Slo Mo Train Wreck

I realize that intelligent people can disagree about impeachment, but does anyone think that what the Democrats are doing now is good politics or good government?  Wait – let me rephrase:  Does anyone know what the Democrats are doing now?  Apparently, Jerry Nadler is kinda sorta maybe gonna hold impeachment hearings, according to this cutline from the Snooze Hour:

On Capitol Hill, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are emphasizing that impeaching President Trump is still a real possibility. In a party line vote, the committee passed a resolution setting rules for future impeachment investigation hearings, with Chair Jerry Nadler vowing to scrutinize presidential behavior that “poses a threat to our democracy.”

What a relief!  Impeaching a President who fires off impeachable offenses the way a pyromaniac lights fireworks on the 4th is “still a real possibility”.  Of course, some other major Democrats might beg to differ:

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Wednesday backtracked after saying Democrats were not conducting an “impeachment inquiry,” a remark that directly contradicted top House investigators and sowed further confusion about Democrats’ strategy.

The other news is that Elijah Cummings and the Oversight Committee are looking at Pence’s stay at a Trump property in Ireland (good, but mice nuts compared to other offenses), and the Ways and Means committee is basically burying the fact that a whistleblower has told them that Trump appointees are fucking with audits of Trump and Pence’s taxes.

The net of this is that Democratic investigations are a fart in the windstorm of Trump’s constant made-for-TV drama, and are getting almost zero attention.  Am I the only one who is disgusted by the dithering, split focus, and political cowardice on display here?  At a minimum we need a special select committee chaired by a hard charger that unites all of the threads investigating Trump’s corruption into one coherent narrative that gets some fucking attention.  What we have today is far less than the minimum, and time is running out.






210 replies
  1. 1
    eric says:

    I can tell you what they are doing….uncover and document with evidence what happened….do they vote? i doubt it. But evidence and testimony gets into the public domain in ways that it is not done so far. I think this has always been the play. Delay the inquiry so that the information is fresh in news cycles in 2020, so that it is not “old news” already washed away. It is, and has always been, the smart play.

    ReplyReply
  2. 2
    rikyrah says:

    I have to ask…
    Why all the smoke for Nancy Smash, when Hoyer has been a useless piece of shyt like….forever.

    ReplyReply
  3. 3
    Chyron HR says:

    Hmm, yes. Thank you, fanatical worshiper of Bernie Sanders, for reminding us that DA STABBISHMENTS is the real enemy.

    P.S. Don’t e-mail me again, you creepy piece of shit.

    ReplyReply
  4. 4

    Shorter M^2 on any topic: Whatever it is, the Ds are doing it wrong.

    ReplyReply
  5. 5
    [Individual 1] mistermix says:

    @eric: I think this explanation is cover for what’s really happening – a lot of House Dems are afraid of an inquiry because they read the polls which show that people “aren’t ready” for impeachment. Well, this is a case where you need to be out ahead of the polls, because the people being polled don’t have enough facts to form an opinion about Trump’s criminality.

    ReplyReply
  6. 6
    [Individual 1] mistermix says:

    @rikyrah:

    Why all the smoke for Nancy Smash, when Hoyer has been a useless piece of shyt like….forever.

    Good question.

    ReplyReply
  7. 7
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    I’m frustrated by all of it, but I do think Pelosi’s right in thinking (as I assume she’s thinking) that a vote for impeachment with bipartisan opposition is the best case scenario for trump. Jeff Van Drew is the only MoC I’ve seen go on the record as actually opposing impeachment, Abigail Spanberger and Elissa Slotkin are often cited as example of Dems who probably do, but I haven’t seen any confirmation. Richie Neal is said to oppose aggressive moves on trump’s tax returns because he thinks he can get some obscure tax reform passed, and the O’Bros have been saying in the last couple of weeks that Peter DeFazio doesn’t want to hold hearings in the Transportation Cmtee (which I believe would/could have jurisdiction over the Doonbeg and Turnberry stuff) because he thinks he can get…. wait for it… an infrastructure deal!

    FWIW I suspect trump would love to get an infrastructure deal done and doesn’t give a shit about the details, but McConnell and his donors would be the obstacle to anything that wasn’t a massive boondoggle

    ReplyReply
  8. 8
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @rikyrah: the existence of Steny Hoyer is a long-standing mystery. He even outlasted the dread RAHM! with little attention. I can only assume he’s tapped into some major campaign cash flow and, like McConnell until very recently, manages to stay under the outrage radar.

    ReplyReply
  9. 9
    eric says:

    @[Individual 1] mistermix: I think this is plan precisely because they have always known the votes are not there. So, dont investigate until closer to the election cycle. If they had the votes, *maybe* they would have taken a run at it. In the end, there was always going to be more and better things to investigate because Trump is Trump. I think Nancy and other Dems have seen numbers that impeachment without conviction is *not* a winner for them. So, the Dems that can push impeachment, do so; the Dems that cannot, dont push it. Personally, I think that impeachment has been a legitimate inquiry and outcome for Trump, but I also agree 100% that if the numbers are not there — do not do it. We cannot afford to lose this election.

    ReplyReply
  10. 10
    gkoutnik says:

    @eric: And if they draw it out until November 2020, it’ll be right in everyone’s face but the Senate will never get to reject it.

    ReplyReply
  11. 11
    StringOnAStick says:

    @[Individual 1] mistermix: And how do you change this lack of facts needed to form an opinion by The People? You hold hearings and investigate! Jesus, why is this so hard to understand? Anyone who is not currently quite aware like we political junkies are is someone who only pays attention to big stuff and/or right before the election. Starting the investigations now and dragging every bit of sleaze through the public square from now to election day is the most high leverage plan. WTF?

    ReplyReply
  12. 12
    kindness says:

    Streny Hoyer trips over his own dick far to frequently. Maybe he has Jerry Falwell Jr Wondercock Syndrome.

    ReplyReply
  13. 13
    Barbara says:

    Am I the only one who is disgusted by the dithering, split focus, and political cowardice on display here?

    Let’s say that your optimism about the political benefits of a fast track impeachment proceeding exceeds all available evidence.

    ReplyReply
  14. 14
    Ceci n est pas mon nym says:

    Yeah, I’m reaching my limit, and I’m one of the people who has been bravely pushing the line that this is how it works, they know what they’re doing, we need to be patient, etc.

    I would like to know what’s happening right now. What subpoenas are out there. What victories have we had in court? What were their consequences?

    I seem to remember that Barr was held in (criminal?) contempt of Congress. Holding a contempt vote had been the threat that got Barr to do minimal cooperation in the past. He’s dig in his heels, they’d schedule a contempt vote, he’d back down and release a memo or something. But has actual contempt led to anything? Is Barr still holding onto all the documentation and all the witnesses?

    We heard that Deutsche Bank was cooperating and turning over a bunch of real smoking-gun stuff. There were some tantalizing news reports about what was or might be in those documents.

    Now nothing. Does Congress have them?

    ReplyReply
  15. 15
    Barbara says:

    @StringOnAStick: Right. You said what I was thinking.

    ReplyReply
  16. 16
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    also, as a dumb guy on the internet offering advice to experienced and accomplshed politicians with track records and shit, wouldn’t it be a good idea to start talking about trump’s corruption on the stump? Not necessarily impeachment or the dread ‘process’ but, “And I can guarantee you this: I’m not running for the White House to make money out of it!”

    ReplyReply
  17. 17
    Doug R says:

    SSRS polls conducted for CNN from March through May showed impeachment favorability increasing slightly from 36 to 41 percent. The Mueller report was released in March. The former special counsel himself testified before Congress in July, but a Politico/Morning Consult poll showed little change, with 37 percent support for an impeachment inquiry. A Monmouth University poll last month found that 59 percent of people opposed having him impeached.

    Members of Congress, however, say the opinions of people they’ve come face-to-face with back home have been anything but stagnant. Coming off a 6-week summer recess this week where lawmakers had ample opportunity to hold town halls and personally hear from constituents, pro-inquiry members have offered testaments of how their congressional probes have pushed more of the public — and their Democratic colleagues — to back their inquiry into whether the president should be forced from office.

    “The exact opposite is true. Those polls don’t hold for my district at all,” Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA), a Judiciary member, told Newsweek. “More and more people are coming up to me and saying you must do something; you must address the unconstitutional behavior of this president.”

    So you can see why the mixed messages….
    https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-investigations-swayed-public-opinion-stumble-messaging-1459041

    ReplyReply
  18. 18
    [Individual 1] mistermix says:

    @Barbara: Just to be clear, I’m for a coordinated investigation of Trump crime. I don’t care if the end result is impeachment or not. The Watergate committee (I know, Senate not House) was not formed to impeach the President – it was formed to investigate criminality.

    ReplyReply
  19. 19
    Yarrow says:

    @StringOnAStick:

    And how do you change this lack of facts needed to form an opinion by The People? You hold hearings and investigate! Jesus, why is this so hard to understand? Anyone who is not currently quite aware like we political junkies are is someone who only pays attention to big stuff and/or right before the election. Starting the investigations now and dragging every bit of sleaze through the public square from now to election day is the most high leverage plan. WTF?

    Yes! This. I’m fine with how things are progressing.

    ReplyReply
  20. 20
    NCSteve says:

    What House Democrats are doing: slow-rolling the impeachment process so that it leads to a series of hearings over the next year that set off a repeating series of Trump meltdown and culminate in an impeachment vote next summer or fall when it will do the most harm to Trump.

    What House Democrats are not doing: tending to the emotional needs of people who want Democrats, who control 1/2 of one branch of the government to Do Something to relieve the unbearable anxiety of living with a Trump presidency and have fixated on the impeachment process as a thing that will totally fer shure do that if only they’d do it right now this very minute what are you waiting for, because Rule of Law Accountability Constitutional Duty.

    What House Democrats are also not doing: cockblocking the left wing Stein-voting ratfuckers and chaos agents exploiting that anxiety to redirect people’s rage and fear of Trump to Democrats.

    ReplyReply
  21. 21
    Just One More Canuck says:

    Thinking that the Democrats were ever going to get Trump out of office with a Republican senate was some magical pony fantasy – this was the only logical approach

    ReplyReply
  22. 22
    jl says:

    As Mark Twain wrote, That’s easy, I can answer that right away: I don’t know.

    ReplyReply
  23. 23
    [Individual 1] mistermix says:

    @StringOnAStick: Exactly.

    ReplyReply
  24. 24
    oldgold says:

    I know what we are doing – CIRCLING! That is what we have done for the last 40 years.

    ReplyReply
  25. 25
    JaySinWA says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    FWIW I suspect trump would love to get an infrastructure deal done and doesn’t give a shit about the details, but McConnell and his donors would be the obstacle to anything that wasn’t a massive boondoggle

    Nope, Trump may not care what is in the bill, but if it doesn’t mean money for him directly or through kickbacks, he is not going to embrace it. Of course the same goes for McConnell.

    ReplyReply
  26. 26

    It’s annoying for sure but I’m not gonna light my hair on fire for a few more weeks. ETA at least.

    ReplyReply
  27. 27
    Hawes says:

    It’s always seemed clear to me that impeachment would never become removal in the Senate. Therefore the proper purpose of impeachment was to have the process come as close as possible to the election of 2020 so that the defining story of the election would be Trump’s corruption.

    ReplyReply
  28. 28
    The Moar You Know says:

    If you can’t figure it out the Republicans can’t either.

    Nadler has opened investigations and that’s all I need to know until he starts calling witnesses. I expect both Hoyer and Pelosi to play stupid, AS THEY SHOULD, to at least give Nadler some room to get everything set up and going.

    As others have noted, the votes are not there. They just aren’t. The only way to move people is to do what they’re doing. Set it up and start doing it. We have a year.

    And we may never get the votes. That can happen, be prepared for it.

    ReplyReply
  29. 29
    H.E.Wolf says:

    Recall the history of Watergate. It took approximately 2 hard-fought years from the first investigative hearing, on a seemingly peripheral matter, to the President’s departure from office.

    That was during an era when Democrats held majorities in both Houses of Congress.

    Sneering at what the single group of majority Democrats in 2019 are doing, while ignoring the factors constraining them, is merely argument bait.

    Let’s talk instead about concrete actions that can change the votes in Congress.

    The Postcards To Voters folks have just announced a GOTV campaign for the Nov. 2019 elections in Kentucky, as a precursor to defeating Sen. McConnell in 2020.

    postcardstovoters.org [scroll to the bottom of the home page]

    Participation is self-regulated: you can do as little or as much as you choose, on a schedule of your own devising.

    It’s a great way for folks in safe Blue-represented districts to make a substantive difference!

    Join the Jackal contingent of postcard writers and help save the country, one postage stamp at a time. :)

    ReplyReply
  30. 30
    Soprano2 says:

    @[Individual 1] mistermix: That’s because Democrats don’t have a coordinated messaging plan like Republicans do, and they don’t have a TV news network pushing their party line all day every day. I think their messaging is awful – why aren’t they pounding on these things Trump does every time they go on TV and radio regardless of what the TV personality wants to ask about? The rescinding of the program for people who can’t get lifesaving medical treatment anywhere else should have caused a firestorm all across the country; it’s outrageous, and easy for pretty much anyone to understand – “Donald Trump’s administration wants to deport sick children to their deaths” should be an extremely potent message, and it has the benefit of being true!. Instead, it got buried underneath everything else, because the Dems didn’t seem to have a coordinated plan to get that message out.

    ReplyReply
  31. 31
    James Simonds says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: As someone from his district, I can confirm Steny Hoyer gets by like many marginal clowns do – incredibly good constituent service. People remember that longer than they do policies, votes, or dumb comments to the news media.

    My father brought an issue to the attention of his office, and within days we had a letter back from them. Within a week more it was fixed – the problem just vanished. My father, a hardcore Fox viewer and lifelong Repub, swore he would vote for Hoyer in every election after that.

    Is this a good reason to give Hoyer a pass? No, but this is the kind of thing that matters to a lot of people.

    ReplyReply
  32. 32
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Soprano2: why aren’t they pounding on these things Trump does every time they go on TV and radio regardless of what the TV personality wants to ask about?

    The people who watch politicians go on tv to talk to personalities already know what they think about trump. The vast majority of people have stronger opinions about TV talent shows and those freak-ass dating shows.

    ReplyReply
  33. 33
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @James Simonds: As someone from his district, I can confirm Steny Hoyer gets by like many marginal clowns do – incredibly good constituent service.

    thanks, I do often over look that. That’s also been the explanation for the survival of Susan Collins and Snowe before her. People’s phone calls get returned. I’ve noticed in the tubes that even people who hate/d them referred to them unironically as “Susan” and “Olympia”

    My ranting emails about issues of great Constitutional import get form letters. My phone calls get a tally mark (if that) from a usually polite but I’m sure bored interns.

    ReplyReply
  34. 34
    [Individual 1] mistermix says:

    One more consideration about the “they’re waiting for 2020” explanation: Trump’s administration is going to fight every subpoena. They can just delay the process up until the election. Part of the reason I’m for a coordinated investigation is to get those subpoenas rolling out and getting them adjudicated prior to the election, so we can at least have a few Trumpers testify.

    ReplyReply
  35. 35
    jl says:

    @Hawes: Even though I don’t know, as I admitted above, I am very frustrated with how the Democrats are proceeding on this. I don’t buy some of the lefty griping that Pelosi is cynically trying to milk Trumpster opposition in Democratic ranks for donations, which is echoed by some CW pundits. They almost never echo anything from the left, but I guess that theory is cynical enough and has enough easy to understand cynical ‘sizzle’ that they just can’t resist it. They don’t have to do any work to scribble it up or babble it out, which is another point in its favor..

    I think if Pelosi thought she could get rid of Trump and have Dems run against Pence, with Pence not in office long enough to do much damage, that might be a very nice deal.

    Pelosi knows more about the likely votes than any of us do. Proceeding with an impeachment that has almost zero chance of getting a conviction in the Senate needs to be done carefully. And entering that process without a unified Democratic caucus seems very risky. I agree with commenters that best feasible approach might be to slowly build an overwhelming case that can persuade the 73 percent of the population that is not crazy, with a unified caucus, and present the case to the Senate at a time that produces maximum embarrassment for Senate GOP. But, it is very frustrating.

    ReplyReply
  36. 36
  37. 37
    Betty Cracker says:

    Am I the only one who is disgusted by the dithering, split focus, and political cowardice on display here?

    Nope.

    ReplyReply
  38. 38
    jl says:

    @[Individual 1] mistermix: My understanding from news reports is that the Dems are setting up process for coordinated hearings with coordinated staff questioning at hearings, but in a way that is not getting a lot of headlines or attracting pundit notice. If so, that might be best approach.

    ReplyReply
  39. 39
    chopper says:

    @Just One More Canuck:

    assuming that impeachment-type proceedings will at least damage the fuck out of the guy, rather than actually remove him from office, then timing is pretty important. maybe teh stabbishment has thought that through, maybe?

    ReplyReply
  40. 40
    laura says:

    @rikyrah: Misogyny would go a long way towards explaining it.

    ReplyReply
  41. 41
    chopper says:

    @[Individual 1] mistermix:

    they’re not going to delay them, they’re going to ignore them. starting early has no real benefit when the witness never shows up.

    ReplyReply
  42. 42
    [Individual 1] mistermix says:

    @jl: I hope so – they need to have a coordinated effort to drown out the Trump noise.

    ReplyReply
  43. 43
    Ceci n est pas mon nym says:

    @[Individual 1] mistermix: Agree. The massive, continuous nature of the criminal behavior is kind of overwhelming our and the media’s (such as it is) ability to comprehend it. I need the whole list of crimes laid out. All of them.

    ReplyReply
  44. 44
    jl says:

    @chopper: I don’t know what you mean by ‘establsihment’. I’ve heard some establishment CW pundits and useless centrist Dems say on the political analysis talkies that the GOP impeachment of Bill Clinton did not result in conviction and was therefor obviously and totally bad for the GOP, so any impeachment that does not lead to conviction in the future must be bad and must never ever be done. Which I think is wrong.

    i think the critical issue is whether the public believes that the impeachment has some merit on the substance, rather than being a political stunt. Far too many people thought that the GOP impeachment of Bill Clinton was a political stunt that had no merit on the substance. And if it hurt the GOP (I’m not sure it did), that was the problem.

    ReplyReply
  45. 45

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    wouldn’t it be a good idea to start talking about trump’s corruption on the stump?

    Basically, I agree with mistermix’s opening post. But Jim’s point is the one I really don’t get. Kamala Harris did a bit of this last night. Nancy Smash and all the other leadership should be bringing out Trump’s wrongdoing every chance they get.

    There is a “common wisdom” argument among Democratic professional politicians that I think is wrong and could probably prove that with polls if I had time. I ran smack into it from two people the other night: The public doesn’t want impeachment. The Senate will never convict. So we must be very careful not to talk about that indecent subject and…

    And at that point, one runs into the underwear gnomes.

    But I’m seeing a lot of upset and desire to do something about Trump. Distract him and slow him down, if nothing else. The idea of political leadership is to mold such inchoate feelings into action. And everything I see tells me they don’t want to do that. Ben Ray Lujan, the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House, who has come out for impeachment hearings, was very reluctant on impeachment at his town hall last week.

    Another theory, which looks to me like desperation to salvage one’s opinion of Pelosi, is that she has some stash of damning evidence against Trump, or has some way to pull everything together, and is just waiting for the right time to do it. I admit that Pelosi has a better sense of vote-counting and timing than I do, but I have to wonder if she is waiting for Trump to declare himself President for Life.

    ReplyReply
  46. 46
    Kay says:

    Deepak Gupta
    @deepakguptalaw
    ·2h
    BREAKING: We just won our appeal in our Emoluments Clause case against Donald Trump, on behalf of Trump’s restaurant and hotel competitors.

    I just love that. That it’s the Trump competitors. Because that’s the other thing that’s wrong with crony capitalism, right? Actual capitalists should oppose it. It’s anti-competitive! In addition to being corrupt and sleazy and gross.

    The bad hotel wins SOLELY because the bad hotel has political connections and the competitors do not. This will, ahem, lead to a reduction in QUALITY.

    This legal case describes our whole society :)

    ReplyReply
  47. 47
    [Individual 1] mistermix says:

    @chopper:

    they’re not going to delay them, they’re going to ignore them. starting early has no real benefit when the witness never shows up.

    Yes, they’re going to ignore them, and then they will be held in contempt, and that will be adjudicated, and at some point it will be a major hassle for the person ignoring the subpoena. Some will show up, some will endure dire consequences. But all of that will take time, so the time to get started is now, not next year.

    ReplyReply
  48. 48
    EthylEster says:

    Front pager wrote: Impeaching a President fires off impeachable offenses the way a pyromaniac lights fireworks on the 4th is “still a real possibility”.

    I have no idea what this means or what effect you intended it to have when you wrote it.
    I have read it half a dozen times and cannot make it scan.
    Could you possibly translate it into a more comprehensible sentence?
    I like to understand what I read.

    ReplyReply
  49. 49
    rikyrah says:

    @JaySinWA:

    Nope, Trump may not care what is in the bill, but if it doesn’t mean money for him directly or through kickbacks, he is not going to embrace it. Of course the same goes for McConnell.

    truth

    ReplyReply
  50. 50
    PAM Dirac says:

    @H.E.Wolf:

    Recall the history of Watergate.

    I remember Watergate very well. For a long time it was just “the liberal Washington Post beating a dead horse”. It was not just that it took time to get the evidence out, but it was the stepwise process of something coming out, the apologists settling on an explanation, putting the new evidence out that refutes the explanation, rinse, repeat. The basic fact is that there is nothing the Democrats can do to stop Trump’s corruption and cruelty in the near term. That is because the corruption and cruelty is essentially coming from the whole Republican party. The whole party needs to be held responsible. That’s the other problem with nailing Trump on a few obvious crimes. Even if you convince people that Trump should be impeached, it just gives the thugs a chance to isolate the problem to Trump and sweep all the rest under the rug.

    ReplyReply
  51. 51
    rikyrah says:

    @James Simonds:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: As someone from his district, I can confirm Steny Hoyer gets by like many marginal clowns do – incredibly good constituent service. People remember that longer than they do policies, votes, or dumb comments to the news media.

    Well, if he does his job for the people in his district…then, I can just complain about him on the internet. If he’s taking care of business at home…he’s taking care of business..

    ReplyReply
  52. 52
    [Individual 1] mistermix says:

    @EthylEster: That should read “Impeaching a President who fires off impeachable offenses the way a pyromaniac lights fireworks on the 4th is “still a real possibility”.” Thanks for the heads-up, I updated the post.

    ReplyReply
  53. 53
    West of the Rockies says:

    @NCSteve:

    Well said.

    ReplyReply
  54. 54
    EthylEster says:

    @schrodingers_cat wrote : Shorter M^2 on any topic:Whatever it is, the Ds are doing it wrong.

    Sort of like Atrios these days. I got desperate a few weeks ago and posted a comment at Eschaton asking his commenters what THEY thought was Atrios’ plan about impeachment. (He constantly mocks Dems but offers no alternative. That gets old fast.) Of course, no one responded.

    ReplyReply
  55. 55
    Kay says:

    What I didn’t anticipate was the blatant and so personal self-dealing and corruption. It’s never an actual conspiracy on the part of the Trumpists. It’s always petty and personal. A bunch of free agents all vying for bucks. Russia certainly has a plan and the conservative “movement” has all their goals but the Trump people are just grabbing cash. It’s almost “tick tock- we may be cut off soon. Did you get yours?” It’s fascinating to watch when they leave and set up their next grift. That’s all they are doing in there. It’s a bunch of people in offices planning profitable exits.

    ReplyReply
  56. 56
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    Considering that several deep red states have canceled their GOP primaries because they don’t want to risk Trump losing to a challenger it sounds like their is a Republican civil war brewing so why interrupt up that? Until the Republicans stop with the GOP uber allies now and forever hive mind Impeachment is not going to work so the Democrats have to make it clear the Democrats aren’t going to save the Republicans from Trump.

    Which hurts Trump more; talking about treason which our betters endlessly tell us is Ok, if you are a Republican*, or Trump’s massive wuss out with the Iranians, which punctures the tough guy persona his fan bois worship and the press grovels before?

    * Benedict Arnold’s mistake was registering as an independent.

    ReplyReply
  57. 57
    JimV says:

    My disappointment with Democrats is roughly equal to my disappointment with the Americans who voted for Trump. Warren is my last hope.

    ReplyReply
  58. 58
    EthylEster says:

    @Barbara wrote: Let’s say that your optimism about the political benefits of a fast track impeachment proceeding exceeds all available evidence.

    Now that I understand. Thanks.

    ReplyReply
  59. 59
    Kay says:

    You even see it with Ivanka. There’s Plan A (re-elect) and Plan B (no re-elect). Positioning for maximum personal profit, whether that means a career in public grifting in resurrecting her career in private sector grifting. Either is fine. They even pick the state to land in! Sanders is Arkanas and that other Trumpster is Kansas. Timing is everything.

    Is it any wonder they haven’t got anything done other than the tax cut? Just their personal career management is a full time job.

    ReplyReply
  60. 60
    chopper says:

    @[Individual 1] mistermix:

    didn’t seem to trouble the last round of guys who didn’t show up, did it?

    ReplyReply
  61. 61
    rikyrah says:

    @Kay:

    Is it any wonder they haven’t got anything done other than the tax cut? Just their personal career management is a full time job.

    They have never had a sincere interest in actual GOVERNING…cause, that’s hard work.

    ReplyReply
  62. 62
    EthylEster says:

    @PAM Dirac wrote :

    The basic fact is that there is nothing the Democrats can do to stop Trump’s corruption and cruelty in the near term. That is because the corruption and cruelty is essentially coming from the whole Republican party.

    Yes! Our excellent founding fathers failed to anticipate this level of corruption.
    Trump will say or do anything today. And say or do the opposite tomorrow.
    It is astonishing. And deadly to democracy.

    ReplyReply
  63. 63
    Kay says:

    I don’t know of course but I think what scares people is the sense that there’s no limits. There are no police. I don’t have any real sense of how far they’ll go. I do know the AG of the United States won’t stop them. I think that’s where you start getting the idea it might take massive personal protests, like we see in other countries who don’t have functioning legal structures and “police” process – in the sense of state action- so at that point I stop thinking about it. The extreme PETTINESS of the crime actually adds to this, not the dollar amounts, which are not petty, but the fact that it’s all self-dealing, because it’s plain old theft. It would actually be easier if there were some grand ideological goal other than “me, me, me”. I think that’s how it differs from Watergate and Iran Contra. This is a fancy version of street crime. They’re just fucking plundering and no one seems up to stopping them.

    ReplyReply
  64. 64
    Uncle Cosmo says:

    @James Simonds:

    Steny Hoyer gets by like many marginal clowns do – incredibly good constituent service. People remember that longer than they do policies, votes, or dumb comments to the news media….

    [T]his is the kind of thing that matters to a lot of people.

    Hoyer didn’t have to look far to find the master of constituent service: Clarence D. Long, who represented MD-02 (wherein I grew up) in the House from 1963 to 1985. He had a PhD in economics & had been a professor at Johns Hopkins University from 1946 until his first election.

    Given his academic pedigree, it’s surprising that (IIRC) “Doc” Long never introduced a bill of any importance – but he had the best constituent service in Congress. He bought a van & had it outfitted as a “mobile office” & then advertised (via franked mail [letter carriers hated him for it – I was one for two summers in college] & the local newspapers) which post office he & the van (which we nicknamed “Deals On Wheels”) would be parked at for any given Saturday . Anyone who wanted to see him for any reason just lined up. And to a lot of people in MD-02 – particularly the blue-collar folks in Dundalk/Essex/Middle River – he was the only elected official that seemed to give a shit about them. As a result he never faced a significant challenge in a primary or general election after his first term.

    Hoyer’s first two terms in the House coincided with Long’s last two. You think he didn’t learn from the master, I gots a bridge in Brooklyn with your name on it…

    ReplyReply
  65. 65
    Ruff the Dog says:

    How about a House Select Committee to Clear the President of Wrong-doing? Then the Republicans and MSM will fall all over themselves explaining how corrupt he actually is and how it’s impossible to clear his name? Kinda the equivalent of telling the wingnuts not to drink bleach.

    ReplyReply
  66. 66
    TenguPhule says:

    @Kay:

    They’re just fucking plundering and no one seems up to stopping them.

    That’s because normal police and military procedures are to kill looters during a disaster.

    But it would be shrill or unimaginable to suggest rich white folks actually suffer the logical consequences of their behavior.

    ReplyReply
  67. 67
    rikyrah says:

    @EthylEster:

    Yes! Our excellent founding fathers failed to anticipate this level of corruption.

    That is true. They saw Dolt45 coming.
    They could not have anticipated an entire party willing to give up their constitutional duties.

    ReplyReply
  68. 68
    TenguPhule says:

    @PAM Dirac:

    The basic fact is that there is nothing the Democrats can do legally to stop Trump’s corruption and cruelty in the near term.

    FTFY.

    ReplyReply
  69. 69
    WereBear says:

    Drip.

    Drip.

    Drip.

    Who was alive during the Nixon hearings? I ran home every day from school at one point. Not sure what was going on, but I never trusted Nixon.

    But it wasn’t the uncovering of malfeasance on Nixon’s part. It was never boom-done. It took a while, but this is the kind of ground no one gains back.

    We can’t yank him out of office without yanking Pence too, for one thing. And every breath tRump takes erodes his support.

    I am trying to do “Patience, Grasshopper.”

    ReplyReply
  70. 70
    hells littlest angel says:

    Impeachment is a political process, thanks to our constitution, the flaws in which become more glaring with each passing year.

    ReplyReply
  71. 71
    hells littlest angel says:

    @WereBear: Well said.

    ReplyReply
  72. 72
    TenguPhule says:

    @Ceci n est pas mon nym:

    What victories have we had in court?

    We’re stalled on all fronts. We’ve lost several important cases on the Republican Judge’s basis of “IOKIYAR” and from the latest decision from the Supreme Court, five Republican judges are going to go along and dare us to do something about it.

    ReplyReply
  73. 73
    rikyrah says:

    @Kay:

    what’s different, is that, everything folks like me suspected about the GOP has been proven true. That every phucking thing they pushed forth that they stood for was nothing but bullshyt.
    And, yes, I’m keeping receipts.
    They think, like some folks on our side, that, we’re going to allow them to have the same amnesia with Dolt45, that they had with Dubya.

    not happening.

    you wanna open up your phucking mouth to talk about Affirmative Action and people being unqualified, after Dolt45?
    No. I don’t think so.
    Uh uh.

    Pick a subject.
    Elie (Black guy, wild and wonderful black/silver natural on MSNBC) said this weekend, that, them allowing Dolt45 to plunder the military budget for his wall…that nobody better not EVER in his presence talk about how much the GOP loves the military….and ICAM.

    name a subject. pick a subject. we’re collecting receipts, and these muthaphuckas will not be able to open their phucking mouths without pushback.

    they have revealed themselves willing to do anything for White Supremacy and tax cuts….ok then,……understood…and will NEVER be forgotten.

    ReplyReply
  74. 74

    @TenguPhule: I’m OK with court stacking.

    ReplyReply
  75. 75
    TenguPhule says:

    @NCSteve:

    and culminate in an impeachment vote next summer or fall when it will do the most harm to Trump.

    Trying to hold an impeachment vote in summer or fall of 2020 is asking for the worst outcome possible.

    ReplyReply
  76. 76
    mad citizen says:

    @Kay: I was a teenager during Watergate and the only law class I had as an undergrad was an unusual offering of Business Law taught by a local attorney in the university’s small town. I didn’t grasp the law concepts that well ( I was an economics and chemistry majors), got some kind of B. I don’t even recall the phrase “Rule of Law” being used in that class. (My main takeway was the great stories he told, like about part of a family cleaning out an old relative’s house while the other part was attending the funeral).

    I’ve spent more time thinking about “Rule of Law” and what it means in the last 3-4 years than in my 55 years up to then. A country has to have laws that no one is above. Otherwise it’s just a banana republic, a ridiculous place to live. House Dems, don’t screw this up.

    ReplyReply
  77. 77
    rikyrah says:

    @🐾BillinGlendaleCA:

    @TenguPhule: I’m OK with court stacking.

    Me too.

    ReplyReply
  78. 78
    TenguPhule says:

    @🐾BillinGlendaleCA:

    I’m OK with court stacking.

    Its gonna have to be more through then just stacking. All of these Trump and Bush appointees are fucking awful judges and every damn case they’ve ever decided is gonna have to be reviewed by actual competent people because these fuckers don’t even follow the law.

    ReplyReply
  79. 79
    The Moar You Know says:

    Our excellent founding fathers failed to anticipate this level of corruption.

    @EthylEster: Our excellent founding fathers failed to anticipate that the American voter would care so little for their country that they’d put an obvious self-dealing crook like Trump into office. Therefore all the remedies that one could usually employ are not there.

    Claims of ignorance about Trump’s nature, as I hear from the few regretful Trump voters I know (along with the obligatory “but I had no choice as Hillary was SO MUCH WORSE”) get nothing but spitting, in your face contempt from me. EVERYONE knew this guy was crooked. EVERYONE knew he was not fit for the office. Even back in high school I knew the guy was a fake rich man, and that was almost forty years ago. I live in a place with real rich people. They don’t gold plate everything, for starters. That’s the kind of shit my poor white trash relatives back in Arkansas would do.

    ReplyReply
  80. 80
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @EthylEster: Shorter M^2 on any topic:Whatever it is, the Ds are doing it wrong.
    Sort of like Atrios these days.

    as I recall, Atrios went all in on sneering petulance on Inauguration Day, 2009, if not before.

    ReplyReply
  81. 81
    Ruckus says:

    @Hawes:
    Exactly this.
    It’s not like we have a lot of options. Nor chances. There isn’t a lot of options here but there are a lot of ways to screw this up.

    ReplyReply
  82. 82
    joel hanes says:

    know

    I don’t *know*, of course, but given the certainty that the Republican Senate will not convict, I suspect that the Democrats are, in their own way, getting all their ducks in a line to produce a dramatic climax late next summer, when it will do the most good.

    Because they know the the broader American electorate has all the attention span of a gnat.
    If they act now, whatever happens (AND IT WON’T BE CONVICTION)
    will be old news by March 2020, and forgotten by November.

    ReplyReply
  83. 83
    Belafon says:

    An impeachment inquiry is the beginning of the impeachment process.

    Remember, though, Hoyer ran off to AIPAC to complain about the new women in the House. I wouldn’t trust anything form his mouth right now.

    ReplyReply
  84. 84
    TenguPhule says:

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    Nancy Smash and all the other leadership should be bringing out Trump’s wrongdoing every chance they get.

    They do make speeches about it.

    Unfortunately, after the 20th speech condemning Trump’s corruption followed by nothing holding him accountable for it, the average person starts to ignore what’s being said.

    Maybe its our television and film conditioning, but actions speak louder then words. The GOP’s greatest triumph has been to tilt the playing field so that any accusations fall under “partisanship”.

    ReplyReply
  85. 85
    Ruckus says:

    @James Simonds:
    For a lot of people constituent service is the only thing members of congress are good for. Because a lot of members do as little as absolutely possible. One that does something is a keeper.

    ReplyReply
  86. 86
    Cacti says:

    @schrodingers_cat:

    Shorter M^2 on any topic: Whatever it is, the Ds are doing it wrong.

    You win the thread.

    ReplyReply
  87. 87
    TenguPhule says:

    @[Individual 1] mistermix:

    and at some point it will be a major hassle for the person ignoring the subpoena.

    If only. Comity rules in the House and Senate investigations and the harshest penalty so far for not showing up is a few angry words by Democrats.

    ReplyReply
  88. 88
    TenguPhule says:

    @Enhanced Voting Techniques:

    it sounds like their is a Republican civil war brewing so why interrupt up that?

    Not even I believe that’s the case. Their National Party Discipline will fall in line. They always do.

    ReplyReply
  89. 89
    Elizabelle says:

    @schrodingers_cat:

    Shorter M^2 on any topic: Whatever it is, the Ds are doing it wrong.

    Yep. Democrats in Disarray. Am sick of his schtick, too. It’s pathetic.

    ReplyReply
  90. 90
    MomSense says:

    @gkoutnik:

    Not only will the Senate not get a chance to reject it, but Pence won’t get a chance to pardon him.

    I believe Nancy Smash when she says she wants to see him in jail.

    ReplyReply
  91. 91
    TenguPhule says:

    @Elizabelle: Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean its wrong.

    ReplyReply
  92. 92
    Cacti says:

    @TenguPhule:

    Its gonna have to be more through then just stacking. All of these Trump and Bush appointees are fucking awful judges and every damn case they’ve ever decided is gonna have to be reviewed by actual competent people because these fuckers don’t even follow the law.

    Amending the Judiciary Act is a no brainer at this point.

    I saw that fairly recently, no less than John “torture memos” Yoo took to the op-ed pages of the LA Times to lament how terrible, awful, no good, and bad it would be for the Dems to do such a thing, even though black letter Constitutional law empowers them to do so.

    They’re nervous. They’ve overreached and know that a reckoning is coming.

    ReplyReply
  93. 93
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    kind of on-topic:

    Mark Knoller @ markknoller
    Beginning speech to Concerned Women of America, @SecPompeo says “this is such a beautiful hotel. The guy who owns it must gonna be successful along the way,” he says, without mentioning @realDonaldTrump by name. “That was for the Washington Post,” he says of his remark.

    “must gonna be”?

    ReplyReply
  94. 94
    rikyrah says:

    @Cacti:

    Amending the Judiciary Act is a no brainer at this point.

    You ain’t never lied.

    ReplyReply
  95. 95

    @hells littlest angel:

    our constitution, the flaws in which become more glaring with each passing year.

    At least we wrote ours down, unlike our buddies across the pond…

    ReplyReply
  96. 96
    TenguPhule says:

    ‘National tragedy’: Trump begins border wall construction in Unesco reserve

    Construction of a 30ft-high section of Donald Trump’s border barrier has begun in the Organ Pipe Cactus national monument in southern Arizona, a federally protected wilderness area and Unesco-recognized international biosphere reserve.

    In the face of protests by environmental groups, the wall will traverse the entirety of the southern edge of the monument. It is part of the 175 miles of barrier expansion along the US-Mexico border being funded by the controversial diversion of $3.6bn from military construction projects.

    This will include construction in Texas, New Mexico as well as Arizona where, according to a government court filing, some 44 miles of new barrier construction will pass through three federally protected areas. These are the Organ Pipe wilderness, Cabeza Prieta national wildlife refuge and San Pedro Riparian national conservation area, the location of Arizona’s last free-flowing river.

    The Trump administration has deemed the new structures necessary due to a “national emergency” of unauthorized immigration into the US. According to CBP, in the 2019 fiscal year there have been 14,265 apprehensions in the Tucson sector, where the Organ Pipe wall is going up, compared to 51,411 in the nearby Yuma sector of Arizona and over 205,000 in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas.

    ReplyReply
  97. 97

    @rikyrah: Beto was right when he said this

    We have a white supremacist in the White House, who is a mortal threat to people of color in this country

    You can add immigrants to that too. Even the ones who are white or can pass for white, who don’t have the “right” accents or the “right” names or the “right” religion.

    ReplyReply
  98. 98
    TenguPhule says:

    @Major Major Major Major:

    At least we wrote ours down, unlike our buddies across the pond…

    Alert the burn unit.

    ReplyReply
  99. 99

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: English is their second language, moron is their first.

    ReplyReply
  100. 100
    Elizabelle says:

    @TenguPhule: Doesn’t mean it’s right, either.

    I am sick of the despair porn. I realize you wallow in it, and foment it, but I am done with this level of blogpost.

    ReplyReply
  101. 101
    rikyrah says:

    @schrodingers_cat:

    @rikyrah: Beto was right when he said this

    We have a white supremacist in the White House, who is a mortal threat to people of color in this country

    Yep. He’s an existential threat to my very existence. I GET THAT.

    Phuck…I GOT THAT IN 2016.

    Which is why I have no patience for those little dumb azz DACA purity pony protesters from last night. They better take their phuckery and bullshyt and go sit down and STFU.

    ReplyReply
  102. 102
    TenguPhule says:

    Jo Swinson has ruled out backing a Jeremy Corbyn-led government after a general election, saying the Liberal Democrats could not even have an informal support arrangement with Labour, despite recent cooperation to block a no-deal Brexit.

    And the Liberal Democrats have decided that No-Deal Brexit it is then.

    ReplyReply
  103. 103
    ET says:

    Is part of the problem that there are just way too many things to go after tRump on? Focusing on one thing is less distracting – the focus is on The One Big Thing and not a lot of A Lot of Big Things. And adjudicating one things with a narrower territory is more understandable than adjudicating 500 things each with their own path.

    ReplyReply
  104. 104
    TenguPhule says:

    @rikyrah:

    He’s an existential threat to my very existence. I GET THAT.

    Come sit by me. All the optimistic people seem to be pretty pale skinned.

    ReplyReply
  105. 105
    zhena gogolia says:

    @NCSteve:

    What House Democrats are not doing: tending to the emotional needs of people who want Democrats, who control 1/2 of one branch of the government to Do Something to relieve the unbearable anxiety of living with a Trump presidency and have fixated on the impeachment process as a thing that will totally fer shure do that if only they’d do it right now this very minute what are you waiting for, because Rule of Law Accountability Constitutional Duty.

    I think you’ve been reading the same tweets I have.

    ReplyReply
  106. 106
    germy says:

    Shaun knows better, but he keeps pretending (for his readers?) that Democrats have the power to remove Trump.

    But Democrats have, in their own way, been almost as corrupt, pretty much parking their vaunted principles at the door in talking the talk but not walking the walk. The mess they have made of impeachment is a result.
    To return to where I started, only Trump — incapable of changing his outrageous behavior and curbing his assault on decency and democracy — may be able to end his awful presidency.

    http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com.....ek-of.html

    ReplyReply
  107. 107
    NCSteve says:

    @TenguPhule: Well the good news is that I don’t actually know the innermost thoughts of Nancy and Nadler on timing and suspect they’ll play it by ear. Everyone on Twitter may think their timing judgment is better than Nancy’s, but I’m content to leave it to her to figure out. It’s obvious, though, that they’re pushing it into sometime next year, as they should if we’re going through with this.

    The hard truth is that doing it at any time invites the worst possible outcome. Not doing it at all invites the worst possible outcome. This is inherent in the fact that the best outcome, removal and accountability, are impossible and thus the whole thing can never be anything but kabuki and “contradiction heightening” and talking point generation.

    The whole snarling furball Democrats have tied themselves into over impeachment is based on refusal to accept that the whole procedure is tits-on-a-boar useless, at least as to the president. It’s one of those things in the Constitution, like the Electoral College and the Specie Clause that seemed like a good idea to the 80+ white guys improvising a constitution who believed, or at least hoped, there would be no political parties, even though the very document they were drafting would give birth to our two-party system but is useless at best.

    ReplyReply
  108. 108
    Hoodie says:

    @WereBear: Yes, I remember those days. The House Dems have a much more difficult task before them with Trump. Anyone with more than a few functional synapses knows that Trump is a fucking criminal who is breaking laws on a daily basis and enriching his family at the public’s expense. The problem is that a good chunk of the media and public don’t seem to give much of a shit about his obvious misdeeds, either out of stupidity, corruption or cynicism. Bottom line, there is and always has been a sizable block of hateful, cynical, and/or profoundly stupid people in the American public and getting them to go along with doing the obviously right thing takes incredible patience and persistence.

    So the best thing may be for the committee chairs to go about their business holding hearings and hope that a steady drip of revelations (in combination with a softening economy) at least marginally undermines Trump’s candidacy in 2020.
    They may want to do just the minimum to keep the Dem base enraged but still engaged just enough to turn out for whoever is the Dem. If the House leaders become too focused on impeachment when there is no foreseeable chance of bipartisanship on the issue, the risk is that a significant portion of the lumpen public will fall back into their default “both sides” apathy (cultivated by Villagers and fueled by GOP ads tying AOC to the Red Brigades) and just minimize and/or normalize the misdeeds the committees uncover just like they seem to have done with Trump’s numerous other obvious sins like locking children in cages or giving Putin and Kim Jong Un public handjobs. Jerry Nadler is not going to make the case for those folks.
    Most likely, a lot of people will want to dump Trump in 2020 simply because they’re sick of him and his incessant lying bullshit and because he isn’t delivering economically, not because they think he’s a threat to the republic (even though the things he represents are). This is why it may also be a bad idea to run a reformer, because someone who is talking about big changes to the economic system, even if well warranted, may give an excuse for a lot of these people to not drop the hammer on Trump.

    ReplyReply
  109. 109
    germy says:

    @Cacti:

    Who is M^2 ? I have trouble keeping up around here sometimes, with the abbreviations.

    ReplyReply
  110. 110
    Doug R says:

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    Nancy Smash and all the other leadership should be bringing out Trump’s wrongdoing every chance they get.

    “Pressed on congressional response on gun violence, Speaker Pelosi says, “Senator McConnell hasn’t acted. Why don’t you go ask him if he has any regrets for all the people who died because he hasn’t acted?””
    https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1171539630262554624

    ReplyReply
  111. 111

    @rikyrah: I got that too and have unfriended two T voters and one Jill Stein voter IRL.

    ReplyReply
  112. 112

    @germy: MisterMix the author of this post.

    ReplyReply
  113. 113
    Ryan says:

    As I read it, the Democrats seem to be saying that they need to collect ALL of the evidence on ALL of the crimes before they can make a decision. I dunno, I guess in case Trump beats the rap on all of his obstruction?

    ReplyReply
  114. 114
    JoeyJoeJoe says:

    @Uncle Cosmo: Long was eventually defeated for re-election; Helen Bentley beat him in 1984. Other note: he was involved in supporting the Afghan anti-soviet movement in the late 70s/early 80s, along with Charlie Wilson. Ned Beatty played Long in Charlie Wilson’s War

    ReplyReply
  115. 115
    WereBear says:

    @Hoodie: I hope it will be like drag racing. Let’s hit both the brakes and the accelerator because this is an emergency.

    I don’t talk politics in public much at all, but the other day I said to some I see often, showing her kitten pictures, “I just have this overwhelming urge to rescue something.”

    And she nodded solemnly.

    ReplyReply
  116. 116
    Doug R says:

    @TenguPhule:

    And the Liberal Democrats have decided that No-Deal Brexit it is then.

    That’s not what I’m picking up.
    Read the rest of the article:

    Swinson cast the upcoming election as a choice between the old-fashioned, Brexit-minded two main parties and her party’s outward-looking stance.

    “The faultline in British politics is no longer a left-right divide, and that is what the Labour-Conservative duopoly of politics was predicated on,” said Swinson, who became the first woman to lead the Lib Dems in July.

    “The fundamental faultline now is between liberal and authoritarian values, and as Liberal Democrats we are clearly on one side of that. Both Labour and the Conservatives are having to straddle that faultline. That is why those two parties are creaking at the seams.”

    I think she’s trying to be JOSMASH.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/13/jo-swinson-corbyn-and-johnson-are-unfit-to-lead-country

    ReplyReply
  117. 117
    Michael Allen says:

    Mice nuts!

    ReplyReply
  118. 118
    Baud says:

    @rikyrah:

    Phuck…I GOT THAT IN 2016.

    Right there with you, sister.

    ReplyReply
  119. 119
    pajaro says:

    Longtime lurker here…
    I support a full-bore impeachment inquiry.
    The House subpoenas with the most chance of being honored and enforced are subpoenas issued in the context of impeachment, since they are so clearly essential to Congress’ express power to impeach itself. Failure to comply is with subpoenas for this purpose would be an abuse of power that could itself serve as an article of impeachment (as was count 2 of the Nixon impeachment)…The House would also be able to call its own witnesses, of course, to support its charges. The hearing would centralize and consolidate the incredible litany of corruption, abuse of power, and betrayal of our country. They would have the potential, the same way the Watergate Hearings did, of moving the narrative. I’d like to hope that ongoing hearings about the theft of the 2016 election would make it somewhat less likely that the next one will be stolen, at the very least because it will remind people of some of the rat****ing and perhaps keep them more likely to be on their guard.
    I understand that Senate conviction is impossible; (if it were to become possible, they would figure out a way of getting Trump out), but it seems to me that the value of getting Susan Collins, Cory Gardner and others on the record is real.
    Most of all, if this is an existential crisis, I think it is a mistake to fail to use the most significant power Congress gives to the House. I do worry that if Congress does nothing before the election, it may wake up after another stolen election to find out, even with a Democratic House majority, that it’s too late to do anything.

    ReplyReply
  120. 120
    dww44 says:

    @[Individual 1] mistermix: @Cacti: I’m not sure how to read this:

    They’re nervous. They’ve overreached and know that a reckoning is coming.

    Are you referring to Dems or Republicans/conservatives? If the latter, I honestly don’t think Republicans and conservatives have ever, or will ever, admit to overreaching. Unfortunately not true of the Dems, who frequently behave as if they have overreached when they’ve not.

    I don’t think we Democrats on the outside looking in at the Congress have to wallow in the “woe is me” mantra, but there really is something to be said for sharpening the focus and centralizing the investigations looking into Trump and his administration’s malfeasance, which are obvious to anyone watching and listening to the MSM .

    Congressional Democrats need to move past the speechifying and get to some real action. They can do that by doing exactly what Mistermix is recommending. I do believe that Pelosi herself is the reason that Congressional Dems look so unfocused here. I don’t know what her problem is, but she seems to be unwilling to truly lead her caucus and her party to where it should go. IRT Steny Hoyer, he may hold more sway than I thought, but I’ve always found him to be a politician who’s stayed too long at the party and who’s essentially free of any principles except that of protecting the status quo.

    Perhaps we should have passed the baton to a younger more aggressive leadership last January. I say this sadly and reluctantly. And, I say all of this as one who’s of the same generation and not very far removed in years from either of them.
    .

    ReplyReply
  121. 121
    Kathleen O'Neill says:

    @Betty Cracker: Cowardice? Really?

    ReplyReply
  122. 122
    Kay says:

    @mad citizen:

    I think I’m perhaps less disappointed in impeachment than some because I don’t think it’s a very well designed process. Ok, anything that can be applied equally to Nixon’s crimes and then Bill Clinton lying in a deposition and now NOT Donald Trump is an overly broad and endlessly subjective thing and may not be much use at all. I don’t know what it applies to. It’s a mess.

    My suggestion would be to just use the federal code we already have and apply it equally to everyone. Is it it a crime? Yes. Then investigate and prosecute. You could add a law that if the person is convicted they have to step down. Whatever this other thing is I don’t know.

    ReplyReply
  123. 123
    Immanentize says:

    @pajaro:
    It would never go down the perfect way you imagine. Just on subpoenas. House issues a subpoena. The witness ignores it. The case goes to Court. Best case, the Court upholds the subpoena. The witness is resubpoenaed for a new day and time. They don’t go. Then the committee has to recommend criminal contempt charges. The whole house then votes. It goes entirely down party lines, no Republican votes for criminal contempt. But, it passes. So who has to decide whether to prosecute? The Justice department. They decline to prosecute. What then? I have some thoughts, but we just spent six months on one witness and the higher up the official, the harder it will be to get the public outraged.

    ReplyReply
  124. 124

    Kos has an article up speculating that the Grand Jury refused to indict Andrew McCabe, despite Barr and Trump trying to make it happen. It takes only a majority of the jury to indict. If this is true, it’s a major pushback.

    ReplyReply
  125. 125
    dww44 says:

    @Kay: Thanks, Kay. You have such an ability to synthesize issues and events to their essential core and you’ve done it here once again:

    The extreme PETTINESS of the crime actually adds to this, not the dollar amounts, which are not petty, but the fact that it’s all self-dealing, because it’s plain old theft. It would actually be easier if there were some grand ideological goal other than “me, me, me”. I think that’s how it differs from Watergate and Iran Contra. This is a fancy version of street crime. They’re just fucking plundering and no one seems up to stopping them.

    Thank you for being a part of this community and sharing with us your wisdom and insight.

    ReplyReply
  126. 126
    Kay says:

    @mad citizen:

    I do know if I were Congress I would add some teeth to demands for testimony and documents. They write their own rules. Write some real ones, or get treated like a joke. Sanctions, fines, whatever. Issue a warrant to appear and then send the deputy. That’s how the lower classes get treated. This whole “norms” thing seems to have passed its prime. Drag em in there. They can always take the fifth.

    ReplyReply
  127. 127
    Kay says:

    @dww44:

    That’s nice of you to say. Thanks.

    ReplyReply
  128. 128
    Another Scott says:

    Someone has been riffing on other comments here. GovExec:

    Analysis: Why Won’t Democrats Say They Want Government to Solve Problems?

    Americans want government to serve them, but don’t have confidence that it actually can.

    SEPTEMBER 13, 2019 09:59 AM ET

    By JENNIFER MERCIECA
    Associate Professor of Communication, Texas A&M University

    THE CONVERSATION

    All 10 Democratic candidates in the Houston debate Sept. 13 spoke about investing public money – taxpayer dollars – in education, health care and economic opportunity for Americans. Those ideas depend on an underlying point none of them came out and said directly: Government can help citizens live better lives and achieve their dreams.

    Why won’t Democrats come out and say that government is, or at least can be, good?

    Crisis of distrust

    The 2020 presidential campaign is happening in an America facing a historic crisis of public trust in political leaders, branches of government and each other. Andrew Yang, an entrepreneur seeking the Democratic nomination, said it directly on the stage: “We don’t trust our institutions anymore.”

    According to a Pew Research Center report, only 17% of Americans today trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always” or “most of the time” – down from 77% who trusted the government in 1964.

    Likewise, Gallup has tracked the precipitous decline in confidence in American institutions. Americans’ confidence in the Supreme Court has declined from 49% in 1975 to 38% today. Confidence in Congress has declined from 40% in 1975 to 11% today. Confidence in the presidency has declined from 52% in 1975 to 38% today.

    […]

    It’s a problem and we need to have a decent answer for it.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

    ReplyReply
  129. 129
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @dww44:

    I don’t know what her problem is, but she seems to be unwilling to truly lead her caucus and her party to where it should go.

    Where you and I think it should go isn’t necessarily where Jeff Van Drew and Abigail Spanberger and Conor Lamb and Dan Lipinski (and they’ll all be in office at least as long as trump) think it should go, and they are as much a part of the majority as AOC or Katie Porter (edited, Katie Hill is another squish on impeachment).

    ReplyReply
  130. 130
    dww44 says:

    @Dorothy A. Winsor: I’d like to add that if I were to win the lottery, I’d spend a huge sum to purchase the very best lawyers and pr persons for Andrew McCabe. If there’s ever been a more obvious example of a public servant being railroaded and unfairly maligned, he’s it. I’m willing to bet that there were many on the Grand Jury who felt the same say.

    ReplyReply
  131. 131
    Kathleen says:

    @Elizabelle: May I sit next to you?

    ReplyReply
  132. 132
    TenguPhule says:

    @Doug R: The Lib-Dems are minority party running as “anti-Brexit” because they got slaughtered supporting the Tories last time.

    Their ranks are filled with opportunists and idiots. And their leader has just declared that she’d rather the whole nation go under rather then let Corbyn win. And that for all intents and purposes means No-Deal Brexit because the Lib-Dems can’t form a government.

    ReplyReply
  133. 133
    Kay says:

    @mad citizen:

    I explained the process of impeachment to my youngest and I could hear myself not really buying it as a process WHILE I was explaining it. With this sinking feeling :)

    It reminds me of that joke with the math on the blackboard- this, this, then….MAGIC and THIS! What was that middle part again?

    ReplyReply
  134. 134
    dww44 says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: But, if she believes that Trump is totally unfit for office, as she has said many a time, then she has an obligation to lead the 4 you mentioned. Also, too, a majority of her caucus is pro-impeachment. FWIW Katie Hill is probably more representative of the caucus than are the 4 bluedogs you cite. And, there’s no more thoughtful Representative about how she came to be pro impeachment than Hill is, and she represents what was formerly solidly Republican Orange County.

    ReplyReply
  135. 135
    JPL says:

    @Dorothy A. Winsor: The Washington Post has an article stating that McCabe’s attorney asked justice yesterday and they haven’t received word yet. The Post also sent inquiries. Two prosecutors have already left the case.

    ReplyReply
  136. 136
    TenguPhule says:

    @Kay:

    I explained the process of impeachment to my youngest and I could hear myself not really buying it as a process WHILE I was explaining it.

    it was designed under the assumption that 3/4 of the government was not controlled by Nazis.

    ReplyReply
  137. 137
    cokane says:

    I think it could end up being quite good politics if they have impeachment hearings during 2020.

    ReplyReply
  138. 138
  139. 139
    Kay says:

    Nate Silver
    @NateSilver538
    ·21m
    Warren also got the highest overall grade from voters for her performance, while Castro got the lowest. Relative to their pre-debate favorability ratings, Beto and Booker also qualify as over-performers and Biden and Sanders as under-performers.

    Democrats really don’t like when the candidates attack other Democrats. I wonder if that’s the lesson they took from Clinton- they’re going to unite no matter what the leaders do. That seems like a tricky environment for the Bernistas. Democrat-bashing ain’t gonna get them there.

    ReplyReply
  140. 140
    TenguPhule says:

    And today marks another pioneering achievement towards peak stupid.

    Donald Trump blames his orange tan look on…energy saving light bulbs.

    ReplyReply
  141. 141
    Immanentize says:

    @Kay:
    Then again, Kay — how much complaining was there about Republican House investigation abuse? But now we want it hard and fast.

    The framers made legislating slow and the powers limited and co-dependent to avoid the problems of Pennsylvania and legislative tyranny. We can’t want power when in power and constrained power when out.

    ReplyReply
  142. 142
    JPL says:

    @TenguPhule: yup When the Senate votes against, trump will campaign on his innocence.

    ReplyReply
  143. 143
    EthylEster says:

    @mad citizen:

    House Dems, don’t screw this up.

    Voters, don’t screw this up.

    ReplyReply
  144. 144
    TenguPhule says:

    @Immanentize:

    We can’t want power when in power and constrained power when out.

    Republican Party: Hahahahaha! HOLD OUR BEER!!!

    ReplyReply
  145. 145
    Immanentize says:

    @TenguPhule:

    it was designed under the assumption that 3/4 of the government was not controlled by Nazis.

    This so critical. Impeachment can only work when all factions are working rationally for the good of the country. We do not have that situation and therefore, impeachment won’t work.

    ReplyReply
  146. 146
    Kay says:

    @Another Scott:

    That’s it! It always makes me laugh. I got to the part with my son where you have to say “it’s a POLITICAL process” and in my head I was like “I can’t go on with this- I’m both bored and sad” Can’t he just look it up on wikipedia? Jesus.

    ReplyReply
  147. 147
    Elizabelle says:

    @Kathleen: My pleasure. Welcome!

    ReplyReply
  148. 148

    @JPL: I just this minute saw this:

    Just in: Andrew McCabe’s legal team says in a new letter to Jesse Liu that based on their conversations with the US Attorney’s office in DC yesterday, “it is clear that no indictment has been returned” against McCabe by the grand jury. pic.twitter.com/XtMTelYqEv— Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) September 13, 2019

    ETA: Renato Mariotti

    @renato_mariotti

    If it’s true that the grand jury refused to indict McCabe, that would be remarkable. That never happened to me in over nine years as a federal prosecutor.

    ReplyReply
  149. 149
    dww44 says:

    @Ruff the Dog: LOL. Truer than we’d at first glance think.

    ReplyReply
  150. 150
    Immanentize says:

    @TenguPhule:
    Ok, we can’t get it.

    ReplyReply
  151. 151
    TenguPhule says:

    Talking before an audience of Republican legislators in Baltimore on Thursday night, Trump gave a rambling speech in which he tackled criticism of his recent plans to weaken regulations on environmentally friendly bulbs.

    “The lightbulb,” the president began. “People said: what’s with the lightbulb? I said: here’s the story. And I looked at it. The bulb that we’re being forced to use! No 1, to me, most importantly, the light’s no good. I always look orange. And so do you! The light is the worst.”

    I was not joking.

    ReplyReply
  152. 152
    JPL says:

    @Dorothy A. Winsor: Wow.. After months of not being called they reconvened the Grand Jury this week. I wonder if that’s for a last stitch effort before they dismiss them.

    ReplyReply
  153. 153
    Doug R says:

    @Another Scott: Oh, oh I have an answer!
    When government is democratically elected from a majority of eligible citizens, it makes decisions good for everyone. When the majority is suppressed, it doesn’t.

    ReplyReply
  154. 154
    TenguPhule says:

    @EthylEster:

    Voters, don’t screw this up.

    I think we’re in trouble.

    ReplyReply
  155. 155
    TenguPhule says:

    This may well be the most terrifying thing you read on this Friday the 13th. Ivanka Trump, his daughter and senior adviser, told a group of donors last month that she got her moral compass from her father.

    At a mid-August fundraiser in Jackson Hole, Wyo., Ivanka Trump was asked to name the personality traits she inherited most from her parents.

    Without much of a pause, Trump told the crowd of roughly 120 high-end donors that her mother gave her an example of how to be a powerful, successful woman.

    And her father? He passed onto her his moral compass, she said, according to two event attendees.

    ReplyReply
  156. 156
    pajaro says:

    @Immanentize: I don’t expect anything to be smooth, it’s just 1) that the best chance for both a favorable court ruling and a speedy court ruling are in the context of impeachment. Since there is an ongoing quasi-legal proceeding, the argument that it needs to be decided quickly is at its strongest and 2)at any rate, if the executive insists upon defying a power that is clearly given by the Constitution to the House, the House has the option of adding the defiance as an addition to the abuse of power article of impeachment. It’s not ideal, but I believe it’s our best shot.

    ReplyReply
  157. 157
    Kay says:

    @TenguPhule:

    I want to fund an ad campaign where we show photos of polluted waterways and say Trump made our water “filthy”

    It would drive him crazy. Treat it like the pool and fountain in front of the gross clubs. An “amenity” he’s spoiling.

    ReplyReply
  158. 158
    TenguPhule says:

    @Kay:

    I want to fund an ad campaign where we show photos of polluted waterways and say Trump made our water “filthy”

    We could recycle the old ads where rivers literally catch on fire.

    ReplyReply
  159. 159
    Kay says:

    @TenguPhule:

    When I look at Ivanka planning her next career move I comfort myself by thinking of Sara Palin. They pushed her FOR YEARS after her run and she never really took off. There’s a limit to what marketing can do.

    ReplyReply
  160. 160
    dww44 says:

    @JPL: That should not inform, one whit, what the Democratic Congress does. There is a time when doing what is right is exactly that. Impeaching Trump is the right thing to do if we truly believe the words in the Constitution.

    ReplyReply
  161. 161
    TenguPhule says:

    NYTimes Communications

    @NYTimesPR
    JUST ANNOUNCED: @nytimes and @CNN will co-host the next Democratic presidential debate in Westerville, Ohio on October 15.

    JFC, talk about a match made in the 9th circle of Hell.

    Its going to be the mother of all bothsider shitshows.

    ReplyReply
  162. 162
    Immanentize says:

    @pajaro:
    I agree with all of that.

    ReplyReply
  163. 163
    JPL says:

    @Immanentize: Do you want to weigh in on the Grand Jury possible decision not to indict Andrew McCabe? Dorothy at 148 links to a tweet that has McCabe’s attorneys letter to justice.

    ReplyReply
  164. 164
    EthylEster says:

    @Elizabelle wrote: I am sick of the despair porn. I realize you wallow in it, and foment it, but I am done with this level of blogpost.

    I’m not sure I understand your position.
    But I am clear on TenguPhule’s: kill them if they don’t agree with me.
    He’s been talking like THAT for at least 15 years.
    Every once in a while he makes sense but then he goes back to his basic bad ass talk.
    The good news: just talk.

    ReplyReply
  165. 165
    Jeffro says:

    @🐾BillinGlendaleCA:

    I’m OK with court stacking.

    I’ve been calling it “court rebalancing” after Mitch’s block-Obama’s/flood-trumpov’s nominees efforts. We’ll rebalance out these Federalist Society psychos and THEN once prompt hearings and swift up-or-down votes are enshrined in law, then we’ll let up

    ReplyReply
  166. 166
    Kay says:

    @TenguPhule:

    No- it has to be real. They look at the US as an asset. Their asset. They’re degrading real estate value.

    ReplyReply
  167. 167
    TenguPhule says:

    @EthylEster:

    He’s been talking like THAT for at least 15 years.

    Actually I thought we could still come back to being one country right up until 2009. Republicans decided that they’d rather burn the country down rather then let Democrats win. 2016 showed me that the Nazis are back and in control.

    kill them if they don’t agree with me. because they want to kill us all, literally.

    FTFY. They’re not going to go back under their rocks without a fight.

    ReplyReply
  168. 168
    RedDirtGirl says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Yeah, my grandfather retired to Maine, and was a Quaker Democrat who had a long running correspondence with Rep. Snowe. I could tell that he respected her, even if he didn’t agree with her.

    ReplyReply
  169. 169
    TenguPhule says:

    @Kay:

    No- it has to be real.

    I’m fairly sure at this rate it will be.

    ReplyReply
  170. 170
    JPL says:

    @dww44: I know you are correct , but that would drive his supporters to the polls.

    ReplyReply
  171. 171
    Death Panel Truck says:

    They. Are. Not. Going. To. Impeach.

    They’re dragging their feet until January 2020, so they can then say, “We can’t impeach in an election year! It’ll be too political!” Fucking cowards, the lot of them.

    ReplyReply
  172. 172
    Kay says:

    The Hill
    @thehill
    ·15h
    President Trump: “The light bulb. People said what’s with the light bulb. I said here’s the story, and I looked at it. The bulb that we’re being forced to use. Number one, to me, most importantly, the light’s no good. I always look orange. And so do you. The light is the worst.”

    Me, me, me. Selfish greedy morons who do not deserve the waterways they were GIVEN. They’re now going to take a shit in our rivers while admiring their ugly, made-up mugs in mirrors.

    ReplyReply
  173. 173
    TenguPhule says:

    @Kay: And of course the news is also announcing even more opening of Alaska for oil and gas drilling by Trump’s lackies because money trumps everything, including the future.

    ReplyReply
  174. 174
    dww44 says:

    @dww44: Oops. My bad. I was thinking Katie Porter, not Katie Hill, so my remarks were about Katie Porter, who I do find one of the most thoughtful of our freshmen Congressional Dems.

    ReplyReply
  175. 175
    pajaro says:

    @JPL:
    If the House does nothing, they will say, “they obviously have admitted that the Russia thing is fake news; after all, they had the chance to impeach and did nothing.”
    One way or the other, this shouldn’t be decided on the basis of what we fear Republican messaging will be.

    ReplyReply
  176. 176
    Immanentize says:

    @JPL:
    First, it Is a good letter!
    Second, the second tweet in DAW’s comment is so true. Rarely have grand juries failed to indict a person — if the police and prosecutors really wanted them to return an indictment. But I have seen grand juries return no true bills in all sorts of circumstances — most infamously in police shooting cases, right?

    But in almost all of those cases, the government was suggesting no indictment to the GJ throughout it’s presentation.

    I have also seen cases in which police really wanted an indictment, but the presenting prosecutor thought it was bullshit (and vice versa) and no bill gets returned. So, if in fact, there was a no bill in this case, I expect it was some combination of the police (here FBI fellow agents) or the presenting prosecutor — or both — who signalled to the GJ that it was all BS.

    Important point suggested but not directly addressed in the letter — Grand Juries are part of the JUDICIAL function, even though they are the playground of prosecutors. So, even if Barr wants to mess with the process, once a no bill is issued, it becomes a judicial issue whether the efforts must stop. (Just FYI, when a GJ returns a true bill of indictment, they must stop investigating the indicted crime vis a bus the indicted individual(s))

    ReplyReply
  177. 177
    J R in WV says:

    @[Individual 1] mistermix:

    One more consideration about the “they’re waiting for 2020” explanation: Trump’s administration is going to fight every subpoena. They can just delay the process up until the election. Part of the reason I’m for a coordinated investigation is to get those subpoenas rolling out and getting them adjudicated prior to the election, so we can at least have a few Trumpers testify.

    Yes, we do need to push subpoenas, as is being done.

    We were at the family doctor yesterday, wife had a fall Tuesday while I was running errands in town (buying the food we need to eat, etc) and seemed to have gotten up and gone about the gardening she was doing when I got home all OK.

    But at bedtime she complained about her lower back, which I iced with a cold pack and a towel. She was restless. Wednesday she was OK up and about the house, but Wednesday night when she went to bed she was totally miserable.

    In the waiting room, not very crowded, the big screen TV was tuned to game shows, not the news. Other patient was upper middle aged woman, who suddenly burst out with “I don’t know why anyone would want to impeach the best president we’ve ever had!” Now I wish I had gently quizzed about which new laws Trump had proposed and were passed she thought was best. Of course there was only one bill, and it was a failure in every way it could be.

    I just said “Lots of people would disagree with you on that…” and looked away, back to my reading. I’m older then she was, white beard, long hair, obvious pinko commie — fortunately she shut up about it. She obviously lived in a Faux News bubble, as much news as she ever consumed!

    Wife was diagnosed with probable broken rib which Doc palpated, potential thoracic vertebrae damage, sent to x-ray, given pain medication for broken rib misery, no real treatment for that. Will obviously be working to get her balance and leg strength improved. She’s napping now while I do dishes and otherwise burn time here on B-J. Will call Doc shortly to see if the x-ray and radiologist’s opinion has come back.

    Doc will have his own opinion after 45 years of seeing our x-rays. Yes, we’ve been seeing the same Doc for nearly 45 years now. Eccentric bastard, but he’s OUR eccentric bastard.

    I doubt if the House will vote on impeachment, perhaps if they get enough evidence and testimony regarding Trump’s many crimes and misdemeanors. But I expect the majority of that evidence and testimony will come out next summer during the height of the election. Speaker Pelosi is inclined to be capable of both strategic and tactical thinking, especially when given months to prepare.

    NO telling what Trump will get up to if things look bad for his campaign, part of his danger is his unpredictability, along with his rash ignorance.

    ReplyReply
  178. 178
    rikyrah says:

    @Kay:
    You have the best ideas, Kay.

    ReplyReply
  179. 179
    rikyrah says:

    @TenguPhule:
    Absolutely pathetic.

    ReplyReply
  180. 180
    Chyron HR says:

    @Death Panel Truck:

    Awww, and you probably already have your outraged “This impeachment vote was just a STERNLY-WORDED LETTER!” tweets already written.

    ReplyReply
  181. 181
    TenguPhule says:

    Four shootings in the last week. JFC, Feels like we’re turning into California.

    ReplyReply
  182. 182
    Glory b says:

    @Belafon: @TenguPhule: @TenguPhule: Kind of reminds me of the Taliban destroying the Bhuddas in Afghanistan.

    ReplyReply
  183. 183
    JPL says:

    @pajaro: I think they continue with the investigation, and we must be patient. Trump will refuse to have anyone testify, so they might run out the clock.

    ReplyReply
  184. 184
    TenguPhule says:

    @Glory b: A lot of stuff getting wrecked these last couple of years isn’t going to come back.

    ReplyReply
  185. 185
    JPL says:

    @Immanentize: Two of the top prosecutors have left for private practice. Supposedly one of them thought the case was b.s. according to the Post or nytimes.
    Thank you for the information.

    ReplyReply
  186. 186
    JPL says:

    @J R in WV: Sending healing thoughts your way.

    ReplyReply
  187. 187
    rikyrah says:

    @J R in WV:

    Sending positive and healing thoughts……

    ReplyReply
  188. 188
    joel hanes says:

    @germy:

    keeps pretending … that Democrats have the power to remove Trump

    I’m seeing this almost everywhere.
    It’s one reason I’m having to disengage — many liberals seem to be reacting to powerlessness by attacking their own and throwing temper tantrums, as if the Dems could jail Trump if they just *really* *really* *tried*. It’s magical thinking, and it’s tremendously disappointing.

    ReplyReply
  189. 189

    @J R in WV: Hope Mrs JR feels better soon.

    How odd that the women just burst out with her political opinion in a waiting room when even the Tv was on something else. People are worked up and anxious. Trump is a disaster for the national psyche.

    ReplyReply
  190. 190
    joel hanes says:

    @Immanentize:

    who has to decide whether to prosecute? The Justice department.

    This

    ReplyReply
  191. 191

    @J R in WV: Healing thoughts to the wife, we’ve been going to the same vet for 30 years, guy looks exactly the same as he did 30 years ago. Just got home from having my windshield replaced on the Prius.

    ReplyReply
  192. 192
    joel hanes says:

    @dww44:

    Pelosi … seems to be unwilling to truly lead her caucus and her party

    Q. Do you know how to identify an officer who gets too far ahead of the troops he’s leading?

    A. The corpse has bullet holes on both sides.

    If impeachment were mooted in the House today, it would fail. Less than 200 Democratic Reps would vote for it.

    Pelosi knows this.

    ReplyReply
  193. 193
    joel hanes says:

    @dww44:

    she has an obligation to lead the 4 you mentioned

    With her magick Green Lantern powers of command?
    In an earlier era, she could have offered them earmark appropriations, but that’s not how things (fail to) work any more.

    ReplyReply
  194. 194
    Death Panel Truck says:

    @Chyron HR: I’m no longer going to pay attention to it at all. It’s pointless to watch dithering Democrats cower in the corner, whimpering at the media and the GOP, “Please don’t hit me! Please don’t hit me!”

    Fucking cowards.

    ReplyReply
  195. 195
    joel hanes says:

    @pajaro:

    the House has the option of adding the defiance as an addition to the abuse of power article of impeachment

    I think this is exactly what’s happening in front of our eyes.
    Slowly.

    I expect formal Articles next July or Augus.

    ReplyReply
  196. 196
    🇺🇸🌎 Goku (aka Amerikan Baka) 🗳🌷 says:

    @Dorothy A. Winsor:

    That’s good news! A terrible thing to wonder, how secret are the identities of these grand jurors? As thin-skinned and revenge-minded as Trump is, would he try to go after “little” people like them for humiliating him. Potentially scared for them.

    ReplyReply
  197. 197
    🇺🇸🌎 Goku (aka Amerikan Baka) 🗳🌷 says:

    @Death Panel Truck:

    Please explain how the Dems are “dithering” and “cowardly”. What are they supposed to do, wave a magic wand and make the Senate R’s disappear in a puff of smoke? This is Green Lanternism

    ReplyReply
  198. 198
    J R in WV says:

    @EthylEster:

    Front pager wrote: Impeaching a President fires off impeachable offenses the way a pyromaniac lights fireworks on the 4th is “still a real possibility”.

    I have no idea what this means or what effect you intended it to have when you wrote it.
    I have read it half a dozen times and cannot make it scan.
    Could you possibly translate it into a more comprehensible sentence?
    I like to understand what I read.

    Here’s my take on what this means.

    When a corrupt president (Like Nixon or Trump, not like Clinton) is impeached, they twitch and thrash like a goat caught in an electric fence. Nixon, for example, immediately after the Watergate burglars were arrested began the coverup, bribery, More Corruption than the previous break-ins. Watergate was the last break-in, not the first or only!

    Facing impeachment, Front-pager expects Trump to repeat Nixon’s behavior, launching coverup activity, attempting to blackmail politicians and law enforcement staff, conspiring with Russian ambassador, etc.

    Like a pyromaniac who can’t help setting off fireworks in spite of the drought conditions around him, Trump will make things worse by continuing to break the law, just as he has all his life, so far.

    Does this make more sense to you?

    ETA, not sure how to translate “Is still a real possibility” other than to associate it with my previous translation attempts.

    ReplyReply
  199. 199
    Elizabelle says:

    @🇺🇸🌎 Goku (aka Amerikan Baka) 🗳🌷: I know. I started to respond and decided FIDO (per Raven: Fuck it and Drive On.)

    I hope Truck is stomping his foot and yelling too. That always helps.

    ReplyReply
  200. 200
    AxelFoley says:

    @Chyron HR:

    DA STABBISHMENTS

    LOLOLOLOL

    ReplyReply
  201. 201
    J R in WV says:

    @JPL:

    @TenguPhule: yup When the Senate votes against, trump will campaign on his innocence.

    And that, students, is why the House won’t vote to impeach until around Halloween… so as to not give the Repugnants time to campaign on the Senate refusing to convict. This is one MORE reason the House is continuing their multiple investigations slowly and (dare I say it!) Judiciously.

    All this depression about Impeachment not happening instanter is very misplaced. It would be justified if no hearings were taking place, if no subpoenas were issued, etc.

    But that isn’t the case at all. There are multiple investigations going on, and because our fascist-controlled media isn’t showing them on live TV, you are all ignoring the actual events in the buildings. Don’t be stupid!

    ETA: Counting the listed investigations going on in the House committees in the Politico article linked to above, there are 10 formal investigations right now. That would be a 10-count impeachment voted on in late October next year. After live hearings for the whole summer.

    ETA2: You all just keep on calling Speaker Pelosi cowardly and incompetent — that won’t make it so.

    ReplyReply
  202. 202
    J R in WV says:

    @Death Panel Truck:

    I’m no longer going to pay attention to it at all. It’s pointless to watch dithering Democrats cower in the corner, whimpering at the media and the GOP, “Please don’t hit me! Please don’t hit me!”

    Fucking cowards.

    Look who’s talking!!

    ReplyReply
  203. 203
    EthylEster says:

    @J R in WV wrote:

    Does this make more sense to you?

    There was a word missing. I was unable to guess that word. When MM inserted the missing word, the meaning was clear. Your meta analysis indicates that you did not notice or were not bothered by the missing word. But thanks for playing.

    ReplyReply
  204. 204
    J R in WV says:

    I want to thank you guys who expressed sympathy for my wife, who is doing pretty well. X-rays confirmed two broken ribs and a minor stress fracture to a vertebrae where the ribs were broken.

    She’s pretty chipper now that we understand how to care for her injuries, though a little disappointed about the picnic tomorrow we should probably skip. No gardening either, although she will be able to stand on the steps and driveway and water the moss and ferns! In 6-8 weeks she will start PT…

    Thanks again!

    ReplyReply
  205. 205
    dww44 says:

    @joel hanes: I don’t believe I advocated for an impeachment vote today. I thought I was advocating for the very things that MisterMix is recommending. A coordinated, centralized, entirely focused impeachment investigation. One that, as Speaker, she would get behind and push forward. I know that is what many will say she’s doing, but she’s really not. She’s wishy-washy. If that’s unfair, it is how she comes across to the masses.

    I get the impression that Nadler is moving forward on his own. It would really speed things up if she arranged for a joint select committee to oversee the whole effort. It would also make a difference if the effort were led by a hard-charging Democrat. I don’t know who that might be, but hopefully there exists such a person currently serving in Congress..

    ReplyReply
  206. 206
    bluefish says:

    @NCSteve: Thank you. Helpful.

    ReplyReply
  207. 207
    Mike G says:

    Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Wednesday backtracked…

    The poster child for weaselly, gutless corporate Dems.

    ReplyReply
  208. 208

    Stick with me now… they are biding their time waiting for the worst of the possible revelations to come out. Those are going to come from House Intelligence. Schiff played his first card tonight, and I think it may be a harbinger of things to come.

    Fuck “Trump, criminal.”

    It’s gotta be all about “Trump, traitor.”

    Schiff, and to a lesser extent Cummings, supplies the latter.

    ReplyReply
  209. 209

    @Mike G: Mike, they’re playing a game. And it’s a good one.

    There will be an impeachment vote, and it will happen right at the time Pelosi thinks she’s got the best (long)shot to remove the fucker from office.

    ReplyReply
  210. 210
    Taobhan says:

    For the record, I’m very strongly FOR impeachment. I would have started impeachment proceedings this January when the Democrats took control of the House. But Nancy Pelosi has made it clear that she prefers no impeachment and to defeat Trump at the polls next year. She’s made a political calculation that sending a bill of impeachment to the Senate is a loser because the Senate will not convict Trump and oust him from office. And she believes failure will cost a lot of Democratic reps their seat in the next Congress. Worst of all worlds: Trump wins the election, the GOP keeps the Senate and wins back the House. And our democratic form of government is lost forever.

    But Pelosi may be miscalculating in a major way. Political analyst Rachel Bitecofer, who correctly predicted how many House seats would pick up in the 2018 election, believes she is and she says “endangered” House Democrats would be strengthened – not weakened – by an impeachment effort. Either way is a big risk and the stakes are enormously high. The 2020 election may likely determine the course of the nation for decades to come. Only time will tell us which was the correct path to defeating Trump and ousting him from office.

    My own observation is the same as mistermix’s. At the moment the House Democrats look very disorganized and uncertain about what to do about Trump, who committing impeachable offenses almost daily. I think the Democrats won the House in 2018 because the American public wanted them to counter Trump’s actions. But nobody predicted that Trump would stone-wall the Democrats on getting the information they need for investigating him. Trump has been lawless and is getting away with it. He has turned everything into a slog across a 50-mile wide swamp.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *