Patterico's Pontifications

12/18/2019

The House Should Impeach Donald Trump

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:40 am



Prof. Jonathan Adler has an excellent piece in the New York Daily News titled Why the House must vote yes: Trump is the one who is upsetting our democracy and constitutional order. What I especially like about the piece is that Adler emphasizes what I think is most important: Trump’s Ukraine call is not a one-off, but part of a consistent pattern of abusing the office for personal gain:

A president who uses his power to subvert the workings of our constitutional structure has forfeited any claim to the office, whether or not that president pursues policies or appoints judges we might otherwise support.

If it was correct for Congress to impeach a president for lying under oath in an effort to subvert a legal proceeding — as I believe it was — impeaching President Trump should be a no-brainer.

The current push for impeachment was triggered by revelations that the president sought to induce Ukrainian government officials to announce an investigation into a political rival by withholding congressionally authorized funds. These actions, which are virtually indisputable, represent a profound betrayal of the president’s oath and solemn obligations to our country and Constitution, but they are hardly the only impeachable actions Trump has committed.

On repeated occasions, the president sought to obstruct a lawful inquiry into Russian efforts to interfere with our elections, according to the Mueller Report, including by directing subordinates to create false records that could be used to mislead investigators and dangling pardons before colleagues facing criminal prosecution.

He has also encouraged foreign governments to seek to influence U.S. elections (in his favor, of course) and obstructed legitimate congressional investigations into matters large and small, ranging from the Ukraine matter to his compliance with the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause. He has further given every indication that he sees nothing wrong with his conduct — it is “perfect,” after all — and is likely to continue.

Here’s Trump today, whining about how he was not entitled to witnesses in the House (not entirely true), despite the fact that when he goes to the Senate he … won’t be presenting any witnesses. Sure, he’s engaged in a little kabuki show about how he wants to, but he knows that witness testimony would be bad for him, because the facts and the truth are bad for him. He supposedly wanted to testify to Mueller too. Right.

He has a little shot about Schiff and how they handle people like him “much tougher” in Guatemala. Well. In 1945 the Italians handled a problem with their leader in a manner much tougher than this impeachment. So?

Stuff like this is a reminder why he needs to be gone yesterday.

The House must vote yes. If for no other reason, they must do it so that in the future, I can refer to the president as “impeached president Donald Trump.”

P.S. If you’re outraged at the notion that a conservative site would support impeachment of a Republican president, I’ve got good news for you. Eleven years ago, Donald Trump indicated that he thought impeachment of a Republican president would have been a “wonderful thing”:

“When [Pelosi] first got in and was named speaker,” Trump said to Blitzer then, “I met her. And I’m very impressed by her. I think she’s a very impressive person, I like her a lot.”

“But I was surprised that she didn’t do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush,” he continued. “It just seemed like she was really going to look to impeach Bush and get him out of office. Which personally I think would have been a wonderful thing.”

“For the war,” Trump replied. “For the war! Well, he lied! He got us into the war with lies!”

So supporting impeachment of a Republican president is acceptable, it turns out. After all, if Trump does it, it’s OK. That’s the law!

Anyway, Trump will be impeached today. Which personally I think will be a wonderful thing.

P.P.S. Trump on what a horror show impeachment is for a president. “He would be a mess. He would be thinking about nothing but. It would be a horror show for him. It would be an absolute embarrassment. It would go down on his record permanently.”

That’s you today, soon to be impeached President Donald J. Trump. Enjoy the day. I know I will!

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

260 Responses to “The House Should Impeach Donald Trump”

  1. So weird to have a kitchen again.

    And kinda nice…

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. 1. Good to see you back, Pat. I hope we’ll be seeing more of you here with the impeachment vote imminent.

    Gryph (08c844)

  3. P.S. If you’re outraged at the notion that a conservative site would support impeachment of a Republican president, I’ve got good news for you. Eleven years ago, Donald Trump indicated that he thought impeachment of a Republican president would have been a “wonderful thing”:

    “When [Pelosi] first got in and was named speaker,” Trump said to Blitzer then, “I met her. And I’m very impressed by her. I think she’s a very impressive person, I like her a lot.”

    “But I was surprised that she didn’t do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush,” he continued. “It just seemed like she was really going to look to impeach Bush and get him out of office. Which personally I think would have been a wonderful thing.”

    “For the war,” Trump replied. “For the war! Well, he lied! He got us into the war with lies!”

    So supporting impeachment of a Republican president is acceptable, it turns out. After all, if Trump does it, it’s OK. That’s the law!

    Anyway, Trump will be impeached today. Which personally I think will be a wonderful thing.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  4. 3. Let’s do the math here. Why would a conservative site support the impeachment of the president? Could it possibly be that the president, although Republican, isn’t conservative? Naw. Never!

    Gryph (08c844)

  5. For the hundredth time, he proves that he has dictatorial tendencies…. “In Guatemala they handle things much tougher than that.” And for the hundredth time, they choose to ignore it. If the rule of law survives, history will see this so clearly.

    noel (f22371)

  6. Just to put some context around the Guatemala reference re Schiff, Trump was doing one of his joint things with the Guatemalan president. Who may well have been less than thrilled with the reference to the ant-democratic things done in Guatemala in the past.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  7. For the hundredth time, he proves that he has dictatorial tendencies

    Can you name one thing he has actually done that has been dictatorial. As opposed to just spouting off at the mouth, which he does regularly?

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  8. P.P.S. Trump on what a horror show impeachment is for a president. “He would be a mess. He would be thinking about nothing but. It would be a horror show for him. It would be an absolute embarrassment. It would go down on his record permanently.”

    That’s you today, soon to be impeached President Donald J. Trump. Enjoy the day. I know I will!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  9. Adler is one of my favorite writers. Good legal mind, and he’s one of the best conservatives on environmental issues and climate change.
    Like I’ve said before and elsewhere, every member of Congress needs to vote on Trump’s impeachment or removal. Pelosi should’ve started an impeachment inquiry after the Mueller report was released.

    Paul Montagu (af70d6)

  10. Can you name one thing he has actually done that has been dictatorial. As opposed to just spouting off at the mouth, which he does regularly?

    Define “actually done” as opposed to “just spouting off.” If the act in question is words, does that automatically take it out of the realm of action in your view? Does establishing a kleptocracy count? Threatening to jail his political opponents? Using the power of government to try to harm companies that own media entities he doesn’t like, such as going after Amazon’s contracts or trying to raise their postal rates, or trying to block a CNN merger? Excusing murders by actual dictators? No? That’s just words? Is Putin responsible for the murders he orders or are those just words? Where is your line?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  11. Can you name one thing he has actually done that has been dictatorial?

    — Muslim ban
    — DACA
    — Census citizenship question
    — Funding the Wall
    Attempted incompetently, stymied by the courts.

    — Eddie Gallagher
    In violation of the UCMJ and Navy regulations, not stymied by the courts.

    nk (dbc370)

  12. He has actually withheld funds appropriated for Ukraine.

    DRJ (15874d)

  13. If John Kerry’s kids or Sarah Palin’s kids or John McCain’s kids get some sort of sweetheart deal — who cares? These example (former) politicians are no longer in position to influence policy or advance – or obstruct — the national interest. Move on.

    Until Joe Biden announced as a candidate, HUNTER Biden fell squarely alongside Bristol Palin into the “who cares” basket. Once Joe announced, there appears to be at least a prima facie — first glance, on its face — appearance of a problem in the Ukraine.

    Assume the FBI is incompetent or highly biased – or both. Assume the US news media is also biased, or underfunded to conduct a full, unfettered, investigation into topics of national interest.

    Who you gonna call, Ghostbusters?

    Who would ANYBODY call to investigate a Ukrainian mega-corporation who might, but might not, be attempting to influence a politician via the politician’s family?

    pouncer (df6448)

  14. “ The impeachment of Mr. Trump would, if it happens Wednesday, be the first time the House decided to, as the dissenters put it, “pursue impeachment first and build a case second.” It was done “in haste to meet a self-imposed December deadline.”

    https://www.nysun.com/editorials/impeachment-a-devastating-dissent/90945/
    _

    harkin (15bd84)

  15. August 2019:

    “Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China including bringing …your companies HOME and making your products in the USA.”

    Was that just words? Sounds like an order.

    What about urging foreign leaders to meet at his properties and thereby help him profit? Is that just words?

    DRJ (15874d)

  16. They’ve been trying to remove him from office since he got elected starting with pleading with the electors to be unfaithful. So I’m not surprised.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  17. Can you name one thing he has actually done that has been dictatorial.

    Every executive order and directive that has been reversed by the courts. As of last April, the number is up to seventy.
    P.S. We need more Republicans like Tom Cole, even though I disagree with him today.

    Paul Montagu (af70d6)

  18. For those of you Trump humpers out there who don’t think Trump has dictatorial tendencies, I submit to you:

    Vera Coking

    and

    Michael Forbes

    These two episodes alone make me believe that Trump is fundamentally unfit for office, but I’m sure a person could dig up more quite easily.

    Gryph (08c844)

  19. “Can you name one thing he has actually done that has been dictatorial”. asks bored lawyer.

    He is being impeached today for one of them. But, as you said, he does spout off a lot too.

    He fires top officials if they won’t pledge personal loyalty to him. He lies all of the time. He admires dictators. He believes Russia over his own intelligence. He has challenged our elections as rigged without evidence. Some of that is word and some of it is deed.

    Believe his former officials, like Tillerson, when they tell you that he wants to do illegal things.

    noel (f22371)

  20. There were seven faithless electors in 2016 — an historical record for one election — who “cast their ballots … for a candidate other than the one who won his or her state.” Five refused to vote for Hillary and two refused to vote for Trump. So spare me the whining about faithless electors.

    DRJ (15874d)

  21. “ So spare me the whining about faithless electors.”

    Call it whining but IMO he wasn’t talking about electors being faithless but the numerous idiots in politics and media who pleaded for them to be so. All the ones I saw were anti-Trump.

    harkin (15bd84)

  22. Correct harkin.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  23. DRJ,

    you deliberately misinterpreted my remarks then insulted me to boot. That’s bad faith and very disappointing coming from you.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  24. What I think is interesting is that Trump being impeached by Democrats was something already baked in by Trump supporters. If not by election, definitely soon afterwards when anti-Trumpers lost their over loving minds before (and after) inauguration.

    Trump would probably be the only person in US history to flip the scrip and wear the Scarlet Letter of Impeachment™ as a badge of honor.

    That’ll probably do more to galvanize his supporters than anything else.

    Since we have a new Star Wars movie coming out, I’ll end it with Oba-Wan’s warning to Vader: If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. I would rephrase that as: If you strike me down, the Office of the Presidency shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

    I don’t believe we’ve fully scoped the impact of an acquitted President, who has a strong change of re-election, would do to the future of electoral and impeachment politics in the future due to the extreme partisan manner of this process.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  25. Feel free to correct me. I assume you think pleading with electors to be faithless is not the same as electors deciding to be faithless. In other words, you draw a distinction between attempts and success. Thus, the attempts were not successful, right? So if attempts are what really matter, explain why Trump’s repeated attempts to interfere with the Mueller investigation and countless investigations/court proceedings don’t matter?

    Trump supporters think Trump should be able to say anything unless the words come from Trump opponents. Then they matter a lot. Either “just words” matter or they don’t.

    DRJ (15874d)

  26. Further, you could have discussed this topic but you chose to insult and attack me instead.

    DRJ (15874d)

  27. But I don’t care that you did this, Rob. I am not upset by this discussion but your comment show this topic is upsetting to you. I hope you can get past that.

    DRJ (15874d)

  28. That’s bad faith and very disappointing coming from you.

    Says the bad faith commenter.

    Paul Montagu (af70d6)

  29. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

    mr. trump the president is the pure mental and that which does not kill him makes him stranger

    like mr. friedrich nietzsche would have said

    nk (dbc370)

  30. Meh. Too little, too late– especially when holiday-shopping Americans know removal from office will fail. You can’t shame this bad boy– the bad boy everybody either loves or loves to hate.

    Much better people than the seedy characters in Congress– like hot wives, cool mistresses, Dead Daddy Fred, military school teachers, TeeVee network executives and money hungry bankers running the greatest city in the world have tried and failed- as Congress has and will– to discipline Donald Trump.

    Censure proceedings should have been initiated the day after Helsinki.

    But no. Rather than smack him w/a rolled up copy of Fortune then and there, they let him keep pooping on the carpet to ruin. Decay from within: the big winner today is Pair-of-Deuces-Putin, as another American institutional fragment -‘impeachment’ – is hollowed, weaponized and cheapened. Merry Christmas, Vlad– keep smilin’!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  31. Call it whining but IMO he wasn’t talking about electors being faithless but the numerous idiots in politics and media who pleaded for them to be so. All the ones I saw were anti-Trump.

    So you think what matters is the words, right? I am fine with that interpretation and thought about it before my comment, but why is that material if the words had no impact? Haven’t we learned from Trump that words don’t matter?

    I am also fine with believing words do matter … but not from Trump supporters. One cannot support Trump and credibly claim words should matter.

    DRJ (15874d)

  32. What does the house have left in the chamber to fire? More duds? This does nothing but free Trump to continue to irritate the resistance.

    mg (8cbc69)

  33. “Can you name one thing he has actually done that has been dictatorial”. asks bored lawyer.

    The fact that Trump admires Putin, Xi, and Kim Jong Un, as well as expresses respect and affection for them, is very telling. He hasn’t done it once or twice, he’s done it consistently throughout his presidency. Simultaneously, he has been willing to sharply judge and criticize other world leaders in democratic states but not those three.

    Dana (643cd6)

  34. Every historical and biographical reference to Trump will say he was impeached, just like Clinton.

    DRJ (15874d)

  35. @18. Did a thesis that touched on this many years ago. The data indicated a trend showing the nomination by a major party of a ‘Donald Trump’ type w/a chance of winning was inevitable. He’s a corporatist, albeit of F-Troop caliber.

    But if you want an example of a fella w/ genuine dictatorial tendencies–look to Bloomberg.

    Watch him.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  36. and andrew johnson

    mg (8cbc69)

  37. Consider:

    It is true, though, that Trump hasn’t arrested or murdered journalists, like his favorite dictator, Vladimir Putin. Instead, he’s popularized a rallying cry dictators now use against journalism around the world, labeled journalists “the enemy of the people” for negative stories, and praised violence against reporters. He can’t arrest journalists, but he has threatened to criminalize their reporting, revoked access to critics and given it to friendly conspiracy theorists, changed the rules for White House access to block even more journalists and functionally abolished regular press briefings.

    He hasn’t murdered or jailed political dissidents like Rodrigo Duterte of the Philipinnes. But that hasn’t stopped him from leading chants to imprison opponents, warning that his supporters would get violent if he lost elections, ordering politically motivated investigations into law enforcement officials investigating his misdeeds, and accusing them of treason. That’s to say nothing of the plan to send his personal attorney to Ukraine to demand they prosecute the son of a rival.

    He also hasn’t murdered or imprisoned minorities like Xi Jinping of China. But he did enact 2 different bans on visitors from Muslim majority countries, build tent cities on the border where children have been separated from their families and some have even died. He’s pushed “zero tolerance” for asylum seekers, fired officials for not being cruel enough, and lamented that the military wouldn’t attack border crossers.

    He hasn’t stolen from the treasury, like Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. But at every opportunity, he’s worked to make sure that tax and campaign dollars benefit his businesses. Even when visiting foreign leaders, the president has tried to force them to meet at his properties, ensuring the price of state business goes straight into his pockets. That’s to say nothing of what he rakes in from lobbyists and foreign dignitaries staying at Trump hotel to curry favor.

    Perhaps most importantly, he hasn’t overturned elections like Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. But he did create a commission to investigate non-existent voter fraud. It disbanded without finding anything. He also helped spread a now completely debunked claim about voter fraud in Texas, routinely and publicly misrepresented that his political opponents were illegally stealing elections, and famously refused to commit to accepting the outcome of his own election. As for his own tenure, he’s suggested that he’s owed more years in power and opined on how “great” it would be to serve for life.

    Dana (643cd6)

  38. @34. And Clinton remains popular. The big loser is ‘impeachment’ itself by cheapening the cache.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  39. I read Gallup has a 6 point tick for Trump since the start of this. Can they impeach him again next month and the month after?

    mg (8cbc69)

  40. #34

    Every historical and biographical reference to Trump will say he was impeached, just like Clinton.

    DRJ (15874d) — 12/18/2019 @ 9:32 am

    Not if the whole process is being trivialized.

    IMO, America loses out here… as there is precedent now for if the opposition party holds the House, Impeachment will now be cavalierly applied by both parties against the opposition party White House.

    To avoid that, the parties is going to argue that their party need majorities, moreso than ever, in Congress in order to govern with the Whitehouse. It’s a defacto-Parliamentarian system…

    Is it worth that?

    whembly (fd57f6)

  41. 20. DRJ (15874d) — 12/18/2019 @ 8:48 am

    There were seven faithless electors in 2016 — an historical record for one election — who “cast their ballots … for a candidate other than the one who won his or her state.” Five refused to vote for Hillary and two refused to vote for Trump.

    And Trump, in his letter, can’t even get the 2016 Electoral College vote total right. (I don’t know what’s causing it. There are several possibilities)

    It’s either 306-232 or 304-227. Instead, he reports the results as 306-227, not taking into account his faithless electors, but taking into account Hillary’s.

    By the way, that’s really not an Electoral College landslide. Even if you say it doesn’t need to be on the scale of FDR in 1936, Lyndon Johnson in 1964, Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1984, or even 1980, still maybe you’d want something more than a too-large-to-be-worth-it-to-recount margin.

    Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8)

  42. @40. Yep.

    You’re catching on. Thank Newtie.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  43. One cannot support Trump and credibly claim words should matter.

    Or credibly claim to be offended by lies, or by nastiness, or by self-centeredness, or by arrogance, or by nepotism, or by any effort to bend rules in one’s own favor. Etc.

    Radegunda (36778b)

  44. @33. But Dana, don’t overlook that those very ‘tendancies’ are much sought, greatly admired and richly rewarded along the canyons of Wall Street in our corporate, capitalist society.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  45. It’s a defacto-Parliamentarian system…

    Exactly. Combine that with an activist court that sides with the now ginned-up congress and what do you have? This same congress has been rumbling to remove Trump’s numerous court appointments under some fruit-of-the-poisoned tree logic. Gotta admit though, one party systems are much more efficient. IYKWIM.

    PTw (894877)

  46. DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/18/2019 @ 9:33 am

    But if you want an example of a fella w/ genuine dictatorial tendencies–look to Bloomberg.

    Just because he tried to use the Board of Health to ban the sale of large size soda containers at public events? (instead of trying to get he City Council to enact an ordinance doing that.)

    Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8)

  47. @46. That’s a tell– but there’s more to it– and him, you can learn if you care or choose to look.

    Watch him.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  48. #46

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/18/2019 @ 9:33 am

    But if you want an example of a fella w/ genuine dictatorial tendencies–look to Bloomberg.

    Just because he tried to use the Board of Health to ban the sale of large size soda containers at public events? (instead of trying to get he City Council to enact an ordinance doing that.)

    Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8) — 12/18/2019 @ 9:54 am

    Bloomberg also vehemently 2nd amendment, to the point where he argued that young minorities in cities shouldn’t be trusted to own guns. Not to mention he advanced the “stop & fisk” policies.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  49. I can see that Trump Derangement Syndrome is alive and well. I don’t like the guy, he is a narcissistic buffoon, who does not understand the difference between being the CEO of a privately held company and being President of a Republic. But a dictator he is not.
    So let’s summarize:
    (1) Using eminent domain to get land. Well that is certainly an abuse – one that the Supreme Court upheld in Kelo, and lots of others besides Trump have exploited. And he did that as a private citizen, so I have a hard time seeing how that shows he is a dictator.

    (2) Executive Orders. The “Imperial Presidency” long pre-dates Trump. If you want to argue that too much power has shifted to the Executive Branch and should be shifted back to Congress, I would agree wholeheartedly. ‘

    But Trump, as I see it, is no worse than his predecessors. Obama issued lots of abusive Executive Orders, and some of them were overturned by the Courts. Trump pushed the envelope on this, but he has respected adverse court orders (some of which he successfully appealed).

    (3) Does establishing a kleptocracy count? Threatening to jail his political opponents? Using the power of government to try to harm companies that own media entities he doesn’t like, such as going after Amazon’s contracts or trying to raise their postal rates, or trying to block a CNN merger?
    You have to provide links on these. Most of this sounds like over the top characterizations.
    Again, there is a difference between putting your nose in the trough (which Trump has certainly done), and acting like a dictator.

    (4) Excusing murders by actual dictators? No? That’s just words?

    His rhetoric about foreign dictators is execrable. He should be loudly condemned for those. Fail to see how that makes him a U.S. dictator.

    (5) Is Putin responsible for the murders he orders or are those just words? Where is your line?

    Are you seriously contending that Trump has ordered murders of people? I mean it’s not like he ordered the military to send a drone to execute someone. No one would do that, would they?

    Bottom line is, in Trump’s America, you can say anything you want about Trump, and there is plenty of negative commentary about him, some thoughtful, mostly childish. And Trump and his Administration will do nothing about it, except for attacking you on Twitter. Boo hoo.

    And every time an official action has been challenged in Court, the Administration has respected that order (appeals don’t count, that is part of the system.)

    If that is the behavior of a dictator, then I am Mao Tse-Tung.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  50. the now ginned-up congress … Gotta admit though, one party systems are much more efficient.

    If only we didn’t have those pesky elections, in which voters might favor legislators who don’t all march lock-step with the president!

    Did you take the same view of the congress (or House) elected in 2010, which then set about opposing Obama in every possible way, launching various investigations, etc.?

    Radegunda (36778b)

  51. The Projector in Chief…. on what being impeached would do to Obama: “He would be a mess. He would be thinking about nothing but. It would be a horror show for him. It would be an absolute embarrassment. It would go down on his record permanently.”

    The whole video is instructive. He is dismissing the idea that the President would want to be impeached. How ironic.

    noel (f22371)

  52. pouncer (df6448) — 12/18/2019 @ 8:16 am

    Until Joe Biden announced as a candidate, HUNTER Biden fell squarely alongside Bristol Palin into the “who cares” basket. Once Joe announced, there appears to be at least a prima facie — first glance, on its face — appearance of a problem in the Ukraine.

    The announcement is not crucial Joe Biden was always a possible candidate. And as it got closer to the 2020 election, it got more important until it guest to the point where he has to announce a decision. What people were awaiting was a possible decision by Joe Biden not to run for president.

    The Biden/Burisma connection was first mentioned to Rudolph Giuliani (by corrupt Ukrainians possbly working for Russia) in the fall of 2018. And that’s when he got told that Biden had caused the firing of a good prosecutor.

    Who would ANYBODY call to investigate a Ukrainian mega-corporation who might, but might not, be attempting to influence a politician via the politician’s family?

    The Ukrainian government. What do you think? The FBI can just barge into a foreign country? The facts have to be established with, or in co-operation with, Ukraine. The question might be who should ask them.

    Trump’s question was very preliminary.

    The problem for Zelensky was: Is there a way to tell Trump that he’s wrong? Can he? Seeing inasmuch as some of Trump’s facts are blatantly wrong, would Trump be willing to take a report from the Ukrainian government that any allegation he had is unfounded without that distrusting the report and damaging mutual relations as a result? That’s what made it very sensitive.

    Because the business about the servers in Ukraine was off the wall. Nor was it true that a prosecutor had been investigating Burisma until Joe Biden stopped the investigation.

    Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8)

  53. If only we didn’t have those pesky elections, in which voters might vote for a president that the establishment doesn’t like.

    There. FIFY.

    PTw (894877)

  54. If John Kerry’s kids or Sarah Palin’s kids or John McCain’s kids get some sort of sweetheart deal — who cares?

    In fact, this is what happeneds

    Wall Street Journal May 13, 2014 11:25 pm ET

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-son-kerry-family-friend-join-ukrainian-gas-producers-board-1400031749

    Vice President Joe Biden’s son and a close friend of Secretary of State John Kerry’s stepson have joined the board of a Ukrainian gas producer controlled by a former top security and energy official for deposed President Viktor Yanukovych.

    The move has attracted attention given Messrs. Biden’s and Kerry’s public roles in diplomacy toward Ukraine, where the U.S. expressed support for pro-Western demonstrators who toppled Mr. Yanukovych’s Kremlin-backed government in February…Hunter Biden, a lawyer by training and the younger of the vice president’s two sons, joined the board of directors of Ukrainian gas firm Burisma Holdings Ltd. this month and took on responsibility for the company’s legal unit, according to a statement issued by the closely held gas producer.

    His appointment came a few weeks after Devon Archer —college roommate of the secretary of state’s stepson, H.J. Heinz Co. ketchup heir Christopher Heinz—joined the board to help the gas firm attract U.S. investors, improve its corporate governance and expand its operations. A State Department spokesman declined to comment.

    “The fact that I joined the board of directors is largely based on the company’s will to grow,” Mr. Archer said in an interview with Ukrainian media published on Burisma’s website. “Last year alone witnessed a lot of transformations.” He vowed to make the company more transparent.

    Mr. Biden, 44 years old, and Mr. Archer, 39, work for Rosemont Seneca Partners, a U.S. investment company. It is affiliated with Rosemont Capital, a private-equity firm Mr. Archer co-founded with Mr. Heinz

    Yes, nobody much cares.

    Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8)

  55. DRJ @ 25,26,27

    I expect more from people who understand that Patterico wants people who can understand other’s posts and argue against their remarks rather than prop up strawmen and attack them instead.

    You didn’t do that when you insulted and dismissed my post.

    As for this thread, it doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I expect it because of the distaste so many have with the President.

    P.S. Calling out your remarks towards me isn’t an attack. It’s disappointing that you would claim otherwise.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  56. Says the bad faith commenter.

    Paul Montagu (af70d6) — 12/18/2019 @ 9:18 am

    Personal attack.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  57. … he’s makin’ a list; checkin’ it twice; gonna keep track of who’s naughty and nice… Donald Trump is watching TeeVee.

    “He’s vindictive as hell, Henry. He kills for pride.” – Kid Twist [Harold Gould] ‘The Sting’ 1973

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  58. Nice to see all the Schiff-humpers supporting Impeachment. I don’t see how this will improve life for anyone. BTW, pelosi-humpers must be proud of the new paid leave benefit for federal workers, and the massive spending bill that just got passed. “smaller government”? Guess no one cares. Funny how that is.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  59. This will go to the Senate, be voted down, and life will move on. A waste of time for everyone except Liberal Democrats and the Never-tumpers who love them.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  60. Heh. Pelosi-humpers. Funny no one thought of that before. Yuk.

    PTw (894877)

  61. Whataboutism, its not just for Trump supporters anymore.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  62. Trump should pardon Manafort today, now that his case has been tossed in N.Y.

    mg (8cbc69)

  63. One of the arguments for rushing this is that they have no time to lose.

    But they’re not going to actually remove him!

    Or turn more of the public against him.

    Not with this case.

    But no, they say he has to be prevented from doing more. But acquittal would eliminate the hold they have over him now.

    Don’t they say that the final end of the Mueller investigation (with his weak testimony) emboldened Trump in his call (not true, really, but they say so)

    So how does a failed removal from office stop Donald Trump from doing anything?

    Chess grandmaster Nimzowitsch once wrote: “The threat is stronger than the execution.” Or maybe it was Tartakower and this also was how someone annotated one of Capablanca’s games.

    Now I don’t think the leading Democrats in the House of Representatives are quite that stupid. This argument for rushing this through is a made up lie. What the real reason is, I’m not quite sure. Maybe they want to keep all the facts from coming out.

    Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8)

  64. A made up lie that pretends they have a shadow of a chance in the Senate.

    Not with the way things stand.

    Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8)

  65. I really have no problem with a president trying to “subvert” the existing system. Reagan did that to great effect. The problem with Trump is that he is 1) random, 2) ineffective and 3) has no clear idea of what to replace it with.

    Consider a Cruz or a pre-Trump Gingrich, both of whom had radical notions for restructuring the federal government. The feeders at the current trough would have called them “subversive” too. But they would not have been bereft of ideas on what to replace the swamp with, nor would their reforms have been mostly ineffective and untargeted rants on Twitter.

    So Adler’s complaint falls on deaf ears here, as far as Trump being a radical subversive. PARTICULARLY since he was elected to BE a radical subversive. I guess Adler’s cheese is in danger and I don’t care a whole lot.

    What I do care is that Trump has utterly failed at his subversion and the system will be stronger when he is gone.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  66. I think there are certain facts that could come out that would damage Joe Biden. And others that would make it apparent to many that Trump is incompetent and unfit for office, but not guilty as charged.

    (He doesn’t care about people too, but that’s not a factor here. The withheld aid money was not vital and Trump’s motivation was stupid rather than evil.)

    Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8)

  67. By the way, Patterico, happy new kitchen day. No more electric skillets in the family room. I hope you said Eff it and gutted the thing completely.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  68. It’s a defacto-Parliamentarian system…

    It’s not much of a Parliamentary system where you need to get a 2/3 majority in part of a bicameral legislature to remove, and then after all that you get the removed person’s party’s choice for a successor. (most of the time)

    In the case of Andrew Johnson, there was no vice president, and Andrew Johnson had been a War Democrat in 1864, and his successor would have been a Radical Republican.

    In the case of Richard Nixon, while Spiro Agnew might have been impeachment insurance, he was removed first by prosecutors as part of a plea bargain, and replaced by the person who would have been the successor had Nixon’s party controlled the House of Representatives, something that hadn’t happened in 20 years and was not going to happen for twenty years more. And the animus against Nixon was personal. Nixon was dishonest.

    The case against Bill Clinton was personal, and the Republicans were almost reluctant to do so – but, well, they would have expelled a member of the House or the Senate for doing the same thing, after the Ethics Committee had completed its investigation. Clinton was also very dishonest. This always riles up the opposition.

    In the case of Donald Trump, it may be personal, but they’re also just not thinking, or consider a failed impeachment the equivalent of a censure.

    Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8)

  69. I really have no problem with a president trying to “subvert” the existing system. Reagan did that to great effect. The problem with Trump is that he is 1) random, 2) ineffective and 3) has no clear idea of what to replace it with.

    Hit the nail on the head. This is the real problem with Trump — he is nothing but a wrecking ball.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  70. As for impeaching Trump … since it is unlikely to remove him, I am concerned more with the unintended effects. At least I assume they are unintended.

    1) This will measurably effect Trump’s re-election chances. Which way is hard to say as it will look like the System Strikes Back to his supporters and to many apoliticals who wanted the change he offered. It will also look like he’s a fracking crook to many.

    2) Joe Biden is going to have a bad time.

    3) The Democrat chances of holding the House are now unpredictable. See #1. But those Orange County freshmen who squeaked through due to ballot harvesting are complete and utter toast.

    4) Trump will wear this like a badge of honor, even though it isn’t.

    5) GOP politicians will be even more consolidated behind Trump, wishing to avoid the recriminations that our host experiences.

    6) The Presidency will be diminished by the impeachment charges, although this may be hidden for a time by its current occupant.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  71. Hit the nail on the head. This is the real problem with Trump — he is nothing but a wrecking ball.

    To be fair, the wrecking ball is what the people voted for. There was some hope that saner GOP members could build something on the wreckage, but no. The first session of Congress made that clear.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  72. Here’s Trump today, whining about how he was not entitled to witnesses in the House (not entirely true), despite the fact that when he goes to the Senate he … won’t be presenting any witnesses

    It seems like that, when he’s facing a kangaroo court, he complains about a lack of due process; but when he faces a court biased in his favor, he’s not interested in due process .

    Or the court isn’t. (Trump himself is interested in trying to vindicate himself. McConnell is trying to avoid doing anything that could change any opinions one way or the other.)

    Trump’s campaign (contributions and rally turnout) would be helped by a prolonged process but Trump’s overall reputation would be hurt. That could be mitigated considerably by admitting error. He also would look less guilty as charged.

    Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8)

  73. Look at the date.

    NJRob (4d595c) — 12/18/2019 @ 10:51 am

    When the police see a known criminal, they try to make sure they can keep seeing what he’s doing. Because they know that sooner or later he commit some crime, so they want to be able to arrest him as soon as possible. And if the criminal knows he’s being watched, they can hope the knowledge he’s being watched will deter him from committing crimes.

    That’s the situation here. Trump’s career before his election is a full demonstration that he will lie, cheat, and outright steal, bend the rules in his favor, break the rules if he thinks he can get away with it. It was only a matter of time before he did something that was worthy of impeachment. And Trump being Trump, even the knowledge he was being watched does not deter him from bad behavior.

    kishnevi (0c10d1)

  74. and then after all that you get the removed person’s party’s choice for a successor. (most of the time)

    You’re assuming this is about DJT. This is about more than DJT. The hate that has been brewing on the left is not going to stop there. Pence is next. I believe you yourself said that these articles of impeachment are weak. Because they don’t care. They just needed something to work with. Because if they don’t get control, the world is going to end in 12 short years. That is a powerful motivation, not just to party apparatchiks who may or may not be all-in on AGW but are all-in on getting power, but to their supporters right on down to their thugs-in-the-street antifa base. Even their swampy, elitist ‘civilized’ allies can’t seem to attend a simple wedding without violently crashing a Rethuglican women’s gathering. And as I said, they will also set about removing judiciary appointees. It’s that important to them.

    This is not your grandfather’s impeachment.

    PTw (894877)

  75. 2) Joe Biden is going to have a bad time.

    The stauncher advocates of impeachment are from the AOC wing, so they probably view a process that damages Biden as a good thing.

    6) The Presidency will be diminished by the impeachment charges, although this may be hidden for a time by its current occupant.

    I may be alone in thinking this, but I think that’s a good thing.

    kishnevi (0c10d1)

  76. Dude, you’re getting into LGF territory.

    Darth Chocolate (82840a)

  77. DRJ – “So you think what matters is the words, right? I am fine with that interpretation and thought about it before my comment, but why is that material if the words had no impact? Haven’t we learned from Trump that words don’t matter?

    I am also fine with believing words do matter … but not from Trump supporters. One cannot support Trump and credibly claim words should matter.“

    Maybe get back to my initial point first.

    The comment was about the fact that there were quite a few people in politics and media calling the election illegitimate from the get go, declaring from Day 1 of the transition period that this must not stand. One way this was exhibited was by pleas for electors to shirk their duties. Another way was for those in The Resistance to spy on the new administration to find anything to build a case around to seek impeachment.

    As to words mattering:

    I agree wholeheartedly words should matter and the President should be held responsible for his words, just like those who have lied repeatedly about Trump.

    I don’t like Trump. I didn’t vote for him. I won’t vote for him.

    But he won the election and the only method for removing him should be next year’s election or the end of his second term. Obama did worse and I didn’t call for his removal other than the 2012 election.

    harkin (15bd84)

  78. OT- Congrats on the remodeled kitchen, Patterico. Ugh on that leak- my brother’s family endured a slow, lurking leaker- cracked water pipe beneath the living room floor and the cement foundation of his home which drew water up into the sheet rock walls of the living room, bathroom and kitchen. Helluva mess which required replacing carpeting, walls, repainting and much shifting of furniture- they spent nearly seven months in a hotel because, of course, of the dickering w/t insurance company.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  79. 71. Kevin M (19357e) — 12/18/2019 @ 11:14 am

    It will also look like he’s a fracking crook to many.

    If he offers no defense. He has the option of looking like an idiot and incompetent administrator and a Russian dupe instead. (this is not bad enough for the Democrats)

    2) Joe Biden is going to have a bad time.

    This depends.

    I think Lindsey Graham, and some other Republicans, are trying to protect Joe Biden. Bit can he make it all the way though to November 3 unscathed?

    3) The Democrat chances of holding the House are now unpredictable.

    It depends on who winds up looking unfair, and if anyone remembers. A lot will depend on just how politically honest members of both artiies are looking in October. But there’ll be more going on, and the public could turn massively on either major party depending on which of them look more like unfair rubber stamps who on;y echo talking points.

    6) The Presidency will be diminished by the impeachment charges, although this may be hidden for a time by its current occupant.

    I think the impeachment process will be diminished, if there is an acquittal without allowing a full case to be made.

    If Trump is re-elected, but the Democrats retain control of the House and gain control of the Senate
    (the party balance of those up for election makes the latter quite likely) there will be more impeachments starting in 2021 and this time they’ll get a full hearing in the Senate, even if the cases are weaker.

    There may also be a virtual halt to confirmations to most appointed positions requiring Senate confirmation, except military officers. Not just judges.

    Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8)

  80. Neera Tanden
    @neeratanden
    ·
    MoveOn was born from Clinton’s impeachment. Today, there are no protests defending Trump. There are only protests supporting impeachment and the Constitution. That’s important.
    __ _

    Bill M.
    @BillMo617
    ·
    Because they have lives, they aren’t in a perpetual state of despair
    __ _

    Bohemio –
    @El__Bohemio
    ·
    We have lives, Neera.

    We work. We go home to families and more worthwhile pursuits than impotently waving signs and screaming.

    But make no mistake. We know what’s going on.
    __ _

    Muscles McChristmas
    @MusclesRock31
    ·
    People got jobs and families, they don’t go home to their studio apartment to discuss pronouns with their cats.
    __ _

    Phil Thornburgh 🇺🇸💨 🐇
    @PhilThornburgh
    ·
    There is no need Neera. Most of us have jobs and families to pay attention to. Our protest is coming up though and you are welcome to attend. Save the Date: November 3rd, 2020.

    _

    harkin (15bd84)

  81. >Not just judges.

    I am convinced that we will never again, in my lifetime, see routine approval of judges by a Senate with a majority of a different party than the President. McConnell’s treatment of Garland all but guaranteed that.

    aphrael (971fba)

  82. #82

    >Not just judges.

    I am convinced that we will never again, in my lifetime, see routine approval of judges by a Senate with a majority of a different party than the President. McConnell’s treatment of Garland all but guaranteed that.

    aphrael (971fba) — 12/18/2019 @ 11:37 am

    Harry Reid ensured that when he employed the nuke option in the Senate.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  83. 75. PTw (894877) — 12/18/2019 @ 11:23 am

    You’re assuming this is about DJT. This is about more than DJT. The hate that has been brewing on the left is not going to stop there. Pence is next.

    Bujt it;ll be hard t make any impeachment proceeding against Mike Pence stick, or look plausible. The case against Mike Pence wold be that he was part of the pressure campaign against Ukraine. Now, stalling the appointment of anew vice president for several months) might be expected to happen.

    Pence is also hated or despised by some as an evangelical who doesn’t want to be alone in a locked room, and maybe even a restaurant table, with a woman who is not his wife but that’s not grounds for impeachment. He’s also despised as a toady, but that’s also not grounds for impeachment, especially with the old boss out of the picture.

    I believe you yourself said that these articles of impeachment are weak. Because they don’t care. They just needed something to work with.

    Trump told them this past January they could use the government shutdown but Nancy Pelosi didn’t bite. So they need something that looks superficially plausible.

    Because if they don’t get control, the world is going to end in 12 short years.

    That’s AOC and Greta Thnnberg. The world as we know it, to be more precise. But I don’t think too many politicians believe that. They’ve lived too long.

    they will also set about removing judiciary appointees. It’s that important to them.

    That’s too hard. It’s pack the courts, including the Supreme Court. Raise the number of justices to 15. The number of judges on courts of appeals anyway regularly goes up. They don’t need to worry about individual judges. It’s the balance on the courts that counts.

    Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8)

  84. Garland obstruction is about the only thing i would applaud mitch for.

    mg (8cbc69)

  85. You’re assuming this is about DJT. This is about more than DJT. The hate that has been brewing on the left is not going to stop there. Pence is next.

    The CBC and CHC would check out as would the layer of Dems below the swing/Trump district freshmen, but this does to an extent explain Pelosi’s hem and haw (DCSCA’s big complaint about drawing it out) – her district is the one which would hypothetically recoil the most under a Pence presidency.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  86. aphrael (971fba) — 12/18/2019 @ 11:37 am

    I am convinced that we will never again, in my lifetime, see routine approval of judges by a Senate with a majority of a different party than the President. McConnell’s treatment of Garland all but guaranteed that.

    The question is, is this going to extend to lower court judges. It’s be running into problems for 15 years or so, but at first mostly because some were seen as candidates for a Supreme Court appointment in the future. District Court appointments tend to be negotiated, and split 2-1 in favor of one party, with home state Senators sometimes blkackballing people and now maybe not just for personal reasons.

    We haven;t had routine confirmation of Supreme Court justices by a Senate with a majority of a different party..since Stevens in 1975 and Souter in 1990 and that because the Democrats knew they weren’t judicial conservatives.

    The last Justice confirmed by a Senate of the opposite party from that of the president was Clarence Thomas in 1991.

    Since Clarence Thomas, Bill Clinton got two Supreme Court justices confirmed by a Democratic Senate, in is first two years, which were also, it turned out, the only two years of his term when the Democrats controlled it, George W. Bush got two justices confirmed by a Republican Senate (with none retiring in his first term because of the 2000 election decision so it was the first two years of his second term) Barack Obama got two Supreme Court justices confirmed by a Democratic Senate, in the first two years of his term, and Donald Trump named two justices who were confirmed by a Republican Senate, also in he first two years of his term.

    One day we’re not going to be lucky enough to have the Senate and the presidency being held by members of the same political party when a Supreme Court vacancy opens up. We didn’t in fact in 2016 when a Supreme Court justice suddenly died, (killed by an airplane flight – it’s a risk factor for people with heart damage) but that changed after the November election.

    Rehnquist also died, but he thought he could hold out another ear so Sandra Day O’Connor chose to make that year the one in which she retired) So that was still timed, although maybe the justices were then only looking at who was president.

    RBG is also not going to retire early.

    Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8)

  87. One day we’re not going to be lucky enough to have the Senate and the presidency being held by members of the same political party when a Supreme Court vacancy opens up. We didn’t in fact in 2016 when a Supreme Court justice suddenly died, (killed by an airplane flight – it’s a risk factor for people with heart damage) but that changed after the November election.

    RBG is also not going to retire early.

    I am surprised that there isnt much, if at all, of a Scalia murdered conspiracy industry and that the family seemed to accept the fraility of their patriarch as the major contributor, given the locale of his death and dominant ethnicity of the residents. I have a feeling that there will be persistant rumors of a murder plot (in spite of her age, frailty, and activity) however and whenever RBG passes.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  88. While CNS stopped broadcasting early in the morning while they were debating the rules and even then mostly had the panel woth Norah O’Donnell talking) the proceedings on the actual impeachment resolution (with 6 hours of debate) are now on television broadcast by CS NBC and ABC. All 3 networks.

    And not regular (non-cable) Fox. Like old times. Who says this is not your grandfather’s impeachment?

    (Although 45 years is a little bit young for a grandfather)

    It’s also on NPR (national Public Radio) with the usual slight tape delay.

    The speakers alternate, pro and con, De,ocrat and Republican.

    Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8)

  89. * CBS! While CBS stopped broadcasting early in the morning….

    Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8)

  90. Pence is also hated or despised by some as an evangelical who doesn’t want to be alone in a locked room, and maybe even a restaurant table, with a woman who is not his wife but that’s not grounds for impeachment.

    You’re kinda making my point. What Trump has “done” re Ukraine is laughable as grounds for impeachment. There is just as much, probably more, evidence that can be ginned up that Pence hates gays and trannies and even blacks and hispanics. Can’t have a man of such low moral character leading the nation. God Gaia only knows where that would lead. When you’re living in the Three Felonies A Day world, it’s show me the man and I’ll show you the crime. It’s easy to overlook that fact when neither you nor anyone you strongly support is one of their targets. Especially if you’re default/bias position is a faith in the status quo.

    Trump told them this past January they could use the government shutdown but Nancy Pelosi didn’t bite. So they need something that looks superficially plausible.

    True. Superficially plausible only happens about as often as a stopped clock tells the right time.

    But I don’t think too many politicians believe that. They’ve lived too long.

    Au contraire, Pierre. See again, your (understandable) faith in the status quo. As I said, party apparatchiks may or may not be all-in on AGW but are all-in on getting power. And the younger ones even more so. And by young, I mean anyone under 50…maybe 55.

    Raise the number of justices to 15. The number of judges on courts of appeals anyway regularly goes up. They don’t need to worry about individual judges. It’s the balance on the courts that counts.

    Perhaps so. But again, they have been laying the groundwork for a fruit-of-the-poisoned-tree argument. See, you’re thinking about this logically, legally. I firmly believe that there is a groundswell in the D party, both establishment and new blood, that has moved beyond such trivial ideas. They’re all about mob rule now.

    See, as much as I hate to believe it, I’ve come to believe something quite awful about our society, the more that I’ve studied it. All societies probably. As is well known by many here, the Founders were quite wary of full-on democracy. I’m sure I don’t need to reference Federalist Papers or Factions or such or Franklin’s “republic, if you can keep it”, etc. I’ve come to believe, understand really, that culture overrides words written on pieces of paper that hardly anybody ever reads and even fewer understand. There has been an undermining of the meaning of words such that you don’t even need to change the laws. You change the meaning of the words the laws were written in and, viola! Gay marriage has constitutional protection. And you’re failure to bake someone a gay wedding cake? Hate of the vilest kind. Hate speech even.

    Per whembly
    Harry Reid ensured that when he employed the nuke option in the Senate.

    The cultural groundwork for which was laid with Bork and Thomas.

    PTw (894877)

  91. Read Trump’s pre-impeachment screed the Speaker of the House, who not coincidentally happens to be a woman. It’s full of false claims, conspiracy theories, whining and complaining, insults, and overall ignorance. If not for everything else–bank, wire and tax fraud, self-dealing, emoluments violations, election interference, consorting with foreign powers, abuse of office, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, the list goes on–he should be impeached for bad grammar alone.

    If you think he’s unhinged now, wait for when the House votes to impeach in the middle of his rally in Michigan tonight. Tomorrow morning Twitter will explode.

    Today is Wednesday. Yesterday was Tuesday, the last day Trump was not impeached. Tuesday’s gone with the wind. Train roll on. Oh, you lonesome, lonesome train.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSk9Ri1z1S8

    The Senate Republicans will not vote to convict. That’s a given, especially since McConnel has already stated that he would not honor the oath he’s required to take, by the Constitution, to remain impartial.

    If that’s the course the Republicans take, as butt gerbils squirming up Trump’s conflated colon, they’re doomed as a party.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  92. “Where is your line?”
    Patterico (115b1f) — 12/18/2019 @ 8:09 am

    Don’t care where your line is, nor should you care about anyone else’s.

    The line gets drawn by the electorate.

    And, that’s what the pro-impeachment folks so desperately seek to avoid. Own it.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  93. Never trumpers have spoken impeach 45! Why so it will be difficult or nearly impossible for trump to get his chice on the supreme court. Populism not libertarian conservatism rules the republican party NOW! Rich old white establishment corporate conservatives can no longer buy their way in to power to push their free trade agenda!

    asset (35e741)

  94. Scalia’s doctor didn’t properly diagnose what was wrong with him, and didn’t warn him against flying on an airplane (cabin pressure is set to an altitude of 8,000 feet and that, and the crowding, causes the problem)

    NBC’s Tim Russert (of Meet the Press) died the same way, but not some time after getting off the plane. So did Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia in the Star Wars films) She said she didn’t age well, d had heart diseases brought on maybe by some (both legal and illegal) drug use, as well as sleep apnea.

    I think in all cases it may have cardiac arrest, defined as the sudden stoppage of the heart, caused by a malfunction of the heart’s electrical system.

    Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8)

  95. True. Superficially plausible only happens about as often as a stopped clock tells the right time.

    With Trump, the stopped clock happens about once an hour….

    More seriously….Trump provides plenty of reasons (pretexts, if you insist) to impeach him. Pence, none. You are mistaking the loud part of the Democratic Party for the large part of the Democratic Party. The large part understands that if the loud part gets its way, the Democratic Party will lose elections and keep losing them.

    But, minus the reference to AGW, what you said here
    As I said, party apparatchiks may or may not be all-in on AGW but are all-in on getting power. And the younger ones even more so.

    applies as much to the GOP as it does the Democrats.

    kishnevi (0c10d1)

  96. “The line gets drawn by the electorate.

    And, that’s what the pro-impeachment folks so desperately seek to avoid. Own it.”

    The electorate voted to give the Democrats a majority in the House.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  97. applies as much to the GOP as it does the Democrats.

    The GOP is’t composed, not even the loud parts, of socialists.

    BTW, did you ever find that source about the Nassau lighthouse being visible from Ft. Lauderdale beach, even in daylight? I’m really, really curious where that idea came from. Fascinated, to be honest.

    PTw (894877)

  98. “The electorate voted to give the Democrats a majority in the House.”
    Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/18/2019 @ 12:41 pm

    Because the key issue in 2018 was whether to deny themselves a say in 2020, and they were all for it.

    Good Lord.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  99. PTw, if you think the universe of GOP politicians is not fixated on getting power and keeping it, it’s you that lives in an fantasy world.

    kishnevi (0c10d1)

  100. Republicans are not your friends. Vote them in, and they will betray you. Every. Single. Time.

    Gryph (08c844)

  101. As I said, the GOP isn’t composed, not even the loud parts, of socialists.

    Do you have a reading comprehension problem? And you still didn’t answer my question.

    PTw (894877)

  102. Republicans are not your friends. Vote them in, and they will betray you. Every. Single. Time.

    And that’s how you got Donald Trump. Why is this so hard to understand?

    PTw (894877)

  103. 101

    Republicans are not your friends. Vote them in, and they will betray you. Every. Single. Time.

    Gryph (08c844) — 12/18/2019 @ 12:53 pm

    Don’t vote Republicans… you’d get Democrats. Every. Single. Time. (caveat, outside of rare indie/3rd party).

    So ask yourself this: which party aligns with your policy choices?

    whembly (fd57f6)

  104. The electorate seems to be building homes, warehouses, distribution centers wherever I have been traveling. Let alone road work being done everywhere on the eastern seaboard. Unions seem happy and billionaires spending money on lavish homes- always helps. The size of the wallet will decide.

    mg (8cbc69)

  105. “The electorate voted to give the Democrats a majority in the House.”
    Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/18/2019 @ 12:41 pm

    Because the key issue in 2018 was whether to deny themselves a say in 2020, and they were all for it.

    Good Lord.

    Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/18/2019 @ 12:48 pm

    Trump fans have rubbed the Electoral College in the American People’s faces, because, somehow, they think trolling is good politics and not just good polarization. No one thinks 2020 is about the wishes of the people. You don’t think it. You’re a troll and you’re trolling.

    Hillary was who the voters picked in 2016. No one thinks the voters will pick Trump in 2020. There are a lot who think the EC will again favor Trump even if the voters reject Trump to an even wider margin than the rather spacious one in 2016.

    The electorate choose to impeach Trump when they gave us a Democrat House. You’re the one trying to shut the electorate up. Be happy. The Senate will indeed do just that.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  106. So ask yourself this: which party aligns with your policy choices?

    whembly (fd57f6) — 12/18/2019 @ 1:08 pm

    Nah. Let’s just ask if the GOP is the enemy of the USA. The answer is yes.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  107. Jake Tapper
    @jaketapper
    Big differences between Clinton impeachment and this one. Clinton at this point was publicly contrite and partisans supporting him mostly argued that what he did was wrong, just not impeachable. This president is on the attack and his partisans deny facts and any wrongdoing.
    __ _

    Ben Shapiro
    @benshapiro
    ·
    Another difference, just for the record, is that Clinton was charged with actual criminal acts, including perjury and obstruction of justice, not merely abuse of power and obstruction of Congress

    _

    harkin (15bd84)

  108. If only we didn’t have those pesky elections, in which voters might vote for a president that the establishment doesn’t like.

    There. FIFY.
    PTw (894877) — 12/18/2019 @ 10:24 am

    So if majorities of voters choose Democrats (or noo-Trumplican Republicans) as their representatives, they’re all voting for “the establishment” against regular folks like themselves.

    But when the president turns the whole official GOP into his personal imperial guard, he’s still merely the poor, put-upon victim of “the establishment,” always being attacked for no reason at all!

    Trumplandia is a very strange world to live in.

    Radegunda (36778b)

  109. And that’s how you got Donald Trump. Why is this so hard to understand?

    PTw (894877) — 12/18/2019 @ 12:58 pm

    So what? Donald Trump or Hillary. Who cares? I’m not going to play along with this partisanship crap because as soon as Americans stop doing that, both of them become unelectable. Shivering at night scared of the other political party is the only way each party is able to function with such pathetic nominees.

    Everyone needs to roll their eyes at partisan arguments. Because that’s the real way we got Trump. I’m so glad Trump has been impeached after all that pathetic wishing that Obama would be impeached. It’s hilarious.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  110. #107

    So ask yourself this: which party aligns with your policy choices?

    whembly (fd57f6) — 12/18/2019 @ 1:08 pm

    Nah. Let’s just ask if the GOP is the enemy of the USA. The answer is yes.

    Dustin (cafb36) — 12/18/2019 @ 1:31 pm

    Okay Hillary Clinton.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  111. So ask yourself this: which party aligns with your policy choices?

    whembly (fd57f6) — 12/18/2019 @ 1:08 pm

    How about asking: 1) Which candidate is of sound mind? 2) Which candidate shows some sign of having a conscience? 3) Which party will say and do anything to deflect from the gross mental and ethical defects of their guy?

    It isn’t that I like the Dems, but at present the Republicans are putting on an appalling display of craven hypocrisy in service to a deeply unworthy “leader.”

    Radegunda (36778b)

  112. 112

    So ask yourself this: which party aligns with your policy choices?

    whembly (fd57f6) — 12/18/2019 @ 1:08 pm

    How about asking: 1) Which candidate is of sound mind?

    1) between HRC and Trump? I’d actually give it to HRC.

    Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren and Trump? OMG, gimmie Trump all-day-long.

    2) Which candidate shows some sign of having a conscience?

    You kidding…right? They’re all crooks.

    3) Which party will say and do anything to deflect from the gross mental and ethical defects of their guy?

    Which party doesn’t circle their wagons for the party’s POTUS?

    It isn’t that I like the Dems, but at present the Republicans are putting on an appalling display of craven hypocrisy in service to a deeply unworthy “leader.”

    Radegunda (36778b) — 12/18/2019 @ 1:46 pm

    I don’t think its remotely even that. It’s primarily the opposition to all the bad faith crap that the Democrats are pulling.

    They are going to kill a very important and solemn Impeachment power by trivializing process that will mark the end of the seriousness that Impeachment ought to afford. The “craven hypocrisy” on display is sole at Democrat’s feet here.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  113. It’s pretty funny when an entire political party turns into the Party of Trump, and state GOP leaders cancel primaries to protect Trump, and the executive branch is filled with Trump bootlickers, and conservative media outlets are mostly cheerleaders for Trump — and the Trump loyalists still pretend that Trump is waging a lonely, heroic battle against “the establishment.”

    Radegunda (36778b)

  114. If Trump is re-elected, but the Democrats retain control of the House and gain control of the Senate

    I think there is utterly no chance of that. If Trump is re-elected that means that the Trump-as-a victim spin won out over the Trump-as-a crook spin, at least in red states, and the first-term Congresspeople who won in red districts all lose. Similarly for red-state Democrat Senators. I see a Trump victory leaving both Houses Republican.

    Not that this means Trump could accomplish much because, well, Trump. RGB hit hardest.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  115. Evidence presented shows that he used the power of his office to pressure Ukraine to announce an investigation of a political rival. This seems like an abuse of power that should be checked. I think impeachment is warranted.

    Time123 (53ef45)

  116. There may also be a virtual halt to confirmations to most appointed positions requiring Senate confirmation, except military officers.

    This is one reason that the recess appointment power needs to be stronger — the President should have, at minimum, the power to make these appointments at the end of each year. The idea that the Senate can effectively shut down the Executive branch is abhorrent.

    Or course the President could veto every bill until things change….

    Kevin M (19357e)

  117. 117

    Evidence presented shows that he used the power of his office to pressure Ukraine to announce an investigation of a political rival. This seems like an abuse of power that should be checked. I think impeachment is warranted.

    Time123 (53ef45) — 12/18/2019 @ 1:56 pm

    Evidence does not show that.

    Evidence shows what certain underlings (ie, Sondland) thought what was needed to pressure Ukraine.

    At best, the evidence is incomplete… at worst, you’re let confirmation bias (or even animus) fill in the gaps.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  118. @88 RBG has been gone for at least six months to a year. Maybe longer. There may still be a pulse, and I’m not convinced of that, but if you think she’s sure which day it is much less participating in any sort of SCOTUS work I’d like to talk to you about a prime beachfront property in the southwest that is a steal.

    frosty (491023)

  119. You kidding…right? They’re all crooks.

    Whoa there — what happened to all that “Drain the Swamp!” stuff? We’re still being told that Trump is practically single-handedly exposing all the corruption in the government, while he himself has the purest motives.

    Which party doesn’t circle their wagons for the party’s POTUS?

    The GOP when Nixon was president. And if people take it for granted that a party should circle the wagons around a president of the same party, no matter what, then those people are nothing but hypocrites when they complain that the impeachment process has been too partisan.

    I’ve criticized Dem bad faith for many years — and I utterly reject the notion that all the opposition to Trump arises from bad faith. The patent horribleness of Trump — and the eagerness of so many to excuse it and even praise it — is driving a good many serious people away from the GOP. Trumplicans refuse to see it, but instead they accuse those people of bad motives.

    I get no personal benefit whatever from being Trump-critical. I’m just calling it as I see it.

    Radegunda (36778b)

  120. I am convinced that we will never again, in my lifetime, see routine approval of judges by a Senate with a majority of a different party than the President. McConnell’s treatment of Garland all but guaranteed that.

    aphrael,

    As much as I respect you, the name “Garland” in any whine about judges deserves nothing but derision. He was hardly the first judge of that sort, and the Democrats had MANY times made the comment that they would never ratify a judge under the same circumstances, going back 100 years. The only reason they let Kennedy slide in 1983-4 was that they thought (correctly) he was an abortion supporter.

    This is also the result of a long line of DEMOCRAT abuses, starting with the filibuster of 100s of judges in the W years. They tried to filibuster ROBERTS fer gawdsakes. Then they got rid of the filibuster when it was their turn, then when Trump came in they played the Senate Rules slow-walk.

    And yet knuckle-dragging Democrats still trot out “Garland!” 1000 demerits for that one.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  121. 118

    There may also be a virtual halt to confirmations to most appointed positions requiring Senate confirmation, except military officers.

    This is one reason that the recess appointment power needs to be stronger — the President should have, at minimum, the power to make these appointments at the end of each year. The idea that the Senate can effectively shut down the Executive branch is abhorrent.

    Or course the President could veto every bill until things change….

    Kevin M (19357e) — 12/18/2019 @ 1:58 pm

    Indeed… those are political tools.

    The POTUS can veto everything that comes across his desk. Just as Congress can withold fundings of the POTUS’ agendas.

    There are numerous billy clubs the framers gives each branch to whack each other. Maybe it’s time they should uses these clubs more often?

    whembly (fd57f6)

  122. Garland obstruction is about the only thing i would applaud mitch for.

    I doubt any Republican from Tancredo to Kasich wanted the Garland nomination to move forward. It was as much a litmus test as majority Democrats allowing a Trump nomination to move forward in 2020.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  123. It’s pack the courts, including the Supreme Court. Raise the number of justices to 15.

    Easy two step path to Civil War:

    1. Ram through a SC expansion.
    2. Have the new Court void 2A.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  124. #122

    You kidding…right? They’re all crooks.

    Whoa there — what happened to all that “Drain the Swamp!” stuff? We’re still being told that Trump is practically single-handedly exposing all the corruption in the government, while he himself has the purest motives.

    I’ve never attributed “purest motives” to Trump, so please don’t put me in that bucket.

    I think it’s a pragmatic positions that most (if not all) politicians has their hands/thumbs in the usual DC corruptions.

    Which party doesn’t circle their wagons for the party’s POTUS?

    The GOP when Nixon was president. And if people take it for granted that a party should circle the wagons around a president of the same party, no matter what, then those people are nothing but hypocrites when they complain that the impeachment process has been too partisan.

    Nixon was easier because there are documented crimes being committed. The Abuse of Power article is nebulous and the Obstruction of Congress is farcical.

    It’s not a rational take to believe that the House has done the impeachment process it’s due dilligence.

    Explain to me why GOP/Trump should engage in good faith when Democrats are demonstratively exercise this in absolutely bad faith?

    Please, I’d like an answer as to how this looks.

    I’ve criticized Dem bad faith for many years — and I utterly reject the notion that all the opposition to Trump arises from bad faith. The patent horribleness of Trump — and the eagerness of so many to excuse it and even praise it — is driving a good many serious people away from the GOP. Trumplicans refuse to see it, but instead they accuse those people of bad motives.

    Trump deserves a lot of criticisms. (none of which rises to impeachment).

    But we can also point out when Trump-critic overreach as well.

    I get no personal benefit whatever from being Trump-critical. I’m just calling it as I see it.

    Radegunda (36778b) — 12/18/2019 @ 2:06 pm

    Understood.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  125. Okay Hillary Clinton.

    whembly (fd57f6) — 12/18/2019 @ 1:39 pm

    Actually the secret Hillary Clinton donor in the GOP is your boy Trump, the impeached and disgraced president being weird on Twitter.

    When I say so what, between the two, it’s obviously an insult to both. They are pathetic, but they are also very similar. Every Trump fans knows, in their heart, they are hacks for Hillary or hacks for someone just like Hillary. That’s why they try so hard to point the finger about such things.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  126. 126

    It’s pack the courts, including the Supreme Court. Raise the number of justices to 15.

    Easy two step path to Civil War:

    1. Ram through a SC expansion.
    2. Have the new Court void 2A.

    Kevin M (19357e) — 12/18/2019 @ 2:12 pm

    What I find really ironic is that the anti-2nd brigade wants to do this believing that Democrats/Progressive will always be in power.

    Do they really want to disarm themselves if they truly believe Trump is a dictator?

    Do they really think these things through?

    whembly (fd57f6)

  127. >>>Which party doesn’t circle their wagons for the party’s POTUS?

    The GOP when Nixon was president.

    Actually the GOP did circle the wagons for Nixon. But Nixon was giving the Indians smoking guns, and the GOP couldn’t hang. When Charles Wiggins — the chief wagon-circler on the Judiciary Committee — announced he’d vote for impeachment it was the end.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  128. 128

    Okay Hillary Clinton.

    whembly (fd57f6) — 12/18/2019 @ 1:39 pm

    Actually the secret Hillary Clinton donor in the GOP is your boy Trump, the impeached and disgraced president being weird on Twitter.

    When I say so what, between the two, it’s obviously an insult to both. They are pathetic, but they are also very similar. Every Trump fans knows, in their heart, they are hacks for Hillary or hacks for someone just like Hillary. That’s why they try so hard to point the finger about such things.

    Dustin (cafb36) — 12/18/2019 @ 2:15 pm

    Calling you Hillary Clinton is a play on a debate question when the moderator asked the candidates who’s their greatest enemy… to which Clinton responded with “Republicans”.

    The aghasted look in Jim Webb’s face was priceless.

    The subtext here is this: We’ve lost a lot in politics when we view each others as enemies, rather than Americans with differing opinions.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  129. Bill Clinton got two Supreme Court justices confirmed by a Democratic Senate, in is first two years, which were also, it turned out, the only two years of his term when the Democrats controlled it, George W. Bush got two justices confirmed by a Republican Senate (with none retiring in his first term because of the 2000 election decision so it was the first two years of his second term) Barack Obama got two Supreme Court justices confirmed by a Democratic Senate, in the first two years of his term, and Donald Trump named two justices who were confirmed by a Republican Senate, also in he first two years of his term.

    It’s almost as if Justices retire at their first opportunity when the Senate or Executive changes hands to their desired party (Blackmun, Souter and Stevens being Democrats in the end). (Marshall didn’t know who was President in the end.)

    Must. Not. Politicize. The. Courts.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  130. Nah. Let’s just ask if the GOP is the enemy of the USA. The answer is yes.

    No words.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  131. The electorate voted to give the Democrats a majority in the House.

    On a platform of “NO, we won’t impeach, we will work on health care and jobs!” And now look.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  132. There’s a lot of judicial issues where the parties differ.

    One justice who went by political party,, rather than the ideology or judicial issues that he was on on the court was Byron White, appointed by Prediddnt Kenndy in 1961 – JFK knew him peersonally, not from college but from when his fatehr was Ambassador to the UK.

    President Clinton was afraid of a primary chalenege from New York Governor Mario Cuomo – he concluded , I think, that because Mario Cuomo had not run for president his real ambition was to be on the supreme Court. After what may have been his first attemot to get rid of him failed, he persuaded Senator Ted Kennedy to get Justice White to retire. Then he tried to appoint Mario Cuomo to the Supreme Court. For one week Mario Cuomo avoided taking his call. Finally he did and told him no.

    Then Clinton had to search for a replacement. It got down to Bryer and Ginsberg and at the end he chose Ginsberg. The next year he appointed Breyer. Clinton didn;t really care aboutteh Supreme Courtt (except maybe for Roe v Wade) Any particular cases were too many years far in the future.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  133. @88

    RBG has been gone for at least six months to a year. Maybe longer. There may still be a pulse, and I’m not convinced of that, but if you think she’s sure which day it is much less participating in any sort of SCOTUS work I’d like to talk to you about a prime beachfront property in the southwest that is a steal.

    frosty (491023) — 12/18/2019 @ 2:03 pm

    Eh…I saw her interview last weekend. She’s still sharp as a tack.

    Physically, yeah, it looks her body is about to fail her, but her mind is still classic RBG’s wit.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  134. Kennedy was appointed in 1987

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  135. NJRob,

    You are upset with me for what seems to be three reasons:

    You say I deliberately misinterpreted your comment.
    You say I commented in bad faith.
    You were insulted by my calling your comment whining.

    I addressed your comment directly and factually, and I explained my thinking in subsequent comments. I did not misunderstand (as I said later), and I was not discussing this in bad faith. You are free to agree or disagree but you don’t get to call comments a deliberate misinterpretation or bad faith just because you disagree.

    I think your problem is with me calling your comment whining. I could have called it complaining but I chose whining because that is how it strikes me when someone wins but complains about how unfair it is.

    DRJ (15874d)

  136. What the what?

    @abc
    Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer says Pelosi should withhold transferring impeachment articles to Senate: “I hope the House retains control of the articles until the Speaker and Leader Schumer can negotiate agreement on process and witnesses from McConnell” https://abcn.ws/2S7uOSi

    No…seriously help me out… what? The point to this impeachment is to pass the 2 articles to be tried to the Senate.

    whembly (c30c83)

  137. Early on in the proceedings today the Republicans made two unanimous consent requests for achange in the rules. One, brought by Lyn Cheney. was that members vote by roll call on camera. Another was that the time for debate (on the main resolution – first they were debating the rule) be doubled from 6 hours to 12 hours. Both were not even objected to – the person who controlled the debate simply said they could not be made. That’s the equivalent of an objection anyway I suppose.

    Republicans complained about the procedures by which this whole thing had been brought, and that the rules of the House of Representatives had been violated. This went through the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee never any fact witnesses, with the result, that during the deliberations of the House Rules Committee, the Judiciary people, whose legislation this was supposed to be couldn’t answer any questions about the report because they hadn’t written it.

    The rule violation they cited was that the minority was not allowed to hold a hearing day during wch they could call their own witnesses. This happened both in the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary committee. (they say this was not overridden by the impeachment investigation resolution)

    Democrats said they were fair – Republicans and Democrats had equal amounts of time at every hearing. (they just fixed what they needed to fix – SF)

    I heard House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, after the Speaker at I think was he stat of the main debate, I could go into several extreme;y wrong statemnts I heard. (and some not so wrong)

    Adam Schiff is controlling the Dem side of the impeachment resolution debate. So there is one place he takes a formal role.

    Sammy Finkelman (69aa73)

  138. I like the way Republican Congressman complain about “new” impeachment witnesses being requested. New? Do they mean all of the witnesses and evidence that the White House has refused to make available for months?

    noel (26cd5a)

  139. Sorry. I meant Congressmen… plural. Way more than one spouting that line.

    noel (26cd5a)

  140. By the way, Rob, focusing on how unfair things are distracts from Trump’s negative and/or ill-advised contributions to politics and governing. It is not something I see you do regularly and I don’t think that is your intent here. Trump does regularly deflect and distract from anything that makes him look bad. Don’t fall for it.

    Do I care that politics has corrupted many of our government institutions, especially law enforcement? You bet. Do I think the answer is to choose sides and support “my side” no matter what? No.

    DRJ (15874d)

  141. NBC is carrying the impeachment debate instead of the Nightly News. (Special Report)

    Sammy Finkelman (69aa73)

  142. FYI:

    Republicans had it in for Obama before Day 1

    Democrats condemn GOP’s plot to obstruct Obama as ‘appalling and sad’ –Roger Draper book details how in 2009 senior Republican figures planned a campaign to bring Washington to a standstill.

    Allowed or not allowed?

    DRJ (15874d)

  143. Old school style, Sammy. In my day, there was no “Breaking News”, only the ominous but judiciously and thus rarely presented “Special Report”

    urbanleftbehind (44d676)

  144. noel (26cd5a) — 12/18/2019 @ 3:33 pm

    I like the way Republican Congressman complain about “new” impeachment witnesses being requested. New? Do they mean all of the witnesses and evidence that the White House has refused to make available for months?

    It’s not clear if there is any overlap.

    On Sunday on on of the news interview shows Adam Schiff said it’s not only witnesses but documents and seemed to be indicate that what he wants most (because he mentioned them) is Ambassador Bill Taylor’s notes and the cable he sent to the State Department on August 29. We know approximately what it said. That is was crazy to be withhold military aid for a political advantage. The problem with that is that it was Gordon Sondland who tied the two together that way.

    Democrats like to say not one document as been made available. This is an untrue talking point, because there is one well known one that has: The call record of the July 25, 2019 telephone call.

    Trump did that because otherwise untrue assumptions would have been made. The Administration also worked to declassify the whistleblower complaint.

    There are things wrong with the typical defense of Trump. Things wrong with everything said. some problems have unusual answers that can be the only rhat ones (or something else equally different)

    Sammy Finkelman (69aa73)

  145. Kennedy was appointed in 1987

    My mistake. Late 1987 and confirmed early 1988. Wong term but right point.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  146. #146

    FYI:
    Republicans had it in for Obama before Day 1
    Democrats condemn GOP’s plot to obstruct Obama as ‘appalling and sad’ –Roger Draper book details how in 2009 senior Republican figures planned a campaign to bring Washington to a standstill.

    Allowed or not allowed?

    DRJ (15874d) — 12/18/2019 @ 4:00 pm

    Are you equating this to the Impeachment inquiry?

    Or, simply the zealot oversights Congress has over the Executive?

    Because that latter is totes kosher… but, the former is dangerously setting a precedent.

    whembly (c30c83)

  147. Allowed or not allowed?

    Obama said his goal was to transform the United States into a socialist democracy like Europe. Republicans said that they would do everything in their power to prevent that.

    “Wanting Obama to fail at transforming the US into a socialist country” is not the same as “wanting Obama to fail”

    Kevin M (19357e)

  148. The vote is getting closer. Important members of Congress are speaking. Steny Hoyer has been speaking for some time – very slowly. Bt he;s mostly speaking n generalities.

    One thing he said was that Democrats had voted against impeachment three times, the last time in July 2019 – 60% of Democrats voted against that. (i.e., so it’s not like they were looking for some excuse to impeach the president.)

    I think Steve Scalese earlier mentioned two of them. One for harsh words about Colin Kaepernick and another for what he said about the Squad.

    Sammy Finkelman (69aa73)

  149. Memo to Stenny Hoyer-

    Forgot what a gas bag you are; thanks for speechifying and reminding the nation with that ‘every opportunity to prove his innocence’ pre-trial line.

    Usually in America, you’re ‘innocent until proven guilty.’

    Little wonder Americans know the justice system is rigged; they know ‘America’s Dad,’ Bill Cosby, will do more time than Donald Trump ever will. Or Richard Nixon ever did.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  150. As I said, the GOP isn’t composed, not even the loud parts, of socialists.

    Do you have a reading comprehension problem? And you still didn’t answer my question.

    You have the problem with reading comprehension.

    Democrats want power. Republicans want power. Therefore both are my enemy. If it matters to you whether one group of power lusting politicians can be labelled socialists, and the other can’t…then you are part of the problem.

    As to Nassau lighthouse…I have lived in Broward County for 50 years. (I am probably one of those hanging chads Gore and Bush fought over 19 years ago.) I can decide for myself what I can and cannot see standing on the beach.

    Kishnevi (5a7bdb)

  151. On a platform of “NO, we won’t impeach, we will work on health care and jobs!” And now look.

    Kevin M (19357e) — 12/18/2019

    Thank Mitch for that. There are supposedly 400 bills passed by the House that he won’t allow the Senate to vote on.

    I say “supposedly” because the figure comes from a Democratic outfit, and for all I know 399 of those bills are like the Obamacare repeals the House kept passing secure in the knowledge they would go nowhere in the Senate.

    Kishnevi (5a7bdb)

  152. This highlights the point strongly:
    https://twitter.com/ASimplePatriot/status/1207445732426440704

    More
    Here’s what the FBI knew about Steele ‘dossier’ in Jan 2017. With any sense of objectivity, OP CFH should have been shut down here. Yet they pressed on to set a perjury trap for Flynn and then wasted the country’s time and $ on an unnecessary Special Counsel Investigation.

    whembly (c30c83)

  153. The subtext here is this: We’ve lost a lot in politics when we view each others as enemies, rather than Americans with differing opinions.

    That seems to be a point lost on many Trump supporters, including a few people who comment here.

    Kishnevi (5a7bdb)

  154. 155

    On a platform of “NO, we won’t impeach, we will work on health care and jobs!” And now look.

    Kevin M (19357e) — 12/18/2019

    Thank Mitch for that. There are supposedly 400 bills passed by the House that he won’t allow the Senate to vote on.

    I say “supposedly” because the figure comes from a Democratic outfit, and for all I know 399 of those bills are like the Obamacare repeals the House kept passing secure in the knowledge they would go nowhere in the Senate.

    Kishnevi (5a7bdb) — 12/18/2019 @ 4:49 pm

    And they’re all loaded with lefty/socialist poison-pill provisions and they’ve signaled to Mitch that they’re not interested in going to conference with the Senate (where these poison-pills would obviously be stripped in the Senate). The Democrats doth protest too much here…

    whembly (c30c83)

  155. whembly (c30c83) — 12/18/2019 @ 4:50 pm

    The very fact that they thought it necessary to invent a case to investigate a presidential candidate who was heavily linkef to the Putin regime is the real measure of how incompetent the FBI is.

    Kishnevi (5a7bdb)

  156. 157

    The subtext here is this: We’ve lost a lot in politics when we view each others as enemies, rather than Americans with differing opinions.

    That seems to be a point lost on many Trump supporters, including a few people who comment here.

    Kishnevi (5a7bdb) — 12/18/2019 @ 4:52 pm

    Aye. Really, ever since I was politically aware during the 2nd term of Reagan, it always existed. But, it seems like it is getting worse and worse of the years… which I’ve attributed that to the ubiquitousness(sp?) of social media.

    whembly (c30c83)

  157. And they’re all loaded with lefty/socialist poison-pill provisions and they’ve signaled to Mitch that they’re not interested in going to conference with the Senate (where these poison-pills would obviously be stripped in the Senate). The Democrats doth protest too much here…

    whembly (c30c83) — 12/18/2019 @ 4:53 pm

    So Mitch could force them to go to conference, and take the blame…or let the Senate vote them down.

    One man gets to decide what legislation gets passed by Cingress. Is that how a republic actually works?

    Kishnevi (5a7bdb)

  158. @122. Uh, the GOP circled the wagons for The Big Dick–but as the tape transcripts were released– then tapes themselves, the supporters began to peel off. When the Smoking Gun tape was made public, the Indians breached the wagon wall, party support collapsed as the articles of impeachment passed and he had to resign or almost certainly be impeached by the House and convicted in the Senate.

    That was a serious Constitutional crisis. The Clinton episode and now this have reduced impeachment to a weaponized triviality. There have only been 4 of these episodes in U.S. history– three in my lifetime. So it doesn’t seem all that big of a deal anymore– especially when we already know how this Christmas play ends: Donald Trump will still be POTUS for Easter.

    Really looking forward to conservatives like Tedtoo and the always effervescent Lindsey Graham making tall asses of themselves defending the once-despised Trump on national television, though.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  159. CBS also has gone to a Speicla Report broadcasting it live. Kevin McCArthy spoke and now Adam Schiff is using he balance of the time on his side.

    Sammy Finkelman (69aa73)

  160. Kevin M, supreme court vacancies *arising during a presidential election year* (as opposed to carried over from previous years, like powell’s resignation in 1987 or black and harlan’s resignations in 1971) are fairly rare.

    Prior to 2016, the previous one was in 1968, but that was the same party controlling both the Senate and the Presidency.

    Prior to that was 1956, when the President made a recess appointment in October that was subsequently confirmed by the Senate. The Senate was out of session in the interim.

    Prior to that, it was 1932, when Hoover appointed Cardozo after Holmes retired in January. But that was the same party controlling both the Senate and the Presidency.

    Prior to that, it was 1916, when Wilson appointed Clarke after Hughes resigned to become the Republican party’s presidential candidate. Clarke was confirmed within two months. But that was the same party controlling both the Senate and the Presidency.

    Prior to that, it was 1892, when Harrison appointed Shiras after Bradley died in January. Shiras was confirmed by midsummer, but that was the same party controlling both the Senate and the Presidency.

    Prior to that, it was 1888, when Cleveland appointed Fuller after Waite died in March. Fuller was confirmed by midsummer, and that was a case of the Democrats controlling the Presidency and the Republicans controlling the Senate.

    So to get a comparable situations to 2016 — opposite party control and a vacancy created in the election year early enough that the Senate hadn’t already recessed for the election — we have to go back a hundred and twenty eight years, and the first example we can find is contrary to the precedent McConnell claimed existed.

    McConnell created a nonexistent precedent out of thin air for partisan reasons. His behavior was contemptible, and he left pretty much everyone on the left convinced that the Senate Republicans cannot be trusted to behave in anything other than a blatant partisan manner — and therefore that the Senate Democrats *must* do so, too, or be permanently disdvantaged.

    Both sides are furious at each other and view compromise as surrender. But that wasn’t true on the left before McConnell poisoned the well with this.

    aphrael (971fba)

  161. 157 & 160.

    Hold the phone here, fellas. Why should I not view people who want to steal from me as a matter of policy (read: liberals) as my enemy?

    Gryph (08c844)

  162. His behavior was contemptible, and he left pretty much everyone on the left convinced that the Senate Republicans cannot be trusted to behave in anything other than a blatantly partisan manner — and therefore that the Senate Democrats *must* do so, too, or be permanently disadvantaged.

    It’s funny how this cycle always starts with R’s.

    frosty (f27e97)

  163. 165

    157 & 160.

    Hold the phone here, fellas. Why should I not view people who want to steal from me as a matter of policy (read: liberals) as my enemy?

    Gryph (08c844) — 12/18/2019 @ 5:14 pm

    I guess then we need some ground rules what we mean by “enemy”.

    To me an enemy is a hostile nation or person, usually in time of war.

    Disagreeing with your fellow Americans on policies doesn’t make each other “enemies”. It just means there’s disagreements that we need to work through our modern system of governance.

    whembly (c30c83)

  164. FWIW- it’s kinda creepy for anybody to say they’re ‘enjoying this.’ It’s actually rather sad.

    Vividly recall the evening Nixon resigned in the wake of Watergate. Warm, humid, August night; neighbors gather in our home — and others– to watch television w/a certain sullenness. Yes, there were the few partisan oddballs cheering; other cursing– but mostly the memories are of just sadness– and hope for a better tomorrow. Jerry Ford’s line, ‘truth is the glue that holds government together’ hit home– and has always stayed with me, personally. Today, with the punditry class harboring dreams of being ‘Woodsteins’ in their heads, and both major parties letting down the country since 1980, what passes for reportage– and what passes for government today is just petty, partisan and piss poor politics.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  165. 159

    whembly (c30c83) — 12/18/2019 @ 4:50 pm

    The very fact that they thought it necessary to invent a case to investigate a presidential candidate who was heavily linkef to the Putin regime is the real measure of how incompetent the FBI is.

    Kishnevi (5a7bdb) — 12/18/2019 @ 4:54 pm

    Or, it could be that such linkage wasn’t as strong as you believed it to be.

    whembly (c30c83)

  166. The voting has begun. There will be a separate vote on each of the two articles of impeachment. While at least one Democrat has said he will vote for Article I but against Article 2 (obstructionn of Congress) they are both likely to pass.

    At first there was a voice vote (and the chamber was actually close to empty before (empty for its size) – you could hear echoes and some cheers and boos during the time of the last two speakers Then the gentleman from North Dakota asked for a roll call vote so there will be a 15 minute vote by electronic card reader machine.

    When there were a little more than 4 minutes remaining the vote totals on House Resolution 755 were:

    Dem: Yea 201 o 2, not voting 30

    Rep No 138 not voting 59

    Ind 1 Yes

    Total 205 Yes 140 No 86 not voting

    Only 214 votes are needed to pass the resolution because some members are absent.

    CBS is broadcasting Survivor.

    There is no time remaining [0:00 left] but the numbers keep changing slightly mostly moving from Not voting to vote. One Republican earlier must have voted yes by mistake (pressed the wrong button or something) but that was corrected.

    It passed something like 229 to 188.

    The second article will have only a 5 minute vote.

    The time is not because the outcome is certain or not – it’ to satisfy each member that they got to cast a vote. For that the first article was more important.

    Tulsi Gabbard is voting present.

    Sammy Finkelman (329d95)

  167. Impeached president Donald Trump has been impeached.

    Dave (1bb933)

  168. Tulsi Gabbard is voting present.

    I guess she learned that from Obama.

    Dave (1bb933)

  169. When Putin talks, Tulsi listens.

    nk (dbc370)

  170. Do we know how Erdogan ordered Ilhan to vote?

    nk (dbc370)

  171. Tulsi- clever girl; that’s how you stand out from the herd.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  172. Personal attack.

    Duh, NJ, and I’m not holding my breath for you take back yours on this site.

    Paul Montagu (af70d6)

  173. Tulsi should surf as a independent.

    mg (8cbc69)

  174. Per the Dems presser– they don’t seem to be in a rush to get the articles over to the Senate.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  175. Pelosi says she hopes we’re ‘inspired…’

    No. Not really.

    The Apollo program was inspiring. Impeachment, not so much.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  176. I’ll be darned, the senate confirmed 13 federal judges today.

    mg (8cbc69)

  177. Nice to see all the Schiff-humpers supporting Impeachment.

    I can see that it didn’t dawn on rcocean that a person can support impeachment without being a “Schiff-humper”.

    Paul Montagu (af70d6)

  178. I don’t if this piece from French is behind the Dispatch paywall, but here’re the final paragraphs.

    Not long ago I had dinner with a Clinton loyalist, someone who stood by his president back in the day. I was amazed when he frankly (and with some emotion) admitted his error. “We could have drawn a line,” he said. “Instead, we helped erase the lines.” That comment has stuck with me ever since. And that’s the choice today—and it’s the choice that Trump will keep giving Republicans. Draw the line? Or erase the lines?
    Republicans have erased the line against presidential campaigns attempting to seek help from hostile foreign powers. They’ve erased the line against presidential candidates directing an admitted criminal conspiracy to pay hush money to a porn star mistress. They’ve erased the line against supporting a man who has bragged about groping women and been subjected to multiple sexual misconduct claims that are supported by considerable corroborating evidence. They’ve erased lines upholding basic competence and fundamental human decency. They’ve erased lines against serial, intentional presidential lies. They’re unfazed when multiple close associates of the president have proven to be crooks and criminals. Now they’re set to erase one of the most serious lines of all—the line against hijacking American foreign policy in one of the most volatile and important regions of the world in service of a truly crazy conspiracy theory and to extort a foreign investigation of a domestic political opponent.
    But impeachment still matters. It will put a permanent, justified stain on this president’s historical record, and it will make the voters ask themselves, in 11 short months, “Do we really want to do this again?”

    Paul Montagu (af70d6)

  179. 167. If I have the right to defend my home and possessions from burglars/robbers with lethal force, what recourse do I have to defend them from politicians? I think that’s a fair question, one that not nearly enough Americans have pondered in the last few decades.

    Gryph (08c844)

  180. Assad’s prom date explains her (non) vote:

    “I am standing in the center and have decided to vote ‘Present.’ I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing,” Gabbard said in the statement. “I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.”

    Got that?

    She thinks Trump is guilty as hell, but the process – which has seen Trump muse publicly about executing a whistleblower protected by law and members of Congress- is too partisan and therefore she can’t do more than wring her hands over the President’s attempt to bribe a foreign government into ratf*cking his political opponent (and hers…).

    Dave (b6acba)

  181. If I have the right to defend my home and possessions from burglars/robbers with lethal force, what recourse do I have to defend them from politicians? I think that’s a fair question, one that not nearly enough Americans have pondered in the last few decades.

    It would be a fair question if people only had to obey the laws they agree with.

    Dave (b6acba)

  182. Trump/Gabbard 2020 maybe?

    Kishnevi (5a7bdb)

  183. Nah! Tulsi and JVW in “It Happened One Election”.

    nk (dbc370)

  184. 185. If I am defending my home and possessions from people who seek to steal them, by definition I am not breaking the law. Is it now lawful to steal from your fellow Americans if you do it under the color of law? Maybe we should ask Vera Coking about that. I thought the whole point of America is that there is no aristocracy here; this sure looks like aristocracy to me.

    Gryph (08c844)

  185. “Got that? She thinks Trump is guilty as hell, but the process – which has seen Trump muse publicly about executing a whistleblower protected by law and members of Congress- is too partisan and therefore she can’t do more than wring her hands…”
    Dave (b6acba) — 12/18/2019 @ 7:03 pm

    “tribal animosities” Exhibit A.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  186. That question was settled at Appomatox Courthouse on April 9, 1865, Gryph. I suppose you could invent Rearden Metal and found your own society at Galt’s Gulch ….

    nk (dbc370)

  187. 190. Yeah. I guess that is as good a time as any to mark America’s death as a grand social experiment in freedom. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

    Gryph (08c844)

  188. The House didn’t impeach Trump. 229 Democrats did. Final vote 229-197. All the D’s voted to impeach except 2. All the R’s voted NAY. Tulsi voted present. The Independent Amash voted yea. So, no this will NOT leave a mark. It was just the D’s doing what they’d been screeching about for almost 3 years.

    Hopefully, when the next D president comes, the R House can impeach him 1 week after inauguration day.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  189. I can see that it didn’t dawn on rcocean that a person can support impeachment without being a “Schiff-humper”.

    Yeaah. I can remember all your disagreement with those talking about “Trump-humpers”

    NOT.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  190. 193. If the shoe fits…

    Gryph (08c844)

  191. Impeachment passed 229 to 197. Can People do math anymore? There are 435 reps with 4 vacancies. Its 233 D, 197 R, 1 independent. Of course, the DNC-media is trying to bury the actual numbers and the fact that this is a Partisan, 100% Democrat Impeachment. The Guardian for example, gave the final numbers, noted Tulsi voted present, and NEVER mentioned that everyone voting to impeach was a Democrat or a DINO (Amash).

    rcocean (1a839e)

  192. #194 yeah if you’re a Pelosi-humper go for it.

    Har har.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  193. If I am defending my home and possessions from people who seek to steal them, by definition I am not breaking the law. Is it now lawful to steal from your fellow Americans if you do it under the color of law?

    If done legitimately under the color of law, it might be unjust or immoral or unwise, but it would not be stealing. By definition. Your title to any material possession is ultimately subject to the law.

    Maybe we should ask Vera Coking about that. I thought the whole point of America is that there is no aristocracy here; this sure looks like aristocracy to me.

    Aristocracy? LOL.

    Dave (1bb933)

  194. > It’s funny how this cycle always starts with R’s.

    Frosty, at 166:

    I’m not claiming the cycle started with Rs. The cycle started before I was politically active and aware. There’s been an alternating sequence of escalation-combined-with-blaming-the-other-party, from the leadership of both parties, for decades — each party will escalate and claim their escalation was necessitated by the other party’s bad behavior.

    What I want is for both sides to realize they’re behaving like toddlers and sit down and agree on a set of rules that both sides will abide by regardless of who has temporary advantage.

    What i’m arguing is that on the Democratic side, McConnell’s treatment of Garland made this impossible. The average Democrat now believes that the Republican party will not abide by rules and will manipulate them for their own partisan advantage, and that Democrats have to do the same or acquiesce in an unbalanced system that operates to their disadvantage. Prior to Garland, this wasn’t even unanimously believed *among activists*.

    I think it’s a fair argument that on the Republican side, it was already average belief that the Democratic party will not abide by rules and will manipulate them for their own partisan advantage.

    But that doesn’t undermine my point, which is that the Garland nomination ended any potential that the Democrats would trust the Republicans on this kind of issue for a generation, and ensured that there will be a rounding error of zero support in the caucus for approving *any* Republican presidential nominations when the Democrats control the Senate.

    Maybe McConnell was boxed in and had no choice; i’m not close enough to Republican politics to tell. But either way, the well of cooperation is poisoned now, and the Democrats will not drink from it.

    aphrael (971fba)

  195. 195 & 196. The most farcical thing about impeachment to me is that anyone thinks it really matters. Any Democrat OR Republican talking about “defending the constitution” ought to set peg your bulls**tometer right off the charts. Congress isn’t interested in defending the constitution and neither is Donald Trump. None of them are.

    Protip: If voting mattered, we wouldn’t be allowed to do it.

    Gryph (08c844)

  196. I should be clear that I’ve spent a fair amount of time arguing with Democrats that this reaction simply makes the situation worse by further escalating it. But *every person* I have tried to convince to simply move on and treat Garland as in the past has responded by arguing that if Democrats do that, then we’ll have a situation where Democrats abide by the rules and Republicans don’t, and none of them are willing to tolerate that.

    aphrael (971fba)

  197. Amash is a RINO? By what metric?

    aphrael (971fba)

  198. The House didn’t impeach Trump. 229 Democrats did. Final vote 229-197.

    Ooh! This game looks like fun, can I play?

    America didn’t elect Trump. 304 Republicans did. Final vote 304-227.

    Dave (1bb933)

  199. S-h-!-t-t-!-n-g b-r-i-c-k-s.

    I like the Waylon Jennings version of Gold Dust Woman better than the original, no offense, Stevie.

    nk (dbc370)

  200. Still blaming Trump for the failures of the RNC.

    I swear, it must be something in the LA water.

    Capsaicin Addict (c866c5)

  201. Amash is a RINO? By what metric?

    In TrumpWorld, “real” Republicans:

    *) Endorse Hillary for president

    *) Bankroll Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Jimmy Carter, Charlie Rangel and Anthony Weiner

    *) Welcome electoral intervention on their behalf by murderous dictatorships

    *) Fall in love with Kim Jong Un

    *) Brag about peeping at naked 15 year-old girls

    I’ve found the best workaround is to think of TrumpSpeak as a foreign language – one that sounds, superficially, indistinguishable from English, but with entirely different, and often antithetical, meanings assigned to many of the words.

    Dave (1bb933)

  202. Yeaah. I can remember all your disagreement with those talking about “Trump-humpers”

    Nice elision, rc, but it doesn’t mask your false statement.

    Paul Montagu (af70d6)

  203. The indelible stain of impeachment is now forever attached to a sh*tstain. Fitting.

    Paul Montagu (af70d6)

  204. Classic. Trump is pushing back on sanctions that should’ve been passed a coupla years ago.

    Paul Montagu (af70d6)

  205. Tulsi Gabbard is a coward. Also, it irritates me that it often takes a million years for them to vote. Nobody lets the rest of us attend a major meeting “oh, sometime in the next couple of hours.” When we have to be someplace, we actually have to be there.

    Nic (896fdf)

  206. Tulsi gabbard made the honorable vote. Trump made a mistake not an impeachable offense. Pelosi was forced to impeach or her clintonistas with drumpf derangement syndrome would have revolted and kicked out of the speakership.

    asset (df4356)

  207. Anyone that wants to take away my God given, not State granted, constitutional rights is my enemy. I thought that was obvious.

    NJRob (fba4d2)

  208. I addressed your comment directly and factually, and I explained my thinking in subsequent comments. I did not misunderstand (as I said later), and I was not discussing this in bad faith. You are free to agree or disagree but you don’t get to call comments a deliberate misinterpretation or bad faith just because you disagree.

    I think your problem is with me calling your comment whining. I could have called it complaining but I chose whining because that is how it strikes me when someone wins but complains about how unfair it is.

    DRJ (15874d) — 12/18/2019 @ 2:50 pm

    Then you didn’t understand my comment and ignored when Harkin explained it as he understood. Discussing the actual result of faithless electors wasn’t what I said. It was the people who wanted to dismiss the election by getting enough electors to vote faithlessly to overturn the election.

    But you know that.

    NJRob (fba4d2)

  209. Patterico has been writing the same thing since 2016. It boils down to “I hate Trump, I wish he was not elected and I wish Democrats won. Also, I am thinking about being a Democrat now, or at least voting for one.”

    DO IT ALREADY FFS. JUST SAY “I AM A DEMOCRAT NOW”….but no in typical never Trump fashion that is your fig leaf. you will never give it up.

    Blueberry muffin (cef076)

  210. ”The indelible stain of impeachment is now forever attached to a sh*tstain. Fitting.”
    Paul Montagu (af70d6) — 12/18/2019 @ 8:30 pm

    You’ll always have that stain to cuddle up to and console you, Montagu.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  211. BTW how the hell is obstructing congress a crime? I want Trump to obstruct Democrat congresses….I do not want them to pass a thing. That is just straight laughable.

    but whatever Patterico gets his lol at “trumpkins” and once again fails to do anything other than attempt to troll half his readership. I mean youd think hed write something about the IG report and an FBI lawyer forging something in order to get a FISA warrant. He is a lawyer you would think he would care….nah ignore it just f trump huh?

    Blueberry muffin (cef076)

  212. Long day. Lots and lots of railing against the Dems, but not a single Republican congressman stood on the floor to defend the character of President Trump.

    JRH (52aed3)

  213. 217 tulsi gabbard did.

    asset (df4356)

  214. You’ll always have that stain to cuddle up to and console you, Montagu.

    Nope, that’ll be the Republican Senators’ job, dealing with the Trump Taint and all of that lovely stainy tainty-ness.

    BTW how the hell is obstructing congress a crime?

    Trump directed the White House to ignore subpoenas for documents and testimony, a violation of 2 U.S.C. §192. You could also consider his directing the stonewalling of lawful subpoenas a further example of his abuse of power.

    Paul Montagu (af70d6)

  215. @210 If she believed that, the honorable vote would have been “no” not “present”. “Present” is “I don’t want to take a stand that might come back to haunt me later.”

    @211 I’m glad you have such a good understanding of pro-choice feminists. It’s a rare occurance in partisan Rs. 😉

    @213 Can’t tell the difference between someone who isn’t a Trump loyalist and a Dem? Sad.

    Nic (896fdf)

  216. Nic,

    Murder isn’t God given. For you to claim otherwise, even in an attempt at humor is just sad.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  217. @221 Tsk. Are you saying there are some things you shouldn’t joke about?

    Nic (896fdf)

  218. Memo to the Captain- save the six-page rants for the TeeVee court martial; it’s an Emmy-award winning performance for sure. End the year by winning the day: use Operation Stain Remover– declare victory and bring the troops home from Afghanistan.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  219. As to Nassau lighthouse…I have lived in Broward County for 50 years. (I am probably one of those hanging chads Gore and Bush fought over 19 years ago.) I can decide for myself what I can and cannot see standing on the beach.

    I know it’s a silly thing to beat to death, but OTOH is it so hard to admit, after a few…months of self-reflection, that you said something just a wee bit…stupid? Those of us who are human will admit that we all do it. Though generally not to this degree.

    Yes, you can decide for yourself what you want to believe. No one can stop you, nor should they. And others can decide to take your…let’s try to be polite and call them ‘personality quirks’…into consideration when grasping for a context of whatevs other crazy eccentric thing you may have to say. I see why you seek comfort here. It’s good for one to know that one is not alone.

    PTw (894877)

  220. Patterico has been writing the same thing since 2016. It boils down to “I hate Trump, I wish he was not elected and I wish Democrats won. Also, I am thinking about being a Democrat now, or at least voting for one.”

    DO IT ALREADY FFS. JUST SAY “I AM A DEMOCRAT NOW”….but no in typical never Trump fashion that is your fig leaf. you will never give it up.

    Blueberry muffin (cef076) — 12/18/2019 @ 9:06 pm

    Patterico Can speak for himself. But I think Trumps doing a terrible job and I don’t consider myself a democrat. I want a smaller, less powerful federal government. I want the rule of law honestly with due process and fairly enforced for all. I want improved civil liberties, individual freedom, and property rights. I want the material well being of everyone to improve and believe history has shown that free trade and free markets are the best way to accomplish that. I want to help people that who need it when the free market is especially hard on them, but i want the solutions to emphasize personal responsibility and not a cycle of government dependency. I want clean air and water and the external consequences of industry to be paid for by the people that create them. I want fiscal disciple and a plan to eliminate the national dept.

    Neither party has focused on everything. Today neither party is focused on much of that at all. But what the GOP used to say they wanted is closer than what the Democrats currently prioritize.

    Time123 (797615)

  221. pro-choice feminists

    Why is it that the ones it will never happen to, are the ones who worry about it the most?

    nk (dbc370)

  222. NK – It could happen to them but its mostly with…well, lets just say Nixon talked about “keeping that avenue open” for a particular circumstance in one of his infamous tapes.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  223. #183

    167. If I have the right to defend my home and possessions from burglars/robbers with lethal force, what recourse do I have to defend them from politicians? I think that’s a fair question, one that not nearly enough Americans have pondered in the last few decades.

    Gryph (08c844) — 12/18/2019 @ 6:57 pm

    Your recourse is to engage the political process… that is, convince other Americans that your candidate deserves your vote.

    We need to stop with this idea of dissenting is the same as fighting an enemy as a life or death gravita.

    whembly (51f28e)

  224. Tulsi Gabbard. After months of odd behavior, she said recently that she would not participate in the next debate even if she qualified. And last night she votes “present” on impeachment?

    She is not trying to win any Democrat primary. What is she doing? Maybe, just maybe, Hillary is right on this one. Hillary has a nose for Russian puppets.

    noel (f22371)

  225. I can decide for myself what I can and cannot see standing on the beach.

    There is a pretty simple relation used by sailors to estimate the distance to the horizon from the geometry of the earth’s curvature.

    Standing on the beach at sea level, the distance “d” (in kilometers) at which an object of height “h” (in meters) will be visible over the horizon is approximately

    d = 3.57 sqrt(h)

    According to this page, it looks like the tallest active lighthouse in the Bahamas has a focal plane (i.e. the height of the light source) about 50 meters above the ground (the tallest lighthouse in Nassau is listed as 36 meters, but let’s use 50).

    From the formula, a 50 meter tall object becomes visible over the horizon at a distance of about 25 km.

    The distance, as the crow flies, from Fort Lauderdale to Nassau is 300 km.

    The simple geometrical formula neglects atmospheric refraction, which makes the actual distance to the horizon somewhat greater. But not a factor of twelve greater, surely.

    To be visible at a distance of 300 km, neglecting refraction, the lighthouse in question would have to be about 7 kilometers tall. For comparison, Mt. McKinley is a little more than 6 kilometers high.

    The absence of any structures in the Bahamas comparable to Mt. McKinley in height makes the claim appear doubtful…

    Dave (1bb933)

  226. #200

    I should be clear that I’ve spent a fair amount of time arguing with Democrats that this reaction simply makes the situation worse by further escalating it. But *every person* I have tried to convince to simply move on and treat Garland as in the past has responded by arguing that if Democrats do that, then we’ll have a situation where Democrats abide by the rules and Republicans don’t, and none of them are willing to tolerate that.

    aphrael (971fba) — 12/18/2019 @ 8:02 pm

    So… the issue is that Garland didn’t have an up/down vote?

    Tell me, when there are finite hours the Senate spends on the floor, why waste time on an up/down vote when it was a foregone conclusion that Garland wouldn’t have been confirmed?

    whembly (51f28e)

  227. Why should we listen to “this Dave character [who] is a very ignorant and yet over-educated clown? As you say, a bookshelf understanding of these things. A significant problem with our world today.”
    https://patterico.com/2019/11/25/what-exactly-did-rudy-offer-this-criminal-in-return-for-dirt-on-joe-biden/#comment-2281815

    Click the link to that comment, Dave!

    nk (dbc370)

  228. Gosh darn, nk! That’s impressive! The logic and reasoning is flawless! We all owe you an enormous debt of gratitude for taking the time and effort away from your busy, busy life of farming that window box AND lawyerly lawyering the law, not to mention the many, many other things you do, to find that! Kudos! It completely obliterates the point! For that matter, I think one might even argue that it moves the Nassau Lighthouse 275 km closer to Fort Lauderdale!

    Seeing as you’re so good at such things, perhaps you might want to go back in the history here and find (other?) comments that totally destroy critics of the Nunes Memo, Nick Sandman, etc. It might even be good therapy. Who knows?

    PTw (894877)

  229. She probably used to be a Soviet puppet herself, moreso Bill who actually spent time there in the halcyon Red and Gold years.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  230. I know it’s a silly thing to beat to death, but OTOH is it so hard to admit, after a few…months of self-reflection, that you said something just a wee bit…stupid? Those of us who are human will admit that we all do it. Though generally not to this degree.

    Yes, you can decide for yourself what you want to believe. No one can stop you, nor should they. And others can decide to take your…let’s try to be polite and call them ‘personality quirks’…into consideration when grasping for a context of whatevs other crazy eccentric thing you may have to say. I see why you seek comfort here. It’s good for one to know that one is not alone.

    PTw (894877) — 12/19/2019 @ 5:08 am

    You mad bro?

    Dustin (cafb36)

  231. I dont know if this further destroys the critics of Nick Sandmann, but this is just another clue into what he and his classmates were facing up to (this time “white knights” were used for the deed):

    http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2019/12/18/ex-packer-kabeer-gbaja-biamila-goes-youtube-after-armed-friends-busted-kids-christmas-pageant/2692788001/

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  232. DO IT ALREADY FFS. JUST SAY “I AM A DEMOCRAT NOW”….but no in typical never Trump fashion that is your fig leaf. you will never give it up.

    Blueberry muffin (cef076) — 12/18/2019 @ 9:06 pm

    This is an interesting side effect. The disease is partisanship. This coward Trump, who abuses women, uses swamp corruption like Giuliani, and lies to the American people all the time… we were told we must vote for him because Hillary is so bad. Even after Trump came into office and failed to keep any of his major promises on spending, ethics, Obamacare, foreign policy, or the economy, we’re told we better vote for him again in even more angry partisan terms.

    It’s so bad that Trump’s fans are now telling Trump’s critics they need to vote against him because now they are democrats.

    If you wanted immigration law enforced (and not used as a stupid political tool), if you wanted Obamacare repealed, and especially if you wanted the USA to stand up to thugs and dictators like Putin, you must be a democrat, say all these Trump fans.

    But what if a lot of us can both ‘not be a Republican’ AND ‘not be a Democrat’? Then you partisans would need to nominate someone who had more going for them than (R) next to their name. That’s what this troll is really afraid of. It’s what McConnell and Nunes are afraid of. Their fat swampy scam depends on Americans picking a team. Even if we pick Team D, they get fat in the minority party. As long as each political party remains loyal, and the country doesn’t have a relevant group of voters who do not have partisan loyalty, this scam keeps working. We keep settling for Hillarys and Trumps forever and ever.

    That’s what Trump’s fans really want. Hillarys and Trumps.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  233. Our esteemed host wrote:

    The House must vote yes. If for no other reason, they must do it so that in the future, I can refer to the president as “impeached president Donald Trump.”

    That bit of pique, I suspect, is the most for which the Democrats can hope. But, realistically, who now refers to “impeached president Bill Clinton”?

    The Washington Post has an early whip count of the Senate, in which it notes that seven Senators have indicated they would vote for conviction, 56 have not stated how they would vote, and 37 have said they would vote for acquittal . . . which is already three more than necessary to guarantee acquittal.

    The brutally frank Dana (d9a693)

  234. That bit of pique, I suspect, is the most for which the Democrats can hope. But, realistically, who now refers to “impeached president Bill Clinton”?

    All Republicans did that for like a decade!

    It completely derailed his legacy.

    So, realistically, the only thing that will save Trump is, as usual, there are so many bad things to say about him you can’t really fit them all in one sentence, post, or even book without being exhausting.

    The guy helped Epstein! He groped women and peeked on undressed children at pageants! He’s had pathetic values for his family and the families of others. You couldn’t find thinner skin, or a weaker man when facing a dangerous opponent. But he’s also one of a very select few of America’s most corrupt and failed presidents: impeached.

    I will try to make sure to respect your concern that people don’t mention that Trump was impeached, but come on. Why do you care? Why does it matter to you? Trump is just a sleazy politician. Why do you worry about his legacy? You should worry about results. Trump isn’t something to worship. He’s supposed to be ‘draining the swamp’ instead of bribing foreign countries to help him cheat at elections, and then saying the election is the only good way to stop him.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  235. 239. I’ll say it: Bill Clinton had more class than Donald Trump. And if that isn’t damning with faint praise, I don’t know what is.

    Gryph (08c844)

  236. Johnson was impeached for telling the Radical Republicans to go “reconstruct” themselves.
    Clinton was impeached for lying about a bit of slap-and-tickle.
    This corrupt criminal traitor? For using the Presidency and American taxpayer dollars to buy oppo research from a foreign country, a remnant of the Soviet Union at that, essentially inviting them to interfere in our election. Sorry! It is a small thing, it is a petty thing, but it is still the worse of the three, and the fact that it is small and petty does not make the daffodil look any better. It just makes him look like a small and petty corrupt criminal traitor.

    nk (dbc370)

  237. Vladimir Putin and most of the Republicans in Congress agree: Trump was impeached based on “made-up reasons”.
    The political world has now officially turned completely upside down.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  238. The brutally frank Dana (d9a693) — 12/19/2019 @ 7:19 am

    But, realistically, who now refers to “impeached president Bill Clinton”?

    Nobody does, and nobody ever did, but that made it alittle bit easier to refer to Bill Clinton as a crook or similar ideas. Even though this was for a really minor thing, as crimes go. Because everybody knew, of course, there was a lot more. some known, some suspicious where they don;t know exactly what happened, and more unknown. And it at least established him as a liar. And Hillary (vast right wing conspiracy since back when he was Governor of Arkansas) too.

    Sammy Finkelman (329d95)

  239. Johnson was impeached for telling the Radical Republicans to go “reconstruct” themselves.
    Clinton was impeached for lying about a bit of slap-and-tickle.
    This corrupt criminal traitor? For using the Presidency and American taxpayer dollars to buy oppo research from a foreign country, a remnant of the Soviet Union at that, essentially inviting them to interfere in our election. Sorry! It is a small thing, it is a petty thing, but it is still the worse of the three, and the fact that it is small and petty does not make the daffodil look any better. It just makes him look like a small and petty corrupt criminal traitor.

    nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2019 @ 7:47 am

    This is a good damn point. Trump’s not just being impeached for things he did in his personal affairs. He’s being impeached for corrupting our foreign policy and democracy. That the GOP is putting partisanship over the truth is a symptom of how serious the crime is. They might think they are ‘exonorating’ Trump again, like Barr thought, but historically the disgrace on Trump (And really his fans) won’t go away.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  240. Dustin (cafb36) — 12/19/2019 @ 7:18 am

    we were told we must vote for him because Hillary is so bad.

    A more salient reason would be that Hillary is better at being a crook. She showed every sign of that with the way she handled the email scandal. Trump doesn’t know how to get away with breaking criminal law. He has trouble getting away with things that aren’t actually crimes. But Trump was particularly evil when it came to immigration. He was also more variable in what he could do. As I said, more or less the mean of all possible Trump presidencies was better than that of Hilary’s but the standard deviation was higher.

    So that the worst possible Trump presidency (nuclear war maybe let;s say) was worse than the worst Hillary preaidency (rigging the laws so as to entrench the Democratic Party in power and murdering a small number – no more than a dozen or so – political opponents.)

    Sammy Finkelman (329d95)

  241. @234 She and Bill probably still are in bed with the Chinese. That means that someone is either an agent of the running dog capitalists or the Russians. Since most of the running dog capitalists have cozied up to the Chinese there’s no percentage in accusing someone of that. Therefore, you’re a Russian asset, and you’re a Russian asset, everyone is a Russian asset who isn’t team HRC.

    frosty (f27e97)

  242. 178. DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/18/2019 @ 6:17 pm

    er the Dems presser– they don’t seem to be in a rush to get the articles over to the Senate.

    That was my point @63:

    One of the arguments for rushing this is that they have no time to lose…they say he has to be prevented from doing more.

    But acquittal would eliminate the hold they have over him now.

    Don’t they say that the final end of the Mueller investigation (with his weak testimony) emboldened Trump in his call (not true, really, but they say so)

    So how does a failed removal from office stop Donald Trump from doing anything?

    Chess grandmaster Nimzowitsch once wrote: “The threat is stronger than the execution…

    They would just remove their leverage.

    So what was did the House ledership accomplish? What they did by passing this resolution is put all the leverage in the hands of the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and others in the leadership, and take all the leverage away from the average ordinary members of the House of Representatives.

    Now I said

    Now I don’t think the leading Democrats in the House of Representatives are quite that stupid. This argument for rushing this through [that it is needed to stop Donald Trump from doing more bad things, particularly helping himself in the election] is a made up lie..

    Seems like I’m right.

    Now what she wants, it is said, is to force Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to come to an agreement with Senate Minoroty Leader Chucll Schumer on the rules, particularly on hearing witnesses. (and she on;y needs to affect 4 Republican Senators who might want this hanging over them all year.

    Re; “the threat is stronger than the execution.”

    https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2019/03/alinsky-tartakower-and-nimzowitsch.html

    This, in slightly modified form, is one of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

    Sammy Finkelman (329d95)

  243. 246 frosty (f27e97) — 12/19/2019 @ 8:22 am

    .@234 She and Bill probably still are in bed with the Chinese.

    Not only china, but we don’t know where it stands with China today, but also the United Arab Emirates, or Abu Dhabi, which controlled BCCI.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/us/politics/indictment-uae-influence.html


    Indictment Details How Emirates Sought Influence in 2016 Campaign

    In charges unsealed this week, the Justice Department laid out new elements of an effort by an American ally to buy access in Washington.

    The donors referred to their campaign contributions as baked goods, usually “baklava.” They called Hillary Clinton “Our Sister” or “the Big Lady.”

    And they referred to their ultimate sponsor by the initials H.H., for His Highness, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed of the United Arab Emirates, one of the Pentagon’s closest partners in the Middle East and one of the biggest foreign spenders on influence in Washington…

    The indictment accused Mr. Nader of funneling more than $3.5 million in illicit campaign donations through Mr. Khawaja to buy access and influence in Washington — initially with Mrs. Clinton and her Democratic allies during the 2016 campaign, and then with Donald J. Trump after he won the election — to gain “favor” and “potential financial support” from an unnamed foreign government…

    …Although lobbyists with foreign clients routinely contribute to campaigns, seldom has a foreign head of state been so personally linked to allegations of evading campaign finance laws.

    It is the latest example of an ostensible American ally seeking to shape American policy from the inside, and it is all the more striking because Crown Prince Mohammed, widely known as M.B.Z., is one of the biggest foreign spenders on legal forms of influence — from hiring registered lobbyists to funding think tanks…

    After the election, Mr. Nader worked to help a Russian businessman close to President Vladimir V. Putin seek contacts with the Trump team. And shortly before the inauguration, Mr. Nader helped Crown Prince Mohammed arrange a meeting at his resort in the Seychelles for the Russian businessman and Erik Prince, a security contractor and Republican donor with close ties to Mr. Trump’s team.

    Mr. Nader gave testimony last year in the special counsel’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and he is in jail in the United States on charges related to the possession of child pornography.

    Mr. Nader and his partner, Mr. Khawaja, are both American citizens of Lebanese descent…

    The messages in the indictment also suggest Mr. Nader kept Crown Prince Mohammed informed about the efforts with Mr. Khawaja. “Traveling on Sat morning to catch up with our Big Sister and her husband: I am seeing him on Sunday and her in Tuesday Sir! Would love to see you tomorrow at your convenience. . . for your guidance, instruction and blessing!” Mr. Nader wrote in June 2016 to an Emirati official who appears to be the crown prince.

    “Has a terrific meeting with Big Sister H You will be most delighted!” he wrote on another occasion, according to the indictment.

    Yet Mr. Nader was working at the same time to build ties to the Trump team, he reported to the Emirati official. “Catching up with key figures in both camps and have been developing a steady, consistent and constructive relationship with both camps!” Mr. Nader wrote in July 2016.

    Mr. Khawaja and Mr. Nader attended Mrs. Clinton’s election night party in Manhattan, according to people familiar with the event.

    But immediately after Election Day, the indictment charges, both Mr. Nader and Mr. Khawaja pivoted to redirect their illicit support to Mr. Trump, beginning with a $1 million donation for the inauguration.

    “I can’t talk I’m with Trump,” Mr. Khawaja wrote in a message to Mr. Nader about a month later, sending a photo of himself with the president-elect at a fund-raising event in Manhattan, according to a person who has seen the messages.

    Republicans, in turn, appear to have asked few questions about Mr. Khawaja’s sudden change of affiliation or the source of his funds.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  244. As for Clinton and the United Arab Emirates, they go back a long way. Bill Clinton would not have been elected president without the United Arab Emirates, specifically, the Emir of Abu Dhabi and President of the United Arab Emirates and legal owner of BCCI in 1992, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan.

    Bill Clinton borrowed money during the 1992 primary campaign which he wasn’t legally entitled to borrow. (A candidate could only borrow money that made business sense, otherwise it wss an illegal corporate campaign contribution. Clinton used false accounting to borrow on the basis of matcing funds that were due to come. They wouldn’t have if he didn’t keep winning primaries) It as borroiwed from the Worthen National Bank, which was 10% owned by a BCCI frontman.

    See Mike McAlary’s column in the Friday, February 7, 1992 New York Post. I think it may be in there.

    Another thing: Lobbyist James Lake, the chief public relations spokesman in 1992 for the Emir of Abu Dhabi played a critical role in the Bush czampaign, and in my opinion, may have been a Clinton spy, but I don’t know. What things do I think he may be the explanaton for?

    He might have been the source the Clinton campaign had for the advance texts of Bush campaign commercials – note they had the words, but not the video, so contrary to the suggestion in a Washington Post story right after the elction, I don’t think they got them at the studio or television station level, nor from satellites, and they had them long enough in advance so that they could test out possible counter commercials in front of focus groups and go with the
    best ideas the day after the Bush commercials hit the airwaves.

    He might have been the high level Republican campaign official who used Bob Teeter’s name who told Ross Perot that the Republicans were planning dirty tricks against him when he would not believe Scott Barnes alone. He was also, I think, responsible for the Bush campaign decision not to go negative, which was so strong that letters telling the campaign bad things about Clintin were not supposed to be read.

    (George HW Bush of course thought that the only bad information could be information about sex, which he did not care to make an issue of.)

    And he was probably instrumental in getting Dan Quayle to take up the Perot-as-dictator motif that had actually been started by Clinton and columnists getting leaks from the Clinton campagn like Lars Erik Nelson, then of the New York Daily News, and Molly Ivins out in Texas (writing for the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram.) Dan Quayle said that in June, 1992, but I knew it was really a Clinton charge. Of course this helped Perot believe it was a Republican charge.

    I think there was also a Clinton connection to Bahrain. It was Bahrain that gave the contract to the Harken Energy Company (in which George Bush’s son – Bush 43 – had a stake) That was in 1989.

    Little Rock investment banker, David Edwards, a Friend of Bill, going back at leasst to 1968, had been instrumental in steering that to Harken or rather he was used to make it seem natural. I think this was to make George Bush the Elder look corrupt. I don’t think in fact he actually was, and George W. Bush had no idea things had been rigged for him. By Bill Clinton, who hoped to become his fathed’s political oppponent.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  245. Why should we listen to “this Dave character [who] is a very ignorant and yet over-educated clown? As you say, a bookshelf understanding of these things. A significant problem with our world today.”

    Hey, I have a reputation to uphold here!

    Click the link to that comment, Dave!

    LOL.

    I am in awe of your eidetic memory of month-old, throw-away blog insults!

    Dave (1bb933)

  246. But you were fine with backing up Kishnevi’s stalker who had previously insulted you. Ok, you can join him in my blocking script.

    nk (dbc370)

  247. NJRob 212,

    I addressed that point in my comments 25 and 31. Perhaps you missed them.

    DRJ (15874d)

  248. Are you equating this to the Impeachment inquiry?

    Or, simply the zealot oversights Congress has over the Executive?

    Because that latter is totes kosher… but, the former is dangerously setting a precedent.

    Let’s assume both the Republican Congress during Obama’s first term and the Democratic House during Trump’s first term were/are solely motivated by partisan politics and had no policy or ideological reasons to oppose either President. (Even if you think Democrats are always partisan but Republicans act solely on principle, indulge me.)

    I am not sure I understand why you approve of Congressional legislation and oversight motivated by partisan politics, but disapprove of Constitutionally allowed impeachment motivated by partisan politics. Aren’t both oversight/legislation and impeachment legitimate Congressional actions? Or are you conflating the rationale for the political actions with their legitimacy?

    DRJ (15874d)

  249. Or is your point that partisan impeachment is allowed but partisan oversight isn’t? It sounds like you are saying that but, if so, please explain.

    DRJ (15874d)

  250. 253

    Are you equating this to the Impeachment inquiry?

    Or, simply the zealot oversights Congress has over the Executive?

    Because that latter is totes kosher… but, the former is dangerously setting a precedent.

    Let’s assume both the Republican Congress during Obama’s first term and the Democratic House during Trump’s first term were/are solely motivated by partisan politics and had no policy or ideological reasons to oppose either President. (Even if you think Democrats are always partisan but Republicans act solely on principle, indulge me.)

    Sure, I’ll indulge…

    I am not sure I understand why you approve of Congressional legislation and oversight motivated by partisan politics, but disapprove of Constitutionally allowed impeachment motivated by partisan politics. Aren’t both oversight/legislation and impeachment legitimate Congressional actions? Or are you conflating the rationale for the political actions with their legitimacy?

    DRJ (15874d) — 12/20/2019 @ 9:47 am

    I thought I was clear in making the distinction between that they could vs. that they should.

    My issue isn’t that that they are ALLOWED to do this (they obviously do). My issue is with them using this process on an event based on scant evidence so far that isn’t garnering bipartisan outrage. That is, the trivialization of the impeachment process. I know you believe there’s enough evidence to impeach/remove Trump from office. But, you (and others who believe as you do) also need to convince enough of the public that this warrants impeachment. Can you honestly say that the arguments for impeachment met that bar? Or, is it simply enough that there were enough “yes” votes in the House?

    There are better ways to signal displeasure over Trump’s maladministrative acts.

    I’m far more concerned about the precedent this will cause and I don’t believe we’ve fully scoped out how this will impact future politics and governance.

    We’ve now have had multiple Republicans, on record mind you, that it’s guaranteed that the next Democrat President will be impeached if the GOP controls the house (in response to Democrats promising to impeach Trump before inauguration). This is toxic and until we start electing people from both sides who will disabuse themselves of this tit-for-tat payback escalations, I worry about what the future holds in a post-Trump political era. I’m very pessimistic that we’d ever get to a point where both parties recognize that.

    Impeaching Trump will not be the panacea folks are hoping for…he’s not going to be removed, nor his actions would be mollified. In fact, I’d argue it would only embolden him…especially if he’s re-elected. If that happens, was it worth the impeachment process as conducted by house Democrats?

    whembly (fd57f6)

  251. Or is your point that partisan impeachment is allowed but partisan oversight isn’t? It sounds like you are saying that but, if so, please explain.

    DRJ (15874d) — 12/20/2019 @ 10:02 am

    Both partisan impeachment AND partisan oversight is allowed.

    I’m gung-ho for partisan oversight. Hell, it’s ALWAYS partisan when it’s being conducted by the opposition party.

    I’m saying partisan impeachment is extremely problematic as I described above.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  252. Sure, but you know, this isn’t like Andrew Johnson firing a Republican political powerhouse from his administration after the Civil War when only Republicans occupied Congress. That was pure politics (and they still couldn’t muster two-thirds to remove). What Trump did was bad no matter which party he belongs to and no matter which party controls Congress.

    nk (dbc370)

  253. What Trump did was bad no matter which party he belongs to and no matter which party controls Congress.

    nk (dbc370) — 12/20/2019 @ 10:24 am

    Sure, I agreed with that. But the question isn’t whether or not it was bad…

    The question at hand is this: Does it rise to the level AND has enough bipartisan support for impeachment.

    I would argue that it does not.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  254. You’ve got me there. I don’t think it’s a great crime, either. It’s more the kind of thing that should be beneath the dignity of the President of the United States at this time in our history when the United States is unquestionably the preeminent world power.

    nk (dbc370)

  255. “It’s more the kind of thing that should be beneath the dignity of the President of the United States at this time in our history when the United States is unquestionably the preeminent world power.”

    If they don’t want undignified executive meetings where their boss unprofessionally handles things with the counterparties himself rather than trusting ‘his people’ do it, next time maybe the unfireable civil servants should maybe actually implement the President’s policy rather than sticking with the ‘interagency consensus’ or whatever it is that keeps the incompetence, crimes and corruptions of civil servants out of the courts and media until politically convenient.

    Leave Ukranian politics or Star Wars up to a committee, turns out all you get is lifers enriching themselves and yelling loudly about ‘procedure’ when you try to pull the silver spoons out of their mouth.

    Anselmo the Wise (45e6c6)

  256. , next time maybe the unfireable civil servants should maybe actually implement the President’s policy

    How are they supposed to implement a Presidential policy if (as happened in this instance) the President doesn’t let them know what his policy is?

    Kishnevi (5ca3cd)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4687 secs.