.

  21. 21.

    Amir Khalid

    @Matt McIrvin:

    I think they have the option of coming at Trump with more articles of impeachment if the Republican-led Senate doesn’t vote to remove on the first two. I also think there’s a matter of prosecutorial tactics involved: the more articles — the more specific accusations — you have, the bigger and more complex the case you have to prove. Which is something you don’t want to do in a regular trial; in this case it might give certain Senators an excuse to claim the case is too hard to understand so they can’t vote to remove.

  23. 23.

    Paul W.

    I am glad the articles are out. I am hoping that this site can talk in a little less reactive way about Bloomberg’s run and the strategy he is using in particular?

    The campaign director spoke with David Plouffe (of 2008 fame) and is spinning hard that no only is Trump a favorite as a sitting president but that he is just flat out “winning” because they have been running a 4 year campaign and can spend money nationwide in swing states instead of the red “early” states (of course, Nevade is purple, and Obama won Iowa twice, take huge grains of salt). Also, Plouffe says something at the beginning like “if it works it could be  a trend”, which is impossible unless every candidate is a billionaire going forward, in which case we’ve already lost.

    In all though, Trump’s approval still sucks. For all of the money they are spending is down 2 points from when the Ukraine scandal started. I want Democrats to do a double check of:

    1. Is Trump actually winning? If he is what can we do to combat the nationwide digital campaign
    2. Bloomberg is supposedly spending $100 million in swing states as outside/pure anti-Trump messaging. There is value to that. I don’t think Mike would be a good president, and is a horrible Dem president because he doesn’t represent the party.

    So, folks, is the Dem party actually ignoring these states (I know Stacey Abrams and Gillum are not), or is this just Mike blowing smoke up our asses?

    Links for Plouffe interview and campaign strategy. 

  27. 27.

    randy khan

    @Another Scott:

    Trade is, strangely, one of the few areas where Trump has an actual (if, as usual, entirely uninformed) opinion and it differs from Republican orthodoxy.

    The Dems working with him on this is the perfect refutation of the claims that they hate him so much that they oppose him reflexively.  They saw a chance to get things they wanted from the treaty and used it productively.

  28. 28.

    gene108

    I just finished reading the Articles of Impeachment.

    Not enough pizzaz. Too much legal jargon. Won’t hold the attention of middle America diner aficionados past the first two sentences.

    Total buzz kill, for all the hype around impeachment.

    Give it a D+.  Would’ve gotten a C-, but who the hell knows what “arrogate” means? Is it even a real word?

    Time to go Christmas shopping.

  29. 29.

    Gin & Tonic

    @gene108:

    Time to go Christmas shopping

    That’s the spirit! If you don’t spend yourself into debt to celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, then the terrorists will have won.

  30. 30.

    Edmund Dantes

    @The Moar You Know: naw there might be some “free” passes given. The question is Trump smart enough to realize that will be good for him cause it’ll help their re-election chances.

  32. 32.

    guachi

    Most Americans won’t actually read the Articles of Impeachment. Those who do know what the word “arrogate” means.

  33. 33.

    Patricia Kayden

    When Trump appointed Wray as FBI director in 2017, he hailed him as “a man of impeccable credentials.” The GOP-controlled Senate confirmed Wray by a vote of 92-5. Where are the Republicans to defend Wray now, to protect democracy and the the rule of law? https://t.co/C8vfZEmJtL— Mark Follman (@markfollman) December 10, 2019

  36. 36.

    chris

    So the DNI has a very dark sense of humour?

    Moments after the House releases articles of impeachment accusing Trump of soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election, the DNI issues a statement calling for a "whole of government" approach to combating foreign interference in elections. https://t.co/mkQMkWHDwC— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) December 10, 2019

  37. 37.

    Kay

    @randy khan:

    AP Politics
    @AP_Politics
    · 2h
    BREAKING: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces agreement on a modified North American trade pact, handing President Trump a major win on the very same day that Democrats announced their impeachment charges against him

    All the spin in the world isn’t going to change it. Not that they’re even doing any. Trump and Republicans are declaring victory. Democrats are privately telling one another something or other.
    Did they have to go along with his wish for an announcement today? Trump’s crap trade deal is such an emergency they step on their own impeachment articles?
    Incoherent. And they did it to themselves.

  38. 38.

    gene108

    @sdhays:

    I hope so.

    I think my comment #28 will give me an inside track on Clizz’s old gig.

    I’ll make sure politics are fun, and engaging. To the Extreme!!! With the most exclamation points in cable news!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  39. 39.

    clay

    @The Moar You Know: That’s an interesting scenario… what happens if there ARE some GOP votes for removal, but not enough to actually remove him?

    I think this is the best we could hope for (since we ain’t getting 66 votes).  But if Trump is “acquitted” 45-55 against (or so), what then?  The GOP’s hackery becomes more evident, and it hurts them in 2020?

  40. 40.

    bbleh

    Coverage says that “moderate” Dems objected to “bribery” and “obstruction of justice” because they’re actual crimes and hence subject to argument over legal technicalities.  The flip side is, they’re easy for the average voter to understand, while “obstruction of Congress” sounds almost like a good thing.

    The ultimate question will be, how much does this damage Trump — and his supporters in the Senate — in the election. Obviously Pelosi et al. have considered all this, and they decided on these two articles.  I hope they’re right!

  41. 41.

    mrmoshpotato

    @Kent: Agreed.  Keep the simplest, most water-tight arguments.  The Russthuglicans will gaslight the shit out of them anyway.  “Impeachment isn’t even in the Constitution!  What Constitution?  We have no Constitution!”

  42. 42.

    gene108

    @Kay:

    Considering Dem’s fear of a liberal backlash helped kill Obama’s TPP, this is really, really dumb.

    When manufacturing declines continue, or a factory relocates to Mexico, it’s the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi, who will get the blame.

    I sometimes wish Democrats were as ruthlessly calculating as Republicans.

  43. 43.

    Baud

    @bbleh:

     

    Fun fact.  The GOP House proposed four articles of impeachment against Clinton but only two were voted over to the Senate.

    No one is going to remember the details.

  45. 45.

    PJ

    @The Dangerman: I could see McConnell allowing some Republican Senators who are up for reelection in purple states, and in danger of losing, to vote to remove Trump, so long as Trump is acquitted.  McConnell cares more about retaining a Senate majority than protecting Trump.

  46. 46.

    Baud

    @gene108:

    When manufacturing declines continue, or a factory relocates to Mexico, it’s the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi, who will get the blame.

    This will be true even if the Dems reject this deal.

  49. 49.

    Fleeting Expletive

    Recently I saw “Merchant of Venice” starring Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons.  It made me wonder what else Shakespeare wrote about morally twisted and emotionally deformed men.  Some of you folks are a lot more well-read in literature than I, so What did Shakespeare say about people like the ones populating the current administration?

    Another question:  Chairwoman Maxine Waters’ committee also addressed elements of the impeachment inquiry for inclusion.  I seem to remember there were six committees involved, did all six participate in the final product or did I misremember that?

  51. 51.

    Timurid

    @Kay:

    Impeaching a President while simultaneously making a decision based on the assumption that he will be re-elected is professional grade cognitive dissonance.

    (There is nothing obviously urgent about this trade deal that demands action right now. The only reason you don’t wait until the impeachment and election are over to avoid giving Trump an easy win is if you’re very worried about having to take a worse deal after he wins a second term.)

  52. 52.

    trollhattan

    @catclub:

    Isn’t it the case that per Bill Barr, that’s exactly what the framers had in mind when they created the position of U.S. PresidentEmperor?

  55. 55.

    ?BillinGlendaleCA

    @Baud: IIRC TTP never came up for a final vote, and was junked when Trump came in.  The only vote was to give Obama “Fast Track authority”.  The Republicans in the hearings were screaming about how Democrats were only focused on impeachment and not dealing with the “new NAFTA”.

  56. 56.

    Yutsano

    @Betty Cracker: Eh. They’re two discrete things to me. It’s going to depend which will excite the MSM more. But giving President Toadface a rare win will make their both sides instincts kick in hard.

  57. 57.

    Kent

    @PJ:

    McConnnell and Trump are not always on the same page.  I could see Trump firing up his MAGA base and primarying the hell out of any GOP Senators who vote to convict regardless of whatever deal McConnell might have cut with them.   Trump is way past being a loose cannon.   He doesn’t listen to any one.  And impeachment is not just any other vote.  It is primal for Trump.

  58. 58.

    Baud

    @?BillinGlendaleCA:

     

    Right, but I thought labor came out early against the TPP, even though it never got a vote. As opposed to:

    The major AFL-CIO labor union on Tuesday said it was endorsing the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement after working with lawmakers and members of President Donald Trump’s administration to make changes to the proposal first introduced in 2017.

     

    “Make no mistake, we demanded a trade deal that benefits workers and fought every single day to negotiate that deal,” said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka in a statement. “And now we have secured an agreement that working people can proudly support.”

     

     

  61. 61.

    MJS

    @Yutsano: The Dem strategy seems pretty obvious to me – yes, we can do the people’s business while at the same time proceeding with impeachment (which, by the way, is also the people’s business). Next time Trump or one of his toadies trots out the, “This impeachment is distracting from important issues”, like Gaetz did yesterday, Dems will have this to point to. It also serves to preempt the “they only hate Trump, they don’t want him to accomplish anything” nonsense.

  64. 64.

    gene108

    @Baud:

    Not sure about AFL-CIO support, but a major reason TPP was dropped, was because Democrats were scared to support it.

    Not sure how they feel they are getting a better deal from Trump on NAFTA 2.0.

    Just seems an inconsistent approach.

  65. 65.

    James E Powell

    @FlyingToaster:

    Instead of referring to emoluments, we need to say “lining his pockets with taxpayers’ money” or something similar that will be clearer to white people in diners.

  66. 66.

    Jay

    @Timurid:

    NAFTA 2.0 is a semi-done deal in Canada and for now in Mexico. In the US it’s been stalled because of US disfunction.

    Minor domestic tweaks to make it still seem like it’s still alive, are important to keep Canada and Mexico onside, otherwise NAFTA 2.0 winds up being stillborn.

    The US will have to keep applying CPR to it in the hopes of keeping it alive into 2021, otherwise Mexico will kill it dead in their next elections.

  69. 69.

    something fabulous

    @hitchhiker: this actually explains so much to me, thank you!! my mom used to read the ends of mysteries first, too– i could never understand it! and yes, she was a super-anxious person, who loved to read. mystery solved!!

  70. 70.

    Jay

    @Baud:

    TPP never got “done”. The US demands were maximilist and nobody else would agree to the US demands.

     

    TPPII is a much different “animal”, and on what passes for “The Left” in the US, there would be minimal resistance to joining it.

    the Reich Wing of would of course have a cow.

    China will be joining it, and the US never will.

  72. 72.

    Gvg

    @?BillinGlendaleCA: actually this may work to get the Trump “win” buried in the news of impeachment whereas the day before or after could derail talk about impeachment AND it gives the lie that democrats aren’t also doing their main jobs at the same time. I can’t say for sure, but have to wait and see.

  74. 74.

    Chris Johnson

    At this point you gotta just switch off except to canvass and vote, I feel.

    Like George Carlin said about the American Dream, it’s a private club and you aren’t in it. BUT the thing is, this is a power struggle. If they were all in it together, then we wouldn’t be in as big a mess. I feel like the Democrats spent a lot of years being all in it together with the Republicans and doing what they wanted, and it got us here: just when demographics would wipe out the rightwingers, it turns out they’re going for broke rather than lose, and they are making it impossible for the Democrats TO go along and get along with them (except for Biden, I guess)

    So there will be a hell of a fight, and we are not invited to participate. We’re irrelevant, much like if we were Russian citizens looking at their system.

    Not quite though, because if we canvass and fight and vote and all that, we can make it much harder for them to cheat and basically give the lie to democracy. We can make them have to get real obvious, which they will do anyway, but we can MAKE them get obvious which forces them into a position of weakness. We don’t have to knuckle under and just tune out and not act.

    But we do have to tune out the propaganda, because I’m guessing now is when it really REALLY ramps up and you can’t fucking trust a thing you hear from fucking anybody.

    Which is annoying, but things happen in war, which this is. It’s a power struggle, like a new kind of WWIII. This one bombs reality, more than land. So fine. We have to fight without reality under our feet. Whatever. Fight anyway.

  75. 75.

    Gvg

    @gene108: chronology matters. TTP happened and Americans didn’t tHink it was enough so it died. Then we got Trump, other countries negotiated a better deal than our corporate prima donnas would allow, the rest of the world ignored us and things were ok anyway…THEN Trump started trade wars and tried to subsidize supporters and corporations saw other countries merchants eating their lunch. More reasonable trade deals seemed like a better deal now than before. Also trump needed a win enough that he might not spite screw up this deal. Several times earlier before re election and impeachment loomed close enough to seem real to his feeble mind, he screwed his own interests or teams interest just because it made him feel good temporarily.

    this master deal maker is actually hard to make deals with because he won’t keep them. Even the other GOP people have realized the best solution is just don’t offer any deals and wait.

  76. 76.

    Jay

    Sometimes we has to flush filth pits over & OVER! Tremenders problems precious! Yes yes very tricksy! Splash down the pail but first just a drips! But not enough! Still not enough! More water! We NEEDS it! Five pails or tens! Makes it go away! Go awaaay! Too much we sees! Nasty!— Gollum J. Trump (@realGollumTrump) December 7, 2019

  77. 77.

    Brachiator

    @Fleeting Expletive:

    What did Shakespeare say about people like the ones populating the current administration?

    I agree with the poster who suggested off the top Macbeth, Measure and Julius Caesar.  Measure for Measure is particularly good, as it features a government official, Angelo, who appears to be strict and upright in applying the law, but who is in fact a hypocrite and lecher.

  78. 78.

    randy khan

    @MJS:

     

    Bingo.  And they got a lot of concessions from the Administration on things they wanted, hence the AFL-CIO nod.

  79. 79.

    catclub

    @Kent: And not on Mueller or anything else.

     

    They (House Committees) are still in court trying to get the full Mueller report and the grand Jury information.

  80. 80.

    gene108

    @?BillinGlendaleCA:

     

     

    So Democrats should oppose all trade deals?

    Seems to be where the Party was heading in 2016.

    I guess seeing that trade wars aren’t easy to win might have shifted some folks thinking, including the AFL-CIO, but that’s about the only reason I can think of this change of heart.

    Just find it sad Democrats screwed over Obama, who rightly wanted us to increase trade with Pacific ocean countries, as a counterweight to China, but are now working with Trump over NAFTA 2.0, which has no pressing urgency behind it.

    Irony is dead.

    That’s all.

  81. 81.

    catclub

    @Gvg:Also trump needed a win enough that he might not spite screw up this deal. Several times earlier before re election and impeachment loomed close enough to seem real to his feeble mind, he screwed his own interests or teams interest just because it made him feel good temporarily.

    this master deal maker is actually hard to make deals with because he won’t keep them.

     

    He is completely unreliable.  Even discussing this deal (and  the fact that he needs a deal) could be enough for him to decide to wreck it.  Whether it is good enough for him or not. Appearing to win is more important than actually getting a good deal.

  83. 83.

    Ruckus

    @The Moar You Know:

    One never knows the strange ways of republican critters.

    If they see their future is bleak either way they might even do the right thing. Not holding my breath mind you, but stranger things have happened.

  86. 86.

    janesays

    @clay: 45-55 against Trump would mean 8 GOP senators crossed over. I can’t name eight Republicans who would ever do that, can you? The only ones who would even consider it are either in vulnerable seats next year, or are named Mitt Romney or Lisa Murkowski. There are only four highly vulnerable seats: Collins, Gardner, McSally, and Tillis.

Comments are closed.