All About Impeachment

I’m all over the place on impeachment. Obviously, I was ready to impeach the motherfucker on or about 1 pm on inauguration day, so when I see cries to impeach him my gut shrieks “FUCK YES IMPEACH THAT SON OF A BITCH DO IT TWICE FUCK IT DO IT A THIRD TIME JUST FOR SHITS AND GIGGLES.” So, yes, I support impeaching the prick.

At the same time, I realize that impeaching him now (despite being an obvious congressional duty to uphold the fucking law) is kind of pointless. There is no way in hell the craven Republicans would vote to convict. So we’d have impeached him, shot the wad, and nothing would change.

So basically, where I am right now, with both competing thoughts, is to keep working on every front to expose his lies and fraud and criminality- let the subpoenas for his information work through the courts, get the information you can, build your best case, and then hope some fault lines appear in the GOP and public opinion keeps going in our way. Then impeach.

It also occurs to me that all of this MIGHT BE the process of impeachment, it’s just too fucking slow for someone like me who wants the prick out of office and in jail yesterday. So when people are screaming about Pelosi not using the “I” word, they just don’t realize she IS in the process of impeaching him. That’s a possibility.

At any rate, despite me champing at the bit, I’m aware that launching the D-Day invasion with only 1/3 the troops would have probably have been a disaster, so I am telling myself to just calm down and see what happens. It’s hard, after years of middling sternly worded letters, but for now I am holding back and letting all this damaging info come out and happy to let the Republicans continue to defend the scumbag when there is no defense. We’ll see what happens.






122 replies
  1. 1

    I completely get where the “it’s our duty to impeach and we must do it this second” crowd is coming from, but I’m not ready to start calling for leadership’s heads just yet.

    If we’re at the same place in 2-3 months, I’ll feel differently.

  2. 2
    TenguPhule says:

    So basically, where I am right now, with both competing thoughts, is to keep working on every front to expose his lies and fraud and criminality- let the subpoenas for his information work through the courts, get the information you can, build your best case, and then hope some fault lines appear in the GOP and public opinion keeps going in our way. Then impeach.

    It also occurs to me that all of this MIGHT BE the process of impeachment, it’s just too fucking slow for someone like me who wants the prick out of office and in jail yesterday. So when people are screaming about Pelosi not using the “I” word, they just don’t realize she IS in the process of impeaching him. That’s a possibility.

    Well yes.

    I can understand the opposition even if I don’t agree with it.

    I’m still willing to wait a little longer. Speaker Pelosi has earned that much. But not that much longer.

  3. 3
    feebog says:

    Impeachment hearings will take months, even without Trump stonewalling. It will be interesting to see McGahn, Hicks, Bannon, et al testifying during the primary season.

  4. 4
    TenguPhule says:

    @Major Major Major Major:

    If we’re at the same place in 2-3 months, I’ll feel differently.

    I’ll hold off on calling for burning it all down until All Hallow’s Eve. After that, with Brexit in full effect, fuckitwhy not.

  5. 5
    Doug R says:

    A big part of this is getting the Senate back. The more we can hang this around the Senate and maybe even have the vote hanging over during the election, the better.

  6. 6

    @TenguPhule: that’s remarkably restrained for you.

  7. 7
    MomSense says:

    I think Pelosi has games this out and is pursuing the best path forward. It strikes me that all the focus is on Pelosi and Democrats instead of with McConnell and the rest of the craven Republicans. This is a major tactical error. We should be asking McConnell and every elected GOP Congress critter every day to comment on obstruction and other high crimes by trump and co.

    Right now McConnel is sitting back in the shadows while Pelosi and Dems field all the anger and frustration.

  8. 8
    JR says:

    Seems like the calculation is purely political; hold off impeachment until it can hurt the republicans during election season. The republicans obviously want to front load the pain and wait for people to forget.

  9. 9

    I follow a number of historians on Twitter, and they post newspaper front pages from Watergate. It seemed like it was taking forever then too.

    Here’s another reason that Pelosi can’t go after impeachment hammer and tongs: If Trump goes down, Pence may go down with him too. Pelosi has heard more briefings on the wrongdoing than we have, so she’s got a better sense of that. And who’s next in the succession? Yes indeed, Trump could have a lot of fun with that.

    Nixon had the good sense to dispose of Spiro Agnew and find someone that the country wouldn’t gag at if he left office. Trump doesn’t.

  10. 10
    germy says:

    It was probably unwise for Julian Assange to help elect the party with less sympathetic views toward press freedom.— Andrew Prokop (@awprokop) May 23, 2019

  11. 11
    germy says:

    The superseding indictment just unsealed against Julian Assange is exactly what the first indictment wasn't:
    17 of the 18 charges are for violating the Espionage Act, under which there's never previously been a successful prosecution of a third party (as opposed to the leaker). pic.twitter.com/xobXJpavXU
    — Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) May 23, 2019

  12. 12
    rikyrah says:

    I feeeeeelllll your frustration, Cole.

    But, it has to be played out right. We’re on our own (Democrats).
    The MSM, spent the better part of two years trying to justifying normalizing this Demon.
    There is no room for error on the part of Democrats when they bring impeachment to him.

    So…as long as we continue to march forward, I’m ok with it…even if I’m impatient.

  13. 13

    My general feeling is that we should see the impeachment process politically rather than primarily as a way of throwing Trump out of office. Impeachment gives the Democrats several things:

    1) It provides a big reason why everyone they’re asking for documents has to provide them. Trump’s people can make up a bunch of bullshit about why Congress’s normal powers aren’t enough for them to demand documents, but impeachment is a power specifically granted to the House, so there’s a much weaker case for why an impeachment inquiry can’t demand his documents.

    2) Impeachment will focus media attention on the investigation. Saying we’re holding an investigation will get yawns from the media. Saying we’re holding an impeachment investigation will draw them in. Since a big part of dealing with Trump is putting his wrongdoing on every newspaper and TV news broadcast, this is very important.

    3) If there are actual articles of impeachment, they force Republican senators to take a position on Trump’s lawlessness. They can either say what he did is OK and face the potential blowback from voters who have seen his crimes on TV every day for the past however long, or they can decide it’s not OK and come out against it. But they won’t be able to deplore his behavior and then continue to let him get away with it.

  14. 14
    MomSense says:

    BTW the Wanda Sykes special on Netflix is hilarious. If you are frustrated and angry, her mockery of trump is top notch. I highly recommend it.

  15. 15
    JoyceH says:

    My gripe is with the “let the voters decide” crowd who claim it will be so much WORSE for Trump to be rejected by the voters. So wow – for his increasing list of high crimes and misdemeanors, the punishment should be to be a one term president? So they’re saying he’s just as bad as — Carter and Bush I? My response is – if this doesn’t warrant impeachment, what the heck would?!

  16. 16
    Gravenstone says:

    Investigate, investigate, investigate. Dig deep and be thorough. Drag their shit all into the light of day. All of it, the lies and cheating and malfeasance and obstruction (Trump’s as well as his sycophants in the admin). That sways voters and even if they cannot in turn pressure their respective Representatives and Senators to vote to impeach/convict once the process actually moves to a formal impeachment proceeding, it will impact their individual votes in 2020.

  17. 17
    JoyceH says:

    @Roger Moore: I’m with you. Hold the hearings in the House, get all the crap out into the light of day, and force Senate Republicans to take the vote that this is all okay with them. I think that more than anything will win back the Senate.

  18. 18

    @rikyrah: As efg said, patience grasshopper.

  19. 19
    MattF says:

    As of right now, Republican Senators could vote against conviction with no political risk. I think Pelosi’s goal is to change that. This is why Trump had that temper tantrum yesterday: he realized that Pelosi is actually putting together the forces and the strategy that will drive him from office.

    I think Trump wants to be impeached. He believes that impeachment will be a political bonanza for him– if Democrats cooperate. But Pelosi is not cooperating. She has a strategy, and is working out what it will take to drive him from office. As is the case with any strategy, there are risks. It might not work.

    Uncertainty is hard to deal with, but it’s where we are right now.

  20. 20

    @Doug R:

    The more we can hang this around the Senate and maybe even have the vote hanging over during the election, the better.

    I expect the Republicans to try to use the closeness of the election as an excuse for why the vote is unnecessary. Why bother going to the trouble of having an impeachment trial when the election will make it moot anyway? After all, if he loses, we will have gotten rid of him, and if he wins it’s proof that the voters think he didn’t do anything wrong.

    ETA: To be clear, I don’t think this is a reason to avoid impeachment. We just need to have an argument ready for why we should go ahead with the trial if the election is looming.

  21. 21
    Gravenstone says:

    @MomSense:

    instead of with McConnell and the rest of the craven Republicans

    That’s because only Democrats have agency. Republicans are at best bystanders, if not innocent “victims” of the big bad Democrats. Clearly you need a refresher on your propaganda training. //

  22. 22
    JPL says:

    @germy: He’s going after free speech and the press. It would be chilling if the court lets that stand.

  23. 23
    agorabum says:

    @Major Major Major Major: All these subpoena fights are over the same discovery efforts that impeachment would have. Oversight of Trump naturally leads to impeachment. Bringing this to a slow boil is more effective overall. I’m ok with the patience (although in the same boat as you – if we’re no closer in 3-4 months, then I’ll be yelling too)

  24. 24
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @germy: Assange is a world-class asshole, but this is bad.

  25. 25
    Steve V says:

    Is there an investigation about the security clearance scandal? How about the rampant use of personal emails? Congress needs to step it up.

  26. 26
    TenguPhule says:

    @Major Major Major Major: I’m confident Trump is going to do a lot of horrible shit in the next five months. And that the pressure is going to build.

    I am less confident in how much longer the restraint on our side is going to hold since Republicans have abandoned even the slightest pretenses that they’re not playing Calvinball to the tune of IOKIYAR. And I am increasingly worried that the Federal Economic reports are no longer independent of the political appointees overseeing those departments.

  27. 27
    hells littlest angel says:

    As the brilliant Nancy Smash has explained, it’s not just that nothing would change, but that he would then claim to be exonerated. And then nothing COULD change.

    I continue to say, investigate him until he develops an eating disorder has a stroke. The only way he leaves before January of 2021 is in a gold-painted box.

  28. 28
    Brachiator says:

    I’m all over the place on impeachment.

    The public radio program Air Talk had a good program on the issue of impeachment. A guest Republican strategist thought that impeachment would help Trump. However, another guest, a law professor, noted that the case for obstruction of justice is very clear.

    I had been neutral before, but now lean toward impeaching Trump. I think waiting would give more opportunity for Trump and the GOP to shout “witch hunt of an innocent man.”

    Impeachment would rattle Trump. I like the idea of Trump getting rattled.

  29. 29
    debbie says:

    A timeframe should not be the primary consideration. First there has to be a thorough investigation. The hearings must be based on solid, provable facts, not feelings or suppositions. No one hates Trump more than I, but if the Dems go into hearings with anything less than incontrovertible facts and overwhelming evidence, they risk being undermined by the GOP. And the thought of those consequences makes me very queasy.

  30. 30
    Hoodie says:

    @Roger Moore: Seems to me that Pelosi is slow walking this to keep the Senate out of it, and that is not necessarily a bad outcome. You might want to delay the core impeachment hearings until a few months before the election, such that the articles are drawn up right before the election. You’re not going to get the Senate to convict, so let the voters do it after they’ve witnessed several months of House committee hearings. A lot of voters won’t realize that the Senate has to convict, and will think that the articles are as good as a conviction.

  31. 31
    debbie says:

    @Brachiator:

    All of this is already rattling Trump. Don’t play into his hands.

  32. 32
    TenguPhule says:

    @Gravenstone:

    Investigate, investigate, investigate. Dig deep and be thorough. Drag their shit all into the light of day. All of it, the lies and cheating and malfeasance and obstruction (Trump’s as well as his sycophants in the admin).

    Investigations need people that actually answer them and documents to be produced for analysis.

  33. 33
    Mike in DC says:

    I’d like to see where all this is after Labor Day. If we’ve gotten documents and witnesses, then slow walking the investigation is effective. If not, we’ll have to shift to calling it an “impeachment inquiry” and start laying out the case directly to the public, as much of it as we can reach. Ultimately it is up to the people to pressure the Senate to do the right thing. But you need 60-70% support for removal to make that happen.

  34. 34
    Sab says:

    @MomSense: This.

    My Senator (Rob Portman) voted to lift sanctions from Deripaska’s aluminum company because “reasons.” How clean is that NRA campaign money he got from NRA? Want to bet it was from foreign sources? We need to start looking at Republicans instead of chewing on Nancy Pelosi’s ankles.

  35. 35
    debbie says:

    @germy:

    Any chance Trump would be charged as an accessory, based on his support during the campaign? 😉

  36. 36

    @germy: I’m seeing a lot of people I like (media matters, on the media, etc.) saying that the newest Assange indictments are troubling, that it’s difficult to distinguish the wikileaks M.O. from normal journalism in a legally meaningful sense. Given the sources I’m starting to wonder if it might actually be true…

  37. 37
    Luthe says:

    I’m all about the current strategy of trying to get documents through the regular judicial process and, should that fail, moving onto impeachment hearings. That way the Dems have an ironclad argument that they tried thing the normal way and were forced to start an impeachment inquiry because of all the stonewalling.

    Impeachment subpoenas are turbo-charged and much harder to fight.

  38. 38
    TenguPhule says:

    I suppose part of the reason we’re so frustrated by the lack of urgency in impeaching Trump and Pence is that the fucking Internment Camps from last year are still there, bigger then before and at least 10 children that we now know of have died in them.

    Waiting too has a cost.

  39. 39
    Lumpy says:

    Trump wouldn’t be removed by the Senate, but impeachment would forever leave an asterisk on his presidency. That is important. There has to be some consequences for Trump’s attack on our institutions and norms.

  40. 40
    TenguPhule says:

    meh

  41. 41
    Ella in New Mexico says:

    I think a couple of things are REALLY important right now:
    1. Like we say in the ICU during a massively ugly code with people starting to panic: “Everyone needs to CTFD!” (Calm The Fuck Down).

    2. If we don’t adhere to #1 we’re all going to be too emotionally spun up and complete suckers for the trolls out there right now trying to split the Democrats. See my comment below:

    since I seriously don’t know who you are and you sound an awful lot like all the other you professional pro-Trump, pro-Divide the Democrats Troll working for Russia I’m gonna use your statement as a teaching opportunity for how trolls are RIGHT NOW IN REAL TIME trying to split our party. People are pushing the “Nancy is failing us! Kick her to the curb! She’s betraying America for her own selfish reasons!” shit all over Twitter right now, including some I’ve considered to be otherwise relatively sane and reasoned.

    And why we all need to be VERY careful right now not to get sucked into something because it feeds our deeply angry inner needs for Trump and his cronies to be destroyed. It’ll happen, but it won’t happen like it would make all of us cheer for it to happen.

    Trust Nancy. It’ll all work out like it should.

  42. 42

    @TenguPhule:

    And I am increasingly worried that the Federal Economic reports are no longer independent of the political appointees overseeing those departments.

    I would be a lot more worried about that if I thought voters paid more attention to federal economic reports than they do to their own experience. If people feel stressed about their personal situation, they’ll think the economy is in trouble no matter what the feds say. I remember polls of economic sentiment in 2008 showed people were worried about the economy long before the official numbers said there was a problem.

  43. 43
    TenguPhule says:

    @Roger Moore:

    I would be a lot more worried about that if I thought voters paid more attention to federal economic reports than they do to their own experience.

    Not the American voters I’m worried about there. What gives me the cold shivers is what happens when all the international money movers realize that the bedrock of reporting the hard data of the US economy can no longer be trusted.

    Everything relies on faith.

  44. 44
    Ella in New Mexico says:

    @Cheryl Rofer: If I recall, Walter Cronkite and the TV news casters were talking about this stuff for what felt like at least two summers during my late childhood. I think the hearings were on during the day and my brothers and I would hear snippets of testimony and later on mimicked all the “I do not recall”s being stated over and over again like we had any idea what the hell was going on.

    Also we watched some guys walk on the moon sometime around there which was really cool. ;-)

  45. 45
    MomSense says:

    @Sab:

    I wondered about that. I would also still like to know why all those GOP Congress critters went to Russia on Independence Day and what the fuck was in those notes Rand was passing between trump and putin.

  46. 46

    Remember that modern politics is performance.
    The goal is not to solve problems, but to capture the audience, to gain their emotional loyalty, to make them vote and/or give money, etc.
    From one standpoint, “the problem” is Trump^H^H^H^H^Hthe Republican Party and “the solution” is to remove him^H^H^Hit from office.
    But modern politics is not about solving problems; it is about leaving them in place (or even making them worse), using them to cast blame, to reinforce tribal identity and loyalty.
    My goal would not be to “win” the “game”. This is for four reasons: 1. it is the wrong game; 2. it needs to be ended, not “won”; 3. “winning” can only be defined on a performative level, i.e. it is not only the wrong game, it is the wrong kind of game; 4. we hadn’t be playing games in the first place.
    But one either plays the game or one doesn’t. There are no other options. Particularly, pretending that a different game is in progress is not an option.
    Madame Speaker (if I understand her) says let’s not play the game, for some of my reasons; but my reasons are not reasons not to play; they are reasons not to define the goal as “winning”, whatever that might mean.
    I say play. There is no other way to get the audience’s attention and everything depends upon that. It is a bad situation, but we cannot make the best of it by turning our backs upon it, greatly though it may so deserve.
    It’s performance, and it is improv, and sometimes in improv you have to do very drastic or incongruous things in order to seize the initiative and the spotlight. Trump understands that. We either don’t understand it, or else we regard it with principled distaste. He understands something else, which is that our institutions have failed. Would that were not so: but it is so, and we will get nowhere by trying to pretend that the situation is something other than what it is.

  47. 47
    Kent says:

    Pelosi knows what the fuck she is doing.

    Investigate everything, turn over every leaf, and keep the ball in the House’s court.

    People may have dim memories of what happened with Clinton. But what the House actually did back then was simply take the Ken Star report at face value then go straight to an impeachment vote with no additional investigations or hearings. Not that there was necessarily anything left to investigate. But they tossed the ball straight to the GOP-controlled Senate where there was a bunch of blovicating speechmaking and then the inevitable result that he was acquitted on all charges because they lacked a 2/3 majority.

    Once the House votes all the cameras go off in the House and all the attention is on Mitch McConnell and the GOP Senate. That would be exactly what Trump wants. And “acquitted on all charges” would be the message 24/7 from every single right wing and centrist media outlet.

    We live in a new world today. EVERYTHING is political from judicial nominations to foreign affairs to tariffs and trade policy to environmental policy. This is not the world of 1974 when some GOP senators had integrity. The only thing that really matters is keeping the House, winning the Senate, winning the presidency, and winning as many state-level elections as possible. The people who say we have to vote for impeachment on principal even if it leads to defeat in 2020 sound just like the same people who voted for Jill Stein on principal, because both Trump and Clinton were equally corrupt and Bernie was robbed.

    I’m not against or for impeachment. I’m about doing whatever will most effectively expunge the stench of Trump and the GOP from our body politic. If that means impeachment then fine, if not then fine too.

  48. 48
    sdhays says:

    He has to be impeached. He just has to. A man this lawless cannot get a pass just because his party is a bunch of treasonous hacks.

    But his party IS a bunch of treasonous hacks, so the focus can’t be on actually removing him from office, because it’s highly unlikely to happen. The focus needs to be on maximizing the penalty in 2020 to the Republican Party for NOT removing him. That means building the case to a crescendo and then forcing the Senate to deal with it when McConnell least wants to, which is probably some time in 2020.

    Don’t forget, we’re dealing with a media which routinely lies about the Mueller Report – stating plainly that it “found no evidence of collusion” when it expressly DID NOT SAY THAT (looking at you, Judy Woodruff). AT BEST, it said that they were successful at destroying enough evidence to prevent conclusions. It will take time to fully convince the country that impeachment isn’t “political”, but required. And that’s when Pelosi should (and will) bring the hammer down.

    Meanwhile, seeing the administration attempt to stonewall and get slapped around by the courts will help make the case.

  49. 49
    Brachiator says:

    @debbie:

    All of this is already rattling Trump. Don’t play into his hands.

    I say “shake, rattle and roll.” I don’t think it plays into his tiny hands.

  50. 50

    @Ella in New Mexico: I was engaged in a rather complicated personal life, so I didn’t pay a lot of attention or spend a lot of angst on Nixon, at least as I recall. But the headlines I see from that era are very similar to ours today – President stonewalling! Congress impotent!

    It all folds together when we look back, but living through one of these things is miserable.

  51. 51
    Steve V says:

    Fox World is on the edge of their seat waiting for the IG report that they think will start to turn the tide and show all of this was really masterminded by Obama (that is really what they think). Assuming the IG report is a nothingburger, might as well shelve the impeachment talk until then.

    Oh, another investigation that needs to be opened is on Trump/executive branch pressure on DOJ to open politically motivated investigations/prosecutions. Seriously, the topics for investigation are legion and the House is really lagging here.

  52. 52
    sdhays says:

    @Kent:

    Once the House votes all the cameras go off in the House and all the attention is on Mitch McConnell and the GOP Senate. That would be exactly what Trump wants. And “acquitted on all charges” would be the message 24/7 from every single right wing and centrist media outlet.

    Excellent point!

  53. 53
    Larime Taylor says:

    For everyone wanting impeachment sooner rather than later, please explain your step-by-step outcome. As it stands, it looks to me like:

    1. Impeach
    2.???
    3. We win!

    I’m with John and the rest of you, I want him gone yesterday. It’s not going to happen, however. The GOP won’t convict. We’ll look worse coming out of it and he’ll still be there. He WANTS that. What does going all-in on impeachment get us?

  54. 54
    Steve in the ATL says:

    @🐾BillinGlendaleCA: without efg here, we don’t have anyone who can walk across the rice paper without leaving footprints.

  55. 55
    Martin says:

    There is no way in hell the craven Republicans would vote to convict.

    “Christ, Lyndon, we can’t call the guy a pigfucker. It isn’t true.” To which LBJ supposedly replied “Of course it ain’t true, but I want to make the son-of-a-bitch deny it.”

    The House opens the investigation. Everything get laid bare. Now, force the Senate Republicans to defend the guy. Make them go on the record. Put that in the history books.

  56. 56
    Kent says:

    @sdhays: It wouldn’t just be Fox News and Trump’s Twitter Feed. From long experience we already know that the NYT and Washington Post, all the networks (except maybe MSNBC) and even NPR would buy into the dominant narrative that Trump was acquitted on all charges and that Trump wins big time. And then Steve Inskeep would concern-troll the Democrats about how they overplayed their hand like Newt did, and strengthened Trump going into the election.

  57. 57
    Cermet says:

    Impeach, yes but AFTER the November election; that way, one can make the criminal charges stick when he leaves office after he looses the election. Win, win and no asswipe thug senators needed at all. So obvious, even the orange fart cloud will know exactly what is about to happen to his stinking dumb ass.

  58. 58
    Martin says:

    @Larime Taylor:

    For everyone wanting impeachment sooner rather than later, please explain your step-by-step outcome. As it stands, it looks to me like:

    1. Impeach
    2.???
    3. We win!

    Impeachment is a process. We don’t vote tomorrow. Maybe in 12 months we vote. In that time, every financial tie to Russia is made public, every backchannel during the campaign, every obstruction attempt.

    There isn’t a courtroom in the country where the jury would convict before the opening statement. They need to be convinced. The process is the entire point. The exercise matters. If at the end the Senate says, ‘yeah, we can see the guy partnered with Russia to win, and obstructed justice, we’re cool with that’, well, that’s pretty important information to know going into the next election. That’s important information to know if you want to change election laws and the like.

    The ‘no impeachment’ folks are effectively arguing that the police shouldn’t arrest people if they don’t believe the DA will convict them. That’s now how this works. The House isn’t responsible for the Senates actions. They need to do what’s right. They need to make the case. If the Senate is sufficiently corrupted to let it stand, then let’s get that out in the open.

  59. 59
    Brachiator says:

    Impeachment adjacent: UK Conservative leaders may oust Theresa May:

    Several cabinet ministers have told me they expect Theresa May to announce her departure from Downing Street tomorrow.

    A senior minister said: “She’s going to go – if it’s to be done, it’s best to be done quickly.”

    Another said it would be “unforgivable” for her to try to stay on now.

    One of those who has been most loyal to her said: “It might be tomorrow or Saturday, but it can’t be past Sunday.”

    Multiple sources have said they expect the prime minister to give the timetable for her successor to be chosen tomorrow, with 10 June likely to be the start of the official leadership contest.

    That would be after the visit from President Trump and the Peterborough by-election the previous week.

    Most ministers I’ve talked to today say they hope the campaign for the next prime minister can be compressed, so it’s finished by the end of July but there is not yet much clarity about that.

    Why now though? It’s not as if Theresa May’s been having an easy time of it for months.

    You guessed it, it’s Brexit, and what’s accelerated her departure was trying – again – to put her Brexit plans to Parliament.
    ‘Crossed a line’

    It’s only two days since she outlined the details of her planned offer. It made things worse in her own party, and had nothing like the impact on the Labour Party that Number 10 had hoped for.

    But critically, as one member of her cabinet said, “it crossed a line for them”.

    So her party won’t accept the plan and now her cabinet won’t either, there is almost zero chance of it ever making it to Parliament.

    And with no hope for the deal she stayed on to try to pass, there is almost no hope for her.

    If it goes down like this, a new prime minister might push hard for a no deal BREXIT, despite the stupidity of such a move.

  60. 60
    Mike in NC says:

    Still thinking that the ideal day for the House impeachment vote would be the 4th of July, because Fat Bastard has hinted at delivering a self-serving speech — quite out of keeping with tradition — on that date. It would make the fireworks all the more enjoyable. Everything Trump touches dies, and that includes Independence Day.

  61. 61
    Ella in New Mexico says:

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    It all folds together when we look back, but living through one of these things is miserable

    Exactly. But dang, I really do miss being an oblivious kid who could just mock every stupid horrible news story like this one on TV on my way outside to climb trees. :-)

  62. 62
    Kent says:

    @Martin:

    The House opens the investigation. Everything get laid bare. Now, force the Senate Republicans to defend the guy. Make them go on the record. Put that in the history books.

    This isn’t any sort of fair trial and they don’t have to defend Trump. All the Senate has to do is follow whatever script and talking points are laid out for them. Concern about the process. Overreaching by Democrats. Whatever. They will have a bazillion talking points that talk right past whatever articles of impeachment the House lays out. Most of the GOP Senators will completely ignore whatever the House does, use their 5 or 10 minutes to speechify about Dem overreach and political witchhunts and FBI spying in the elections or whatever the fuck. Then they will vote without actually ever reading or responding to the articles of impeachment.

    And those will be the soundbites on the nightly news. And then all the moderate media outlets like the NYT and NPR will concern-troll about how the Dems overreached and strengthened Trump’s hand going into the election. 99% of the coverage will be horse race coverage and only 1% will actually explore the merits.

    And anyone surprised by that has not been paying attention to the past 10 years.

  63. 63
    Cacti says:

    @germy:

    Julian Assange is a major liability for the GOP. If he ever ends up in US hands during the current administration, I suspect he “commits suicide” in custody.

  64. 64
    Brachiator says:

    @Cermet:

    Impeach, yes but AFTER the November election

    If Trump wins re-election, he will be untouchable, especially if Republicans hold a Senate majority. If Trump loses the election, impeachment becomes a non-issue.

    Impeach now.

  65. 65

    @sdhays:

    But his party IS a bunch of treasonous hacks, so the focus can’t be on actually removing him from office, because it’s highly unlikely to happen. The focus needs to be on maximizing the penalty in 2020 to the Republican Party for NOT removing him.

    This. The best way to show the world that the Republicans are a bunch of treasonous hacks is to present the Senate with an airtight case for impeachment and let them deal with it. It’s vital to make it clear to the American voter that you can’t trust the Republicans to put the good of the country first.

  66. 66
    Denali says:

    What Martin said.

  67. 67
    Jeffro says:

    @MomSense:

    all the focus is on Pelosi and Democrats instead of with McConnell and the rest of the craven Republicans. This is a major tactical error. We should be asking McConnell and every elected GOP Congress critter every day to comment on obstruction and other high crimes by trump and co.

    Ay.
    Men.

    This should be our line every day: “Why have the Republicans given up on their duty to the country, to their oaths of office? National media, why are you NOT asking them that very question?”

    And maybe even “Republican voters…frankly, you deserve better as Americans.”

  68. 68
    Bill Arnold says:

    @germy:

    17 of the 18 charges are for violating the Espionage Act

    I was quite disappointed/unnerved to see that. Any plausible reads on that motives for that? (Haven’t looked yet.) It’s one short step away from prosecuting the press, including the US press. (wikileaks lost a lot of credibility by not redacting names in their mass dumps. All the pious about this BS was BS.)

  69. 69
    cmorenc says:

    @TenguPhule:

    I suppose part of the reason we’re so frustrated by the lack of urgency in impeaching Trump and Pence is that the fucking Internment Camps from last year are still there, bigger then before and at least 10 children that we now know of have died in them.

    Waiting too has a cost.

    Should our strategy for militarily defeating Germany in WW2 have been accelerated or altered, at greater risk of failure, because people were suffering and dying every day in concentration camps? Waiting has some ugly costs, but the paramount must-not-fail objective is making sure Trump is forced from office, and unless we succeed at that, we’ll fail at ending the cruel consequences of Trump’s immigration policies.

  70. 70
    Jeffro says:

    @Martin:

    force the Senate Republicans to defend the guy. Make them go on the record. Put that in the history books.

    Annnnnd another ‘amen’ here. Ask the questions: “Why in the world would the GOP defend this? Why isn’t the media focused on this, instead of their usual horse race BS? Why don’t Republican voters demand better?”

  71. 71
    rikyrah says:

    When Nancy Smash talks about him, it sounds like a grandmother talking about her disappointing grandchild. She derides him by using that posture. She attacks him, basically calling him a man- child. She never seems like she respects him…that comes through loudly.
    And, it bothers him that he doesn’t upset her. That he can’t rattle her.

  72. 72
    Larime Taylor says:

    @Roger Moore: Except there IS no such thing as an airtight case. The media give climate change ‘equal sides of coverage’. No matter how strong the case, the GOP talking points will be treated as equal. He’ll not be convicted. He’ll claim exoneration, people will be frustrated and go back to not voting because nothing works.

    We have to VOTE his ass out. Investigate away, but never think that the media will suddenly stop playing ‘both sides’ coverage.

  73. 73
    Cacti says:

    @Jeffro:

    Why don’t Republican voters demand better?”

    Because it’s not possible to be a Republican voter and a good person in this day and age.

  74. 74
    Leto says:

    Some light reading, courtesy of Lawfare Blog:

    The House Is Right to Move Toward an Impeachment Inquiry

    What Powers Does a Formal Impeachment Inquiry Give the House?

    Maybe this will help guide the discussion/debate. Or not. Who knows!

  75. 75
    WV Blondie says:

    Bonus points to Cole for using the right word – “champing.”

  76. 76
    Larime Taylor says:

    @Jeffro: Yes, the media is doing a great job on that so far with white nationalism, emoluments, his taxes, etc. Why will this be different?

  77. 77
    Gvg says:

    I want investigations into McConnel and several others. The reason we can’t get rid of Trump or even reign him in, is the GOP senate and specific Senators. They are clearly covering up for a treasonous crook, and I think the reason is they are just as bad. The ringleaders were there before Trump Evan ran and doing things that hurt the country before Trump. The allowing unsupervised corporate cash started before Trump and indications are that foreign money started before citizens united. The NRA and some of the bigger churches seem to have been corrupted before Trump too. The house and democrats can’t do too much of the needed investigations themselves either or results will appear to be just partisan instead of just facts. That means it’s on us and all the other investigation type organizations to find out and prove it. Arrest McConnel on proof and a few others and then I think we can get Trump. I really want Trump to go to jail after fair trials. First he has to be out of office.
    I think Congressmen can’t be arrested while Congress is in session but otherwise they are normal in the law, right?

  78. 78
    Jay says:

    @Martin:

    👏👏👏👏👏👏

  79. 79
    Bill Arnold says:

    @Steve V:

    How about the rampant use of personal emails?

    The House should be investigating this just on principle, because the word “emails” is so deeply imprinted on most Republican minds.

  80. 80
    debbie says:

    @Cacti:

    It’s because all of them only care about power. Period.

  81. 81
    debbie says:

    @Bill Arnold:

    I remember you saying you had been reading the redacted Mueller report. I’ve been thinking about reading it, too, but I’m wondering if the redactions made it hard to understand what was going on.

  82. 82
    MomSense says:

    @Martin:

    We are way past the Senate or any Republican doing the right thing. Our US Attorney General, is openly BRAZENLY engaged in a spurious investigation of the President’s political opposition. He isn’t even trying to hide his politicization of his office. These Republicans have no respect for laws, norms, ethics, country, anything. Until we make it impossible for every single elected Republican and Republican official to leave their house without facing a barrage of questions, nothing will happen.

  83. 83
    Leto says:

    @Bill Arnold:

    Any plausible reads on that motives for that?

    I’m going to go with, because he helped Chelsea Manning break into the systems. If you as a journalist receive materials and then publish, that’s protected under 1st Amendment. Help somebody be break into a system, then publish it? No leg to stand on. If you help advise people on how to break into a system, same same.

    Of course this is the Trumpov DoJ, so I have no faith in a fair prosecution.

  84. 84

  85. 85
    Gvg says:

    @Bill Arnold: maybe he actually was spying, not just reporting. He really has not acted like a normal reporter.
    They’ll have to show us to convince us though.
    I speculate the reason the espionage act doesn’t get used is protecting our methods and sources, not because espionage doesn’t happen. However I don’t the Assange represents a certain country or spy network so maybe we don’t need to hide what we know this time?

  86. 86
    wjs says:

    1. Investigate and expose the president’s criminal wrongdoing for the next year and a half.

    2. Make it one aspect of the presidential race in 2020, but emphasize what Democrats will do for Americans (health care, student loans, global warming, income inequality, infrastructure spending on real projects, etc)

    3. Win the 2020 Presidential election; retain control of the House. Maybe take the Senate? Who knows?

    4. Start impeachment hearings one day after 2020 presidential election in order to avoid any impropriety

    5. Impeach Trump by Christmas Day

    6. Allow the GOP in the Senate to go on record for voting to keep him in office, even though he lost the election.

    7. Everyone continues to complain about how awful the Democrats are for not being perfect while the GOP continues to shit the bed over every aspect of our lives.

  87. 87
  88. 88
    Cacti says:

    @Major Major Major Major:

    Is this the part where we’re supposed to feel sorry for him?

  89. 89
    Uncle Cosmo says:

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    Nixon had the good sense to dispose of Spiro Agnew and find someone that the country wouldn’t gag at if he left office.

    Sorry, Cheryl, but “good sense” on Tricky Dick’s part had nothing to do with it. When Nixon sought Congressional advice on a replacement for the disgraced VPOTUS Agnew, Gerry Ford was their consensus choice – they probably considered him temperamentally (& intellectually) incapable of Nixonian shenanigans. POTUS readily acquiesced, no doubt in part because in his twisted mind, Ford represented impeachment insurance: Nixon was sure no responsible Congress would replace him with this amiable doofus (who. LBJ once remarked, had played too many games of football without a helmet), as earlier he was sure Democrats would leave him in office rather than make the despised Agnew President. Of course he was wrong about that, but it was miscalculation on his part, not any concern for the nation.

  90. 90
    Leto says:

    @rikyrah: It’s because he doesn’t know how to handle strong women. Women are playthings to him, to be discarded once they’re no longer fun. The fact that this woman doesn’t have to put up with his bullshit, routinely calls him out for his bullshit, and, most importantly, won’t go away (like so many others) drives him batshit insane. Keep it up, Nancy!

  91. 91
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Cermet: That makes no sense. If he wins, the GOP senate will say he was exonerated. If he loses, he will be out of office before the process is completed. Finally, criminal charges against him do not depend in any way upon impeachment.

  92. 92
    Bill Arnold says:

    @Ella in New Mexico:

    If we don’t adhere to #1 we’re all going to be too emotionally spun up and complete suckers for the trolls out there right now trying to split the Democrats.

    Yes! Agree completely. In general, if a political comment/tweet or longer writing gets you riled up, step back a bit mentally, look over how it changed your emotions, figure out how the text manipulated those changes, decide whether or not it was deliberate (or not) and/or ill/well-intended, etc.
    This will be an extremely key skill going forward, and teaching it will also be important. We’ll all be misfiring with false positives/false-negatives, but so it goes.

  93. 93
    laura says:

    I agree that we may be in defacto impeachment right now, and Nancy has gamed this out – or she ain’t Nancy Dellasandro of Baltimore – and the slow reveal may be what’s needed for the public to come around and along. If it coincides with the election it should be milked for all it’s worth cough TOM PEREZ cough, and the calling out of McConnel, McCarty and the legions of douche. The time it takes is the time it will take.
    What guts me every waking moment is the harm, the suffering that my fellow friends, family and neighbors and those seeking a better life in our country are forced to endure as a result of our racist, sadistic president and our friends, families and neighbors who want him to be as racist and sadistic because they are morally bankrupt, racist misogynists demanding that we fall in line because that’s the way things were when we were great.

  94. 94
    Uncle Cosmo says:

    @Cheryl Rofer: And just FTR, Nixon did not “dispose of Spiro Agnew,” the latter resigned after investigation by the Maryland US Attorney’s office (led by Republican George Beall) had him dead to rights for bribery & extortion. The plea deal, which (to the fury of Beall’s prosecutors) included no jail time & introduced the nation to the obscure legal term nolo contendere, was arranged at the behest of USAG Elliot Richardson, whose primary concern was to remove an all-but-convicted felon from the line of Presidential succession. Once again, Nixon had fuck-all to do with it.

  95. 95
    Leto says:

    @Major Major Major Major: This is more in response to Sullivan’s assumption that’s Wikileaks is a publishing organization. From Wikipedia’s journalism entry:

    In the US, many credible news organizations are incorporated entities; have an editorial board; and exhibit separate editorial and advertising departments. Many credible news organizations, or their employees, often belong to and abide by the ethics of professional organizations such as the American Society of News Editors, the Society of Professional Journalists, Investigative Reporters & Editors, Inc., or the Online News Association. Many news organizations also have their own codes of ethics that guide journalists’ professional publications.

    Does Wikilinks have any of that? Should they to be considered a “publisher”? If they don’t need to have any of that, is Instagram considered one of the largest “publishers” in the world? I don’t see them as that because I don’t see any of their work, anywhere, that isn’t publishing US state secrets. Or anything that will ratfuck Democrats.

  96. 96
    Sab says:

    @MomSense: Probably
    all part of the same story. A story we need to hear.

  97. 97
    Jay Noble says:

    Observations
    Even if Trump is impeached and removed, it does’t take him off the ballot or make him ineligible to run, does it?

    Pence. He’s in this up to his eyeballs but we don’t hear much about that. Maybe Nancy is keeping the Veep’s impeachment as a secret one-two punch to keep it from looking like she is trying to get the White house for herself?

  98. 98
    Jay says:

    “Was this a wise choice? IT WAS NOT. And not only because Paul Manafort stopped making payments once he got arrested and the bank had to eat the $12 million loss. But also because Calk now finds himself indicted for taking bribes, and the US gubmint would like all his money now please as a substitute forfeiture asset. And unless he’s got something really awesome to trade — which we doubt, since he was clearly the patsy here — Calk is shit out of luck.”

    https://www.wonkette.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-dumb-dick-manafort-patsy-who-got-indicted-today

  99. 99
    debbie says:

    @Jay:

    Thanks.

  100. 100
    Cacti says:

    @Leto:

    Generally speaking, Wikileaks or anyone else can be considered a publisher for First Amendment purposes, insofar as they weren’t a party or co-conspirator to illegally obtaining content for publication.

  101. 101
    Leto says:

    @Cacti:

    as they weren’t a party or co-conspirator to illegally obtaining content for publication.

    Well there’s the rub.

  102. 102
    Jay says:

    @debbie:

    Welcome, they have free audio books of the redacted report as well.

    No celebrity narrations yet, rumours are Morgan Freeman might do one.

  103. 103
    burnspbesq says:

    @germy:

    Fuck. That was stupid. Why make him a martyr AND give a whole shitload of potential defenses.

    Way to go, Barr, you fucking moron.

  104. 104
    Bill Arnold says:

    @debbie:

    I remember you saying you had been reading the redacted Mueller report. I’ve been thinking about reading it, too, but I’m wondering if the redactions made it hard to understand what was going on.

    It’s mostly lightly redacted, with color-coded redactions. There are a few pages that are mostly redactions. Get a searchable copy, read the executive summaries at the start of volumes 1 and 2 at least. The whole thing is a slog, for sure.

  105. 105
    joel hanes says:

    @Major Major Major Major:

    If we’re at the same place in 2-3 months

    We won’t be at the same place in 2-3 weeks

    Deutsche Bank and Mazurs and Capitol One will produce records; DB has already produced some. House researchers will pore over them, and find new leads. More subpoenas will be issued, against people and organizations like the banks over which Trump has no control at all. Trump’s New York State tax records are also going to be produced, and will no doubt prove very interesting indeed.

  106. 106
    debbie says:

    @Bill Arnold:

    I just downloaded the PDF. Hallelujah for executive summaries!

  107. 107
    Bill Arnold says:

    @debbie:

    Hallelujah for executive summaries!

    That’s one of the things that really annoyed Mueller about the Barr 4-page misrepresentation of the Mueller team’s report; that the executive summaries were intended for public release.

  108. 108
    Uncle Cosmo says:

    @Jay Noble:

    Even if Trump is impeached and removed, it does’t take him off the ballot or make him ineligible to run, does it?

    In fact it does. US Constitution, Article I, Section 3:

    Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States

    While technically he could remain on the ballot, and could even obtain a majority in the Electoral College, he would be constitutionally barred from serving as POTUS ever again.

    Furthermore, removal from office does not preclude conviction in a court of law after removal. From the continuation of the above quote:

    [T]he Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

  109. 109
    TenguPhule says:

    @Kent:

    All the Senate has to do is follow whatever script and talking points are laid out for them. Concern about the process. Overreaching by Democrats. Whatever. They will have a bazillion talking points that talk right past whatever articles of impeachment the House lays out. Most of the GOP Senators will completely ignore whatever the House does, use their 5 or 10 minutes to speechify about Dem overreach and political witchhunts and FBI spying in the elections or whatever the fuck. Then they will vote without actually ever reading or responding to the articles of impeachment.

    And those will be the soundbites on the nightly news. And then all the moderate media outlets like the NYT and NPR will concern-troll about how the Dems overreached and strengthened Trump’s hand going into the election. 99% of the coverage will be horse race coverage and only 1% will actually explore the merits.

    Let them condemn themselves.

    If our nation is really so far gone that the last remaining Congressional powers can’t check the Executive branch even in the face of clear criminal activity, the world needs to see that evidence clear and uncut.

    The Post-War tribunals can then later swiftly condemn them as traitors and they can join the last generation of Nazis.

  110. 110
    TenguPhule says:

    @Larime Taylor:

    people will be frustrated and go back to not voting because nothing works.

    Seriously, what do you think is happening right now?

    If we go into 2020 with Trump still claiming vindication because he wasn’t impeached, what do you think happens to the Democratic base?

  111. 111
    Aussie Sheila says:

    @Hoodie:

    This!

  112. 112
    J R in WV says:

    @Mike in NC:

    Still thinking that the ideal day for the House impeachment vote would be the 4th of July,…

    Not even 4th of July 2020… more like September or October, 2020, just before the election.

    ETA: Maybe kick off an Impeachment Inquiry 4th of July, stating up front that it will take at 12-18 months to complete the inquiry.

  113. 113
    Aleta says:

    @Major Major Major Major: Can you link to what you’ve read at media matters and other places? Since Assange’s people are good at getting the same argument in his defense to appear in various locations (as recently as a few weeks ago, as well as years ago), knowing what you’ve seen lately would be interesting.

  114. 114
    J R in WV says:

    @debbie:

    I’ve been thinking about reading it, [the Mueller Report] too, but I’m wondering if the redactions made it hard to understand what was going on.

    It’s no more complicated and quite a bit more interesting than a Tom Clancy novel. The redactions you can fill in from your reading here…

  115. 115
    zzyzx says:

    The problem with saying that we need to get the Senate on the record is that there’s 36-40 Senators for whom defending Trump no matter what would help their reelection chances. It turns out that the Senate had a structural flaw and we no longer have a way of fixing it because doing so requires the Senate not having the flaw.

  116. 116
    Dave W. says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Impeachment can still be carried out after he is out of office. It doesn’t remove him from office at that point, but there are other consequences should he be convicted in the Senate. I believe he would lose his pension if convicted (that was the hook that convinced Nixon to resign rather than fight to the bitter end), and he could be barred from holding any future Federal office (which also addresses the question of what if he’s convicted before the election and is still on the ballot).

  117. 117
    Sasha says:

    Impeachment is the last step, not the first … or even the middle.

    Pelosi has been smacking around 45 like a bitch and getting shit done. She knows the game better than you. Trust her timing and judgement.

  118. 118
    Sasha says:

    Investigate and reveal this chump to the point that the rot and stench is at its worst and then impeach. If conviction still fails because the GOP support Trump, then you can run against both Trump and congressional Repubs, citing their hopeless corruption.

  119. 119
    Jay Noble says:

    @Uncle Cosmo: Well Good!! Booted and can still get a personalized orange jumpsuit!

  120. 120
    Sab says:

    @Dave W.: Not true. Andrew Johnson was impeached and removed, and went on to serve for years as Tennessee Senator.

  121. 121
    tybee says:

    @Sab:

    Andrew Johnson was impeached and removed

    no, he was not removed from office.

  122. 122
    MadamZorba says:

    I’m of the opinion that Pelosi is trying to get the American people to support impeachment. Then the House Dems will follow the will of the people. It just takes awhile to get there.

Comments are closed.