Nothing To Lose?

I’ve been thinking about Nate McMurray recently. Nate ran against indicted MAGA hat Rep Chris Collins in NY-27, and lost a squeaker (under 1,100 votes) in that R+11 district. He’s running again, even though Collins will probably be defeated in a primary and a “safer” Republican will almost certainly claim the seat. Nate is a really good candidate: smart, young, energetic, deep roots in the district, and he’s a fighter. His campaign motto is “Fight Like Hell”. Here’s Nate’s take on impeachment and some of his fellow Democrats:


I’m sure if you polled NY-27, the vast majority of voters are against impeaching Trump (probably 99% of the Republicans and some significant percentage of Democrats). Yet, here we have Nate coming out hard for it. One explanation could be that Nate has nothing, he has nothing to lose by staking these positions. But, really, Nate has everything to lose. Precious hours with his children. Countless lost hours knocking on doors and eating rubber chicken.

Running for office for almost 4 years, in a word, sucks. Nate’s really smart (his bio). There are a hundred other ways to attack Trump without mentioning impeachment, but here we are.

Update: Fundraising isn’t my department here but if you want to throw a few bucks Nate’s way, here’s his ActBlue.






113 replies
  1. 1
    TenguPhule says:

    George Brimmer

    @georgebrimmer88
    6h6 hours ago
    More
    Replying to @Nate_McMurray
    A generation of children are growing up to learn you can be as lawless as you want and nothing will be done. America NEEDS this impeachment to take place to even have a shot at gaining back our values. This administration is a cancer of corruption.

  2. 2
    TenguPhule says:

    Countless lost hours knocking on doors and eating rubber chicken.

    I didn’t realize the comedy circuit was in such dire straits.

  3. 3
    matt says:

    If you’re not in public service for the responsibility of doing things like impeaching crime boss Trump, what the hell reason do you have going into public service at all?

  4. 4
    rikyrah says:

    I thought this was gonna be a thermometer fundraising post….talk to Benjamin’s Dad about arranging for one :)

  5. 5
    Betty Cracker says:

    Tonawanda! (Some of my husband’s people are from there, so I’ve heard of it.)

  6. 6
    TenguPhule says:

    Donald J. Trump

    @realDonaldTrump
    I have just instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to substantially increase Sanctions on the country of Iran!

    51.9K
    2:53 AM – Sep 18, 2019

    Sadly this may be the most normal horrible thing I have ever seen him tweet. So its probably not him that actually wrote it.

  7. 7
    TenguPhule says:

    @matt:

    what the hell reason do you have going into public service at all?

    To get rich of course. Silly commoner expecting public service from a public servant. //s

  8. 8
    cain says:

    Pelosi and Nadler are fighting in private – over impeachment and basically Pelosi says that the Democratic Caucus is not ready.. so their whole discussion is law vs politics. Ultimately in the end, it seems that we aren’t doing anything because the Democratic Caucus doesn’t have enough votes to go forward. They really don’t want impeachment.

    So basically we wont’ follow the law because of politics. I dont know what to think about it… I know this is a long journey before it gets there, but teh law breaking that is happening the worse it looks for all of us. Because unlike Nixon this is egregious law breaking. I seriously believe that Trump can shoot someone on 5th Ave and the politics say nothing can be done.

  9. 9
    Another Scott says:

    @matt: Not to be trite, but Politics is the Art of the Possible.

    1. A failure to secure an impeachment in the House would be bad. There aren’t enough votes yet.

    2. A failure to secure a conviction in the Senate would be bad. There aren’t enough votes yet.

    3. What would be good would be creating a new, durable, Democratic Majority so that these monsters will not hold positions of trust under the United States or any other government in the USA.

    If having investigative impeachment hearings helps #3 (and I think it does, on balance), then bring them on. If throwing an impeachment document over the fence to the Senate results in McConnell refusing to hold a trial (can he do that? dunno.) or a 30 minute show trial and vote where Donnie’s acquitted doesn’t help #3, then we need to tread carefully.

    The Impeachment Now crowd needs to explain how – in concrete terms – Impeachment Now will help vote the monsters out of office, IMHO.

    People’s lives and the future of the country are at stake – I think we all agree on that. We may disagree on the tactics to obtain the best future…

    What I do know is that symbolic fights that we lose often aren’t helpful, or are only helpful 50 years down the road. We can’t wait that long…

    My $0.02.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  10. 10
    [Individual 1] mistermix says:

    @rikyrah: Benny’s dad wasn’t available so I put a link in the post.

    @Betty Cracker: Just northwest of Cheektowaga.

  11. 11
    🇺🇸🌎 Goku (aka Amerikan Baka) 🗳🌷 says:

    @Another Scott:

    If throwing an impeachment document over the fence to the Senate results in McConnell refusing to hold a trial (can he do that? dunno.)

    Nothing, AFAIK, says he can’t. He’s a brazen insurgent and would think nothing of doing that.

    or a 30 minute show trial and vote where Donnie’s acquitted doesn’t help

    This is also a possibility. Trump would run on acquittal for reelection. You can bet on that

  12. 12
    [Individual 1] mistermix says:

    @Another Scott: (1) is a sad reality: we have some chickenshit safe-seaters in the House.
    (2) has always struck me as a strange argument for Democrats to use since the current House Democratic strategy is to pass a bunch of bills that we know will fail in the Senate.
    (3) Amen.

  13. 13
    Yutsano says:

    @[Individual 1] mistermix:

    Just northwest of Cheektowaga

    Hey I know where that is! Big IRS office around those parts.

  14. 14
    TenguPhule says:

    @Another Scott: Being stuck at 52% support in the House to hold Trump accountable for the crimes he’s blatantly committing in public is not going to do the Democratic party any favors going forward. It gives ammunition to third parties that can argue “Nazis committed crimes, and they just stood by and watched.”

    Greens and Berniebros will thrive on the frustrated moral outrage.

  15. 15

    @TenguPhule:

    A generation of children are growing up to learn you can be as lawless as you want and nothing will be done.

    Of all the arguments for the House impeaching Trump, this isn’t a good one. When the Senate fails to convict, they will learn exactly the same lesson, maybe more emphatically.

  16. 16
    Chyron HR says:

    BREAKING: Area man has strong opinions about moral stands that other people need to take.

  17. 17
    TenguPhule says:

    @Another Scott:

    The Impeachment Now crowd needs to explain how – in concrete terms – Impeachment Now will help vote the monsters out of office,

    I’m for impeachment now because I want a written record of which traitors in Congress supported Donald Trump’s lawbreaking so after the civil war is over, we can have them all convicted of treason based on that vote and make sure that the lesson is taught in mandatory civics classes for future generations.

    Otherwise, I expect many of them to pretend that they were only ignorant “good Germans” to try and weasel out of the consequences.

    .

  18. 18
    germy says:

    Tedra Cobb for Congress NY-21. She’s trying to unseat Elise Stefanik (Elise is a Karl Rove protegé)

    https://www.tedracobb.com/

  19. 19
    TenguPhule says:

    @Frankensteinbeck:

    Of all the arguments for the House impeaching Trump, this isn’t a good one. When the Senate fails to convict, they will learn exactly the same lesson, maybe more emphatically.

    And when they learn there is no justice in the system no matter what you do….they will burn it all down.

  20. 20
    [Individual 1] mistermix says:

    @germy: That is a winnable district (R+4). Glad to see they have a good candidate.

  21. 21
    Citizen Alan says:

    @TenguPhule:

    And this is the source of my despair. What hope is there for any country in which a sizeable percentage of the populace — easily 40% or higher — is essentially lawless and amoral.

  22. 22
    germy says:

    @[Individual 1] mistermix: She’s great. She lost the last time, but she’s not giving up.

  23. 23
    Citizen Alan says:

    @🇺🇸🌎 Goku (aka Amerikan Baka) 🗳🌷:

    I think my worst case scenario is that the House impeaches and MoscowMitch designs the Senate proceedings for the express purpose of exonerating Shitgibbon by slandering every witness, “exposing” defects in the evidence (remember “kerning”?), and screaming at every opportunity that the Democrats are trying to overthrow the government. With the aid of a supine media and Russian manipulation of social media, I think MoscowMitch could easily spin an impeachment into a propaganda victory for the Republicans.

  24. 24
    trollhattan says:

    Guess which party?
    JUST kidding, you know which party before reading the rest of the piece.

    A Pennsylvania state senator has stepped down following his arrest on charges of possession of child pornography.

    Sen. Mike Folmer submitted his letter of resignation on Wednesday to Republican colleagues in Harrisburg, according to leadership in the state chamber. “We are sickened and disturbed by the charges brought against Mike Folmer,” the Pennsylvania lawmakers said in a statement. After reviewing the charges and speaking to Folmer, they said they insisted that he resign.

    On Tuesday, police arrested Folmer at his home about an hour outside of the state capital after tracing what prosecutors say was an explicit image involving a minor to the senator’s personal computer. During a search of Folmer’s cellphone, investigators say they found two other suspected images of child pornography.

    Folmer, 63, who is married and has seven grandchildren, told police that he “had been dealing with some personal problems,” according to a criminal complaint filed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office.

  25. 25

    Since I have been watching Indian politics closely for the last few months, and the total shambles the opposition is in. I am thankful for the Democrats we do have. Ultimately what’s going to bring Modi down is the same thing that brought down Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. Their hubris.

  26. 26
    Another Scott says:

    @[Individual 1] mistermix: On #2, history tells us that Impeachment followed by no conviction doesn’t change anything.

    Was Donnie excluded from the Presidency, or somehow chastened, by WJC’s impeachment without conviction?

    Did Johnson’s impeachment without conviction prevent Teapot Dome or Nixon?

    Johnson served out his term as president, leaving office on March 4, 1869. In 1874 he ran a successful senatorial campaign and returned to Washington—to the very chamber where he had been tried and acquitted a few years earlier. He served just three months before his death on July 31, 1875.

    If Donnie somehow were convicted in the Senate, would Pence be better (even if he only served as a lame duck)?

    Impeachment doesn’t work to solve the problems we’re facing.

    I get the righteous anger and the desire to have Donnie gone in January 2017. But righteous anger about Impeachment and Conviction is misplaced. We need to direct our righteous anger at voting all the monsters out of office.

    My $0.02.

    [eta:] Oh, and on the “how is that different from passing bills that Moscow Mitch sits on”, well passing bills that MM (heh) sits on gives us ammunition to vote him out without giving them talking points. “Democrats are unhinged, passing bills and stuff!!” doesn’t work.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  27. 27
    Susan Baughman says:

    @Betty Cracker: Canvassed there as a kid for McGovern in 1972 NY primary. My first year voting.

  28. 28

    Attacking Ds for not being perfect or worse yet for the sins that Rs commit, is dumb and counterproductive.

  29. 29

    So what if the Senate blocks it? Put that on them. Make them put their name to it for time immemorial.

    This has been my take for quite a while. The Democrats’ biggest problem for a long time has been their tendency to give up when the Republicans say they’re going to block something. There’s a grain of sense in that- why waste time that might be better spent on something else- but that really only applies if there’s some other topic where you might be more productive. In this case, where the Republicans are going to block anything the Democrats like, there’s nothing more valuable the Democrats could do with their time, so they might as well spend it investigating and taking symbolic votes that show what they want to do that the Republicans are blocking.

    Nancy Pelosi seems to get this when it comes to other topics, so it’s not obvious why they’re so much more worried about impeachment. Investigate, impeach, and force the Republicans to take a stand either with Trump’s lawlessness or against it. Maybe they will vote to impeach and convict, which would be good. Maybe they won’t, in which case you use it against them in the next election. Make the whole damn party go on record as owning every awful thing Trump does; don’t let them pretend to care about how terrible he is while letting him get away with it.

  30. 30
    burnspbesq says:

    @[Individual 1] mistermix:

    Seems ironic to me that in an area full of towns with Iroquois names, one of the whitest and snootiest suburbs is named for an English general best known for genocide against the Iroquois.

    Back on topic: yesterday’s hearing was yet another example of why it’s imperative to get Collins the fuck out of the House.

  31. 31
    Another Scott says:

    @Roger Moore: Democrats under Nancy’s Leadership won in a historic wave election in 2018. She and the party seems to know what it’s doing. “Just win, baby.”

    To be clear, I’m not saying we just sit back and let the squishy middle hem and haw on whether to start impeachment hearings, or to have a vote on articles of impeachment when the time comes. We should make our feelings known and push them to do more. I am also saying there are good reasons for them not to be too far out in front of the non-LeftyMcLeftish advocates if they want to win as many seats as possible.

    It’s still early…

    My $0.02.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  32. 32
    zhena gogolia says:

    @schrodingers_cat:

    Yes, our daily dose of dumping on Democrats. This will lead to certain victory in 2020.

  33. 33
    piratedan says:

    @Another Scott: to be honest, if Nancy had the votes in hand to impeach various and sundry members of the current administration, those proceedings would be rolling now. The thing is, she doesn’t have the votes and until/when enough Democratic congresscritters are brought into the light regarding this, then it won’t get done. Pelosi may not be a master strategist, but she does know how to count and from everything I’ve read, without votes, this simply looks even weaker than not doing anything, so she rides the current and hopes that enough members finally realize that this needs to be done, fuck the potential political fallout (you know, like how the ACA got passed and cost people seats because of the expected GOP msirepresentation of what the Bill actually does)

  34. 34

    @Another Scott:

    1. A failure to secure an impeachment in the House would be bad. There aren’t enough votes yet.

    2. A failure to secure a conviction in the Senate would be bad. There aren’t enough votes yet.

    You know what else would be bad? Letting Trump get away with unchecked illegality without doing more than occasional expressions of outrage. Maybe we’ll have trouble securing impeachment in the House, but it would be a lot easier with an active, public impeachment inquiry and vigorous whipping of the votes. Maybe we won’t be able to secure conviction in the Senate, but showing the Senate Republicans as Trump’s lackeys who are willing to cover for him in gross illegality could be useful in securing that Democratic majority you want.

  35. 35
    Served says:

    I go back and forth on this, but at some point there has to be a breaking point where you say, “the law is being broken and we have to do something about it.” And, yes the hearings and investigations aren’t nothing, but after yesterday’s fiasco with Nadler getting bobbed and weaved around and looking impotent, that’s a harder sell for me.

    Saying “we shouldn’t impeach because we won’t win the next election” is one thing, but if we win even MORE in that election…to what end if you aren’t using that power to hold people accountable. This administration spits in the face of congress every day and the Democratic response is to get chuffed up like the Dean in a 1970s comedy. It’s a bad look that they need to manage with the pro-impeachment wing of the party. Sluffing off with condescending “you just don’t get it” parliamentary/process stuff is not going to be enough for much longer.

    I also don’t buy “the Senate won’t convict” because the House is passing bills they know will have no chance of even getting a vote in the Senate.

  36. 36
    artem1s says:

    @TenguPhule:

    A generation of children are growing up to learn you can be as lawless as you want and nothing will be done. America NEEDS this impeachment to take place to even have a shot at gaining back our values. This administration is a cancer of corruption.

    A generation of children learned that lesson well with Nixon and Ford. This is the result of an incomplete impeachment. No one of my generation believes Nixon paid a high enough price for his crimes. A generation of children learned that lesson from Oliver North and Poppy Bush. We all recognized that there is no amount of corruption the GOP will not accept if huge government and defense contracts hang in the balance. That’s what Cheney learned from the Nixon and Iran-Contra hearings. In the end, no one remembers what they were really about. The only thing that matters is that you want to be the last one standing and make sure you have some lackey handy who will fall on their sword for you. Oh and make sure there is a huge payout.

  37. 37
    zhena gogolia says:

    If I were a front-pager, I’d be featuring Barry Berke’s questioning of Lewandowski. It’s a thing of beauty.

    https://twitter.com/NerdPyle/status/1174163309475463169

    If you lived through Watergate, you know it doesn’t happen all at once, at twitter speed.

  38. 38

    1. Impeachment proceedings would lay down a marker. That is both a legal and political marker. It would make it easier to jail Cory Lewandowski, for example.
    2. Impeachment proceedings would distract Trump from his other wrongdoing. Not completely, but it would up his anxiety.
    3. What Roger Moore said.
    4. Leadership needs to lead. Some, maybe most of those weak-kneed Democrats would come around as Trump’s wrongdoing is exposed in hearings. It would bring the public around.

    None of this is a sure thing. But whining about the nasty Republicans without doing anything has its downside too. Cory Lewandowski mocks Congress to its face and then goes on CNN to continue the mocking. Yes, let’s hit CNN on that, but remaining supine is a show of weakness. People don’t vote for weakness.

    I’d really like to know what those Dems who are too afraid to say that the law of the land is supreme are thinking. Is it just their next election? If so, they are no better than Republicans.

  39. 39
    Millard Filmore says:

    @Served:

    but after yesterday’s fiasco with Nadler getting bobbed and weaved around and looking impotent, that’s a harder sell for me.

    It is often said here that prosecutors do not ask questions for which they do not already know the answer. Similarly, Congress should not bring witness into a hearing unless they are ready to use the CONTEMPT card on the spot.

  40. 40
  41. 41

    @Roger Moore:

    You know what else would be bad? Letting Trump get away with unchecked illegality without doing more than occasional expressions of outrage.

    Without conviction, impeachment in the house is nothing more than an expression of outrage, and that is exactly what the Democrats will be publicly bludgeoned for by the people who think Democrats aren’t doing anything. The narrative in the media and the voters will be that Democrats are weak and useless.

    it would be a lot easier with an active, public impeachment inquiry and vigorous whipping of the votes.

    The former is happening. The media doesn’t give a shit because it’s pretty dull to report on the slowly grinding judicial process as Democrats take every administration ‘Make me!’ to the courts. Impeachment will not change that. As for vigorous whipping of the votes, we will never know how much that is going on. What we know is that the votes aren’t there yet. That seems to be moving, ever so slowly.

    Personally, I think the House Democrats are letting things roll through the courts, gathering evidence, letting individual members do their “I can take this no longer, and support impeachment” dances for their constituents, and waiting until the election when there’s time to hang this on McConnell while it’s useful to attack him with it before everything disappears down the ‘Democrats are feckless’ memory hole. That would be consistent with Speaker Pelosi’s statements.

  42. 42
    Millard Filmore says:

    @zhena gogolia: Agreed. “Nadler getting bobbed and weaved around” was not a good look. The nature of Republican leadership and the assistants they collect has been known for many months. Nadler should have had a plan to deal with Lewandowski.

  43. 43
    Gravenstone says:

    @TenguPhule: So will we be underwriting a second $15b line of credit*, to undercut these new sanctions as well?

    * not that the first rumored LoC has actually been extended, afaik

  44. 44
    rp says:

    See Dahlia Lithwick’s piece today on Berke’s questioning of Lewandowski and impeachment.

  45. 45

    @Frankensteinbeck:

    it would be a lot easier with an active, public impeachment inquiry and vigorous whipping of the votes.

    The former is happening.

    No it isn’t. There are hearings going on, and Nadler sometimes utters the forbidden I-word, but these are not impeachment hearings. Leading up to impeachment, maybe, if enough Democratic representatives can be bothered to worry about the rule of law and their Constitutional responsibilities.

    I chatted with bmaz of the Emptywheel blog a little this morning. He has been roaring that these are not impeachment hearings, and I wanted to understand his basis for that. He says that legally, until a measure is at least passed out of the House Judiciary Committee, and preferably passed by the full House, that an impeachment inquiry is starting, the legal basis for forcing people to testify or putting Lewandowsky in jail for contempt is thin. He doubts that the Roberts Court would uphold the House without that measure.

    Pelosi is trying to have it both ways – not actually utter the forbidden word, but allow Nadler to do pseudo-hearings. The material from the hearings can be used later, it is true, if those Dems ever recognize their responsibilites. But it shows weakness. Wasn’t the 2018 win at least partly about holding Trump and the Republicans responsible?

  46. 46
    guachi says:

    Democrats are doing just enough to pretend to be able tell people they are doing something about impeachment and holding people accountable. I expect them to actually do nothing between now and the election.

    It’s a joke. The Democrats are making themselves a joke.

  47. 47
    Kent says:

    The statute of limitations for these crimes doesn’t expire in 2020.

    If I were running for the Dem nomination, I’d be saying that my Justice Department would not be giving a free pass to all the crimes of the previous administration. I’d be holding them all accountable and prosecuting them under a Dem Attorney General. Fuck civility. We don’t actually need the House to hold Trump and his lackeys accountable. Running the Justice Department will do the trick just fine too.

  48. 48
    rikyrah says:

    @zhena gogolia:

    If I were a front-pager, I’d be featuring Barry Berke’s questioning of Lewandowski. It’s a thing of beauty.

    I agree. Which is why they need to shut out the 5 minutes for every member, and just give it to the Professionals.

  49. 49
    Immanentize says:

    What is this magic congressional contempt power of which people speak?

    It seems it would slay our enemies and reduce others to fruitless wailings. I am excited to learn — what is it??

  50. 50
    ola azul says:

    136 of 235 House Dems favor impeachment inquiry

    58% of the Dem caucaus *openly* in favor of pursuing a bona fide impeachment inquiry.

    Think the real issue is Nancy. If Nancy was willing, it’d be a go. Nancy ain’t, so it don’t.

    Now, you might think that’s the prudent course, but risk-aversion comes with its own costs. Chief among them the demoralizing effect of having some shitheel like Corey fucking Lewandowski flout his contempt for your silly laws and quaint notions of Congressional authority.

    For them’s that think a failure to convict in the Senate will make Dems look weak and ineffectual, I gotta newsflash for you: Dems right fucking now look — you guessed it! — weak and ineffectual.

    Agree completely with Roger Moore’s point. Make these motherfuckers in the Republican Senate *own* Trump and take that to a vote in their Senate seats.

    When peeps clutch their pearls about how Trump will crow that he was exonerated in the Senate, gotta nuther newsflash: If Dems *don’t* take meaningful action against the Orange Menace, the motherfucker is gonna — yep! you guessed it! — fucking crow that the Dems took no action against him cuz they knew he was innocent and didn’t have a case.

    And the worst will be, that will make sense to many weakly informed peeps. Dems will get alla the downsides of not impeaching Trump that they right fucking now are worrying about *and* they will have their own feckless cowardice to condemn them.

    (And their risk-averse caution might even lose them everything anyway, which would really wrap it up and put a bow onnit.)

  51. 51
    Baud says:

    @ola azul:

    58% of the Dem caucaus *openly* in favor of pursuing a bona fide impeachment inquiry.

    Think the real issue is Nancy. If Nancy was willing, it’d be a go. Nancy ain’t, so it don’t.

    I completely do not understand your math. Leadership can put pressure on a few holdouts, but not 42% of the caucus. And we need almost all of them.

  52. 52
    Baud says:

    @Immanentize:

    The House has already held Barr and one other cabinet member in criminal contempt. If Trump doesn’t pardon them, the next AG can prosecute
    No one who wants the Dems to act tough cared.

  53. 53
    Immanentize says:

    @Baud:
    It is a power that can only be pursued if the DOJ agrees to prosecute. It does not require any pardon and it is not legally clear the contempt of one Congress survives into the next. In fact, I am pretty sure the next House would have to start the process again. Subpoena, have that ignored, vote on contempt. It is not a formal indictment or criminal charge. It is analogous to contempt of a grand jury which is only as good as the length of time the specific grand jury sits.

    But I agree that the Dems have been pushing every possible avenue actually available, outside of Diagon Alley, to get compliance with their subpoenas.

  54. 54
    🌎 Goku (aka Amerikan Baka) 🗳🌷 says:

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    He says that legally, until a measure is at least passed out of the House Judiciary Committee, and preferably passed by the full House, that an impeachment inquiry is starting, the legal basis for forcing people to testify or putting Lewandowsky in jail for contempt is thin. He doubts that the Roberts Court would uphold the House without that measure.

    Why couldn’t the witnesses just refuse to show up, like they’ve mostly been doing? Who would enforce the arrest for contempt of Congress? The sergeant-at-arms? Isn’t his jurisdiction limited to the House? If so, who would arrest those who don’t show up, Barr’s DOJ? Give me a break. And I’m not entirely convinced the Roberts Court would uphold such a measure.

    I don’t mean to be a wet blanket, but you all claim the media is wired for Republicans, right? Well, what makes you think they’d give Dems the time of day to message properly about the inevitable “acquittal” for Trump that McConnell would try to engineer? The bills that the House passes only to die in the Senate don’t have the same propaganda value for Trump and the GOP as “Acquittal, no collusion, no collusion, the Democrat Party is trying to overthrow the government! Purge them!”

  55. 55
    Baud says:

    @Immanentize:

    I don’t see how a crime can expire with the Congress, but I don’t know.

    I remember when the Republican house held Holder in criminal contempt on some trumped up basis. Obama’s DOJ obviously didn’t prosecute. I don’t recall anyone calling Republicans weak because of that.

  56. 56
    🇺🇸🌎 Goku (aka Amerikan Baka) 🗳🌷 says:

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    He says that legally, until a measure is at least passed out of the House Judiciary Committee, and preferably passed by the full House, that an impeachment inquiry is starting, the legal basis for forcing people to testify or putting Lewandowsky in jail for contempt is thin. He doubts that the Roberts Court would uphold the House without that measure.

    Why couldn’t the witnesses just refuse to show up, like they’ve mostly been doing? Who would enforce the arrest for contempt of Congress? The sergeant-at-arms? Isn’t his jurisdiction limited to the House? If so, who would arrest those who don’t show up, Barr’s DOJ? Give me a break. And I’m not entirely convinced the Roberts Court would uphold such a measure.

    I don’t mean to be a wet blanket, but you all claim the media is wired for Republicans, right? Well, what makes you think they’d give Dems the time of day to message properly about the inevitable “acquittal” for Trump that McConnell would try to engineer? The bills that the House passes only to die in the Senate don’t have the same propaganda value for Trump and the GOP as “Acquittal, no collusion, no collusion, the Democrat Party is trying to overthrow the government!!!!1 Purge them!!!!!!11!”

  57. 57
    Baud says:

    I support a positive impeachment vote, but I don’t have any illusions about it’s significance.

  58. 58
    ola azul says:

    @Baud:

    Agreed. We need most all of ’em. But point wasn’t math, point was Pelosi as the sticking point.

    Pelosi clearly doesn’t want an official impeachment inquiry, and yet 58% of her caucaus openly say they do. Do you maintain that if Pelosi was an advocate of holding an official impeachment inquiry, that that 42% would remain static? As it is, support for conducting an impeachment inquiry has built *in spite of* (not b/c of) Pelosi.

    House leadership entails, you know, leading.

    The commendable ability to count votes is used, imo, as a cover to not do what you don’t wanna do.

    Some might think that’s the best course. I do not.

  59. 59

    @🇺🇸🌎 Goku (aka Amerikan Baka) 🗳🌷: So allowing Trump to shred the Constitution is a good look for Dems?

    I agree, it’s a hard call, but I’m in favor of having the law on our side and letting the chips fall where they may.

    The logic that the Republicans will do terrible things in retribution for [you name it] doesn’t seem to be playing out with Beto’s “Yes, we’re coming to take your AR-15s.”

    The Republicans say and do that shit all the time. If Democrats stand up for principle, at least they’ve got that going for them.

  60. 60
    Baud says:

    @ola azul:

    It wouldn’t remain static, but it wouldn’t get us close to the number we need. And that’s assuming no backlash. If you support impeachment, then the last thing you want is to force conservative Dems to dig in their heels against it by forcing them to make a decision prematurely. The only possible path I see is through a slow boil, rather than a flame thrower.

  61. 61
    matt says:

    @Another Scott:

    Oh, they don’t have the votes. that’s why they can’t investigate now, even though the evidence is plain and obvious and compelling and must be acted on by anyone with any moral sense at all.

    I don’t recognize the country I am stuck living in. I hate these garbage people in charge. Every system in this country is being corrupted. And the people on my side are these comfortable and useless pieces of crap.

    Why should anyone care about the Democrats? Why should anyone vote for them? If the country is at stake, why are they introducing dozens of bullshit message bills and not investigating the assholes who are installing a fascist dictatorship? So they might win next time, and be blocked from doing anything by all the burrowers who have been put everywhere by the crime cartel? Why should I give a shit about that?

  62. 62
    Immanentize says:

    @Baud:
    “criminal contempt” is not a crime, but rather a reference to the fact that you can be jailed for the contemptuous act. Think McDougal who spent over a year and a half in jail, but that was not a crime, just criminal contempt. The key to criminal contempt is that it can be cured by doing what was required — turn over documents, testify, etc. Here, that is how Miller of the NYT got out of jail in the Scooter Libby matter. You purge/end your (criminal) contempt by obeying the subpoena. It is not an actual punishment (supposedly) but a coersion to do the right thing. One Congress, like one grand jury, cannot bind the next except by laws duly enacted. Contempt is not that.

    BUT! Contempt of Congress can be a crime — but like your Holder example, the DOJ must decide to take that to a grand jury and get an indictment….

  63. 63
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Baud: also, the people who can really put pressure on an MoC are voters, and the sad fact is a huge chunk of the lumpenmittel just doesn’t give a shit about any of this. I wish all House Dems, including Pelosi, were out in front on impeachment, if only for the the historical record and Constitutional hygiene. But to my continued if somewhat dulled amazement, a large chunk of the American people don’t give a shit about the sanctity of elections, the rule of law, the separation of powers, cheap, naked corruption and self-dealing, stealing money from the blessed and sacred military, Our Troops!, to make an in-kind contribution to trump 2020. Hard to make people engage in the rather abstract concept of obstruction of justice, if they’re more interesting in Dancing With the Stars than all that.

  64. 64
    Baud says:

    @Immanentize:

    The key to criminal contempt is that it can be cured by doing what was required — turn over documents, testify, etc.

    Not my area, but I think that is civil contempt.

  65. 65
    Baud says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    My memory isn’t what it’s used to be, but I seem to recall it was once wrong for Dems to focus so much energy on Trump instead of addressing kitchen table issues that voters cared about.

    Here’s what I’m pretty confident of. If they do impeach, no one will care about it and no one will reward Dems for it.

    And if the Senate somehow convicts, people will complain because Pence is so much worse than Trump.

  66. 66
    matt says:

    @guachi: They’re going to get fucking pounded and they’re going to deserve it.

    Or not, maybe they’ll win and have a mandate for the watered-down tea they’re serving, the change nothing everything is fine let’s pretend criminal fascists and us just have differences of opinion course they’re on.

    So what? It’s not like they’ll actually fix 10% of what Trump broke with their methods.

  67. 67
    rikyrah says:

    Betsy DeVos Loses Student Loan Lawsuit Brought by 19 States
    By Andrew M Harris and Daniel Flatley
    September 12, 2018, 4:42 PM CDT

    U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos lost a lawsuit brought by 19 states and the District of Columbia, accusing her department of wrongly delaying implementation of Obama-era regulations meant to protect students who took out loans to attend college from predatory practices.

    A Washington federal court judge on Wednesday ruled the department’s postponement of the so-called Borrower Defense rule was procedurally improper.

  68. 68
    Baud says:

    @rikyrah:

    That’s from a year ago.

  69. 69
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    How many of you have meatspace friends and acquaintances who are “persuadable voters” who will be persuaded by this? or who would be if Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff made a speech on the House floor about it?

    Military has spent nearly $200,000 at Trump’s Scottish resort since 2017
    The spending paid for the equivalent of hundreds of nights of rooms over approximately three dozen separate stays, the committee said.

    That said, I do think the presidential candidates should be talking about this. I know Himself of Vermont told a labor audience the other day that he never voted for the Iraq War or NAFTA. Did he tell them he’ll never take money from the military to keep his failing foreign hotels afloat?

  70. 70
    burnspbesq says:

    @rikyrah:

    It’s useful to remember that the Trump Crime Syndicate knows fuck-all about the Administrative Procedure Act. There will be ample opportunities to throw sand in the gears, and time is increasingly not on their side.

  71. 71
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @matt: “It doesn’t really matter who’s in power because in the end they’re all the same”

    Gee, that’s some smart thinking that hasn’t had any adverse consequences in the country or the world. Your vote for Nader I mean Stein will send a powerful message. And anyway after a few years of Bush I mean trump The People Will See! And then Dennis I mean Bernie will be elected in a landslide!

  72. 72
    Kay says:

    @rikyrah:

    oooh I’m glad. She’s even worse than that though. The people who were promised loan forgiveness for public service weren’t getting it, so they put in a special expedited program to help them.

    DeVos can’t manage that one either. She fucked up both the original program and the special emergency program that was meant to mitigate her incompetence.

  73. 73
    Baud says:

    @burnspbesq:
    @Kay:

    It’s old news. Education has recently issued replacement regs.

  74. 74
    Fair Economist says:

    @matt:

    Why should anyone care about the Democrats? Why should anyone vote for them?

    Who needs to ask this?
    So thousands of children won’t be held in literal cages.
    So millions of acres of wetlands won’t be poisoned.
    So we will continue to have meaningful emissions standards.
    So we will continue the transition to clean energy.
    So millions of people can get affordable healthcare.
    etc., etc.

    Some of these will happen if there’s a Democratic President in 2021, some require a Democratic Senate. But these things and many more actions critical to our well-being and that of the planet require Democrats in power. And *that’s* why we vote Democratic.

    With a Republican Senate, any impeachment is just a theatrical routine. It has no real consequence, and it doesn’t matter apart from theatrical issues.

  75. 75
    ola azul says:

    @Baud:

    It wouldn’t remain static, but it wouldn’t get us close to the number we need. And that’s assuming no backlash. If you support impeachment, then the last thing you want is to force conservative Dems to dig in their heels against it by forcing them to make a decision prematurely. The only possible path I see is through a slow boil, rather than a flame thrower.

    One of the more frustrating aspects of this “debate” about what to do re: Trump’s lawlessness, for me, is the obstinate conflation of an impeachment inquiry with a final vote on impeachment. Not the same thing.

    That, and the seemingly stubborn insistence that public opinion will not move in light of new information being revealed, and therefore we need unanimous Dem approval before even *considering* conducting an impeachment inquiry (not a vote).

    If Dems proceed with the “lotta-smoke-here,-just-doing-our-due-diligence” and start an impeachment inquiry, why must we have unanimous approval merely for Dems to do their, you know, fucking jobs.

    Now, we all know that once started, it’s gonna be impossible not to impeach the motherfucker based on evidence. So it seems to me, that’s where the rubber meets the road. Perhaps we should worry a little more about why our Dem reps are so averse to entertain an impeachment inquiry instead of worrying what the useless fucks in the Republican Senate are or ain’t gonna do once they get the hot potato?

    Support for impeachment of Nixon in April of ’72 stood at 22% if mem’ry serves. By August Nixon was toast. This suggests to me that uncovering some rocks that’ve been carefully concealed from public notice has the ability to move the precious goddamn needle of public opinion. But Dem leadership, via Pelosi, have this relationship exactly backwards. “Public support ain’t on our side, so we can’t possibly entertain an impeachment inquiry!” It’s, to me, an excuse to not do what you don’t wanna do.

    Some think that’s right. I do not.

    Oh, and to your point about conservative Dems: there is no world in which they will move toward impeachment, imo, w/o pressure being applied from within. Very much like healthcare. Or any other big vote.

    Which is why House leadership entails, you know, leading.

  76. 76
    Kay says:

    @rikyrah:

    If you’ve read the latest headlines, 99% of borrowers have been rejected for student loan forgiveness. Yes, 99%. Congress then created an expanded $700 million student loan forgiveness program to help some of the 99% of borrowers who were rejected for the public service loan forgiveness program. The problem is that 99% of borrowers who sought a slice of that student loan forgiveness program were also rejected.

    I think the game here is the low quality hires are hoping they can stiff these people long enough so they’ll go away.

    Like their boss. Deadbeats.

  77. 77
    Baud says:

    @ola azul:

    That’s the process that’s going on. Hearings to move public opinion.

    And for the record, I find the “why won’t leaders lead” argument trite and unpersuasive. It reminds me of how Halperin always attacked Obama.

  78. 78
    Kay says:

    @Baud:

    It’s outrageous. They passed out 28 billion to Trump-supporting farmers quick enough. These poor people have been battling this for years.

    They should be compensated for the thousands of hours of work they put into it just to get the federal government to make good on the promise they made.

  79. 79
    rikyrah says:

    @Kay:

    oooh I’m glad. She’s even worse than that though. The people who were promised loan forgiveness for public service weren’t getting it, so they put in a special expedited program to help them.

    I know, Kay.
    The approval rate for those qualified was 1%

    ONE PERCENT.
    ONE PERCENT.

    I hate these people.
    Imagine, 10 years of payments. You put in the paperwork.
    And, they DENY 99% OF THE APPLICANTS.

  80. 80
    rikyrah says:

    @matt:

    Why should anyone care about the Democrats? Why should anyone vote for them

    OH, I dunno. Maybe because you believe America should have a Social Safety Net, which the GOP was poised to shred if they had maintained the House in November 2018.

  81. 81
  82. 82
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Baud: And for the record, I find the “why won’t leaders lead” argument trite and unpersuasive. It reminds me of how Halperin always attacked Obama.

    The only Dem MoC I know to be publicly (edited) against impeachment are Max Rose and Jeff Van Drew, the former from Staten Island which I gather is the Alabama of NYC, and the latter from I think a south NJ district that historically leans Republican and an old school conservative Democrat named George Norcross is one of the last of the old school political bosses (that’s what I’ve gleaned from the internet). I have a hard time imagining that Nancy Pelosi carries much sway in their districts

  83. 83
    Mary G says:

    I hammered on my rep with calls, postcards, and emails. He came to the light side a couple of months ago. These 42% aren’t getting that pressure. We have to get voters involved and in favor, or the politicians have no incentive to change their minds. Everything that’s happening comes down to the fact that Republicans get enough votes to keep control. They went from Watergate to Iran-Contra to the war in Iraq/failed response to Katrina to Trump. It gets worse and worse. Somewhere old white men are scheming the next thing, which’ll be worse than Trump.

    That said, I’m getting impatient with Democrats who could take actions short of impeachment. Everyone who refused to honor a subpoena should be held in contempt and racking up a fine of $10,000 a day.

  84. 84
    Kathleen says:

    @zhena gogolia: Another episode in the never ending saga, How The Democrats Disappointed Me Today.

  85. 85
    ola azul says:

    @Baud:

    That is not the process that’s going on. The process that’s going on is killing-the-clock-is-it-2020-yet? kabuki theater in which Dems look like whining powerless simps who get sand thrown in their faces by shitheels like Corey Lewandowski. That’s the process that’s going on.

    Toothless hearings that move public opinion into viewing Dems as weak. And pathetic. And powerless. That’s the process that’s going on.

    And for the record, I agree with you re: Obama. Halperin’s charges of Obama not leading were bullshit. Obama posited what he wanted to do, and he was met with intransigent Republican obstructionism. Unfair charge.

    So your point re: leadership doesn’t apply here (for me). Pelosi’s unwillingness to publicly back an obviously deserved impeachment inquiry provides cover for those in her caucaus who don’t wanna stick their necks out, and goddamn sure don’t wanna do it if the, you know, leader of their chamber opposes it, which serves her purposes cuz pursuing an impeachment inquiry ain’t something she wants to do anyway. If Pelosi *did* want an impeachment inquiry and said so publicly, it’s within her power to, you know, lead. Worked on healthcare.

    Trite as that may seem.

  86. 86
    FlipYrWhig says:

    Um, maybe I’m way off base here, but AFAICT virtually no one is paying any attention to anything that happens in Congress *because* the people who WOULD care are currently much more interested in who becomes the Democrats’ presidential candidate. So the breathlessness of OMG THE STOOPIT DEMS ARE BLOWING IT THEY SUCK SO MUCH is way, _way_ out of proportion. *It’s barely a story.* The story is that people who are sick of Trump want to vote against him, and they wonder who that’ll be. Everything else is some random headline about bit players having some meeting in some room in Washington.

  87. 87
    Baud says:

    @ola azul:

    I have no idea why you think formal impeachment hearings would be any different.

    Also, too, if the House were vote to “formally” launch impeachment proceedings, they would essentially be committing themselves to a vote, which has a good chance of failure.

  88. 88
    Immanentize says:

    @Baud: you are right about that, but it is a bit of both. Civil contempt is intended only to compel compliance only (so I generalized too much there, writing on phone on train) and criminal contempt can be coersive or punitive. Criminal contempt is intended to be a version of deterrence for bad behavior. Criminal contempt may — or may not be — purged by compliance. It often looks much more like a sentence.

    Civil contempt is when you are held in contempt and you are given a penalty like a daily fine for failing to do some action. The Judge says, “I’m finding you 200 bucks a day until you produce that material. That is hardly reviewable except for abuse of discretion grounds regarding whether the contempt will be purged.

    Criminal contempt is when a judge fines you or takes away your liberty for a contemptuous act in the past so, same scene, judge says, in addition, I am fining you 500 bucks for not notifying the court before you failed to produce. A whole set of due process applies to crim. contempt of the ‘punishment’ — you get a hearing, you can generally be represented, the appellate standard is not only abuse of discretion but whether the criminal contempt solution was proportionate, etc. I’ve been held in contempt before (bring a toothbrush!) And in some situations, apologies and begging are the best bet. But one thing criminal contempt is not, is a criminal charge, trial, conviction, and sentence. It is not a “crime” although confusingly named, no doubt.

    The problem for Congress is, unlike say, federal judges, they do not have the US Marshall to take people into custody. Contrary to myth, there is no jail cells in the capitol bldg. Congress must rely on the executive (maybe the courts?) for physical enforcements. I’m not sure if I have clarified or just confused further. Sorry.

    But to the original point, criminal contempt is not a crime until the executive says so. And I am not sure it can survive one Congress to the next. At least I would be very comfortable arguing that.

  89. 89
    Gelfling 545 says:

    Chris Jacobs is expected to primary Collins & will probably win. Actually, he probably would have beaten Collins even if he hadn’t been indicted. Jacobs comes from $$$ (Delaware North Corp) & is well known. Very active in the community, charitable activities, etc. besides being in state senate. It will be a tougher fight for Nate than last time. Jacobs was reelected when most other Republicans were defeated at the state level. My impression is that he is not generally considered an asshole and a fair number of non-republicans seem to like him personally if not politically.

  90. 90
    ola azul says:

    @Baud:

    I have no idea why you think formal impeachment hearings would be any different.

    Also, too, if the House were vote to “formally” launch impeachment proceedings, they would essentially be committing themselves to a vote, which has a good chance of failure.

    Say a subpoena were issued for you to appear before Congress — would you say, “Fuck off. I’m golfing!” Am thinking no. I would show. You would show. And yet, Trump’s toadies, at his insistence, refuse to comply. Now, my understanding (and if this is incorrect, I’m sure the lawyers will chime in and disabuse me of my fantasy, and I will “formally” apologize for my ignorance) is if a formal impeachment hearing were instigated, House Dems’ demands for witnesses and documents is going to be respected, and if they are not, then peeps will go to the pokey to have plenty of time to think about just how loyal they wish to be to the most faithless preznit in ‘Murican history.

    Whereas right now, you know, Trump acolytes can make free to scorn, condemn, ridicule and abuse House Dems with impunity. Which is a less than agreeable outcome, I’m hoping you’ll agree.

    And that would be why, to answer your question, I think thing’sd be different if Dems were to show they’re serious and open an official impeachment inquiry.

    And re: your “also, too”: Agreed. It would commit them to a vote. And if Dems are so timid and feckless and worthless that, given the abundant evidence damning Trump, they would willingly allow Trump to skate, then that’s sumpin I’d kinda like to know, wouldn’t you? Think you’re mistaken (as you think I am, understood!) that there’s a good chance the vote would fail in the House.

    This puts me in an odd situation of having more faith in the Dems’ vote than you, but times is weird!

  91. 91
    Another Scott says:

    @Cheryl Rofer: Nadler said in an interview yesterday? (I think it was on CSpan Radio) that the rules were changed since the Watergate times. Back then, they had to get a vote on the House floor to start impeachment proceedings because they couldn’t issue subpoenas. Since the law was changed, the committee can do so. And they are.

    I really think that Nadler and Schiff and all the rest know what they’re doing, myself…

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  92. 92
    matt says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: I’m tired of voting for fucking stumps because their opponents are evil bloodsucking vampires. Why can’t the Democrats actually stand up?

    yes I know they’re different. I’m saying though – why should I care about the Democrats? What is there about them that’s admirable or good, other than just them not being the most corrupt and evil assholes in the world who are their opponents? Why do they have to be walking bowls of oatmeal?

  93. 93
    matt says:

    @rikyrah: I’m tired of voting over and over for these fucking losers who keep fighting and losing these rearguard actions to defend normal common sense. Why are they so fucking bad at this? Why is Pelosi this hapless victim whose caucus can’t even agree that it’s a good idea to investigate the most corrupt administration ever? Is anyone leading?

    Sanders isn’t the answer, he’s garbage and just as useless as them in his own way.

  94. 94
    Another Scott says:

    @matt: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/08/trump-investigations-list-congress-1309746 (updated June 16th):

    The White House has repeatedly rebuffed House Democrats’ oversight demands, from requests for President Donald Trump’s taxes to testimony from the former White House counsel. Democrats have gone so far as to issue subpoenas in some cases, but Trump has vowed to fight each one, prompting committees to hold various officials in contempt of Congress.

    Here are the major battles being waged and where they stand:

    HTH.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  95. 95
    matt says:

    @Fair Economist: yes, I know if the bad guys win more it will be bad. I guess I just wonder why the Democrats in the House are shit. Do they have to be? What is it about them that makes them such shit? How can we convert them into actual, functioning people who accomplish things? Is them implementing gridlock the very best political life in America has to offer? Why would anyone fight hard for that year after year?

  96. 96
    matt says:

    @Another Scott: Oh, they said no.

    Well, that settles it then I guess.

    Great job House Democrats! Where do I sign up to donate?

  97. 97
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @matt: we could go fund your ass to Staten Island and you can set up a table in front of a grocery store and you can pass out brochures on impeachment and explain it to all those fine folks why trump needs to be impeached, then maybe Max Rose will change his mind. When you’re done there, we’ll get you a bus ticket down to south Jersey to work on Jeff Van Drew’s voters. Put your persuasive emo-bleating to good use.

    @matt: no, the courts will settle it, but thanks to “not a dime’s worth of difference” assholes like you, the courts are heavily weighted in trump’s favor. So we’ll see in time just how much damage you and Sarandon and your fellow travelers have caused. And you’ll be fucking whining about it the whole time

  98. 98
    matt says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: I’ve voted for Democrats and donated to Democrats my whole life. I have supported the shit out of them. My expressing disgust with how fucking pathetic the Democrats are right now is not the retroactive cause of all the losses of the past.

    That is bullshit.

    Now, is there anything we can do or say to improve the feckless geriatrics that run the House, or is it our sole responsibility as citizens to clap louder for them as they take the field and are dominated year after year?

    I am angry with them because they are failing us. They are facing up to a fascist takeover that spits on the law with messaging bills and protecting a bunch of fucking loser Blue Dog type morons who think investigating Trump will get them kicked out of their comfy chairs.

    Fuck that.

  99. 99
    Another Scott says:

    @matt: Read the link for the list of investigations going on.

    Or don’t.

    But don’t say ‘they aren’t investigating’ things without expecting push-back.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  100. 100
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @matt: so you’re up for the Staten Island duty ?

  101. 101
    matt says:

    @Another Scott: OK, they’re investigating and have no strategy other than to go home and have gin and tonics when the Trump people say no.

    They’re very good at their jobs and are being very successful.

    I am sure the voters will reward this kind of performance richly.

  102. 102
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @matt: what’s your strategery, bleating genius?

  103. 103
    cain says:

    If we get the senate and the presidency – I want to see some people put in jail. I swear to God – if do another 2009 where we just forgive everyone because it would divide the country, we need to stop that bullshit. We might not agree when impeachment is on the table, but I think all of us are united that when we have a Democratic DOJ, that we start putting people in jail with a vengeance and start cleaning house. It’s when Dem leadership waffle on this – that’s when we need to take out the pitchforks and kick their collective asses. I expect warren, sanders, and harris to do this. I don’t think biden will.

  104. 104
    matt says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Where I live the reps support impeachment. Rose is in a +10 Trump district so I guess he can be allowed to take the position he is taking. Very few of the House Dems are from +10 Trump districts.

  105. 105
    matt says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: They seem to be running out the clock, ready to just stand pat with what they had in 2018 and try to win with that.

    I don’t think that will be sufficient.

    They said they were going to oppose Trump. Does the House actually have any powers at all? It seems like the Trump people just say ‘no’ to them and that’s the end of it. Is that where we are? If so, I guess I don’t really care who is nominally in charge. Why should I?

    It’s their job to inspire, to lead. Are they doing that well?

  106. 106
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @matt: so you don’t know what you’re talking about but you’re going to whine and bitch about it? Okay. I’m shocked to find out you’re just a whiny and proudly ignorant pissant

  107. 107
    J R in WV says:

    @Frankensteinbeck:

    Personally, I think the House Democrats are letting things roll through the courts, gathering evidence, letting individual members do their “I can take this no longer, and support impeachment” dances for their constituents, and waiting until the election when there’s time to hang this on McConnell while it’s useful to attack him with it before everything disappears down the ‘Democrats are feckless’ memory hole. That would be consistent with Speaker Pelosi’s statements.

    I think we agree on Impeachment. I believe that the House Democrats, led by Speaker Pelosi, intend to ramp up the pressure over the next 10 or 11 months, having courts direct administration officials to comply with various evidentiary requirements, taking witnesses to task, etc.

    I hope that there is an inevitable Impeachment vote held so near the election that Moscow Mitch cannot do anything tactically useful for Trump. That Trump IS IMPEACHED RIGHT BEFORE VOTING STARTS in fall of 2020, and that it is so obvious that crimes were committed by a whole list of people, to include Jarad and Ivanka and Donny Jr and Eric, who need to be indicted (Hahaha, by Barr’s Justice Department, ahahaha) at the same time.

    At least we should see the Cabinet Secretaries impeached, everyone who knew an illegal act occurred and didn’t do anything to stop it, reveal it, prevent it. But at least Der Trumpf must be impeached just before the election next fall.

  108. 108
    JoeyJoeJoe says:

    @matt: Aren’t Democrats bringing suits to enforce their powers, which the WH and DoJ are illegally defying, to note? What else is it even possible to do? Yell loudly? The media ignores Democrats, that’s on the media, not Democrats. Second, Nancy’s message seemed to work last year. 2018 saw the biggest gains for Democrats in the House since 1974, with numerous state congressional districts gerrymandered for Republicans even. I do trust that she knows what she’s doing

  109. 109
    JoeyJoeJoe says:

    I do think that Barr should be targeted for impeachment, even as he won’t be removed. He’s blocking the progress of congress’ Oversight, and I feel like impeachment would signal that he’ll pay for his behavior. As his complaining about the contempt citation showed, a congressional reprimand would clearly bother him

  110. 110
    J R in WV says:

    @Fair Economist:

    With a Republican Senate, any impeachment is just a theatrical routine. It has no real consequence, and it doesn’t matter apart from theatrical issues.

    This is just not so. Impeachment will be big news, and formal hearings will be big news, all of it harshly against Trump and his minions. Going into an election, even without a conviction, which won’t happen for several reasons*, it will be a big deal and give Democratic local candidates something positive to run on.

    *
    1) The senate won’t convict, obviously, as long as Moscow Mitch is ruler of the Senate.

    2) If House leadership has two wits, and I believe they do, their impeachment vote will be too close to the election for the Senate to do squat. Other than to look like even more a set of tools for Moscow Mitch to use to corrupt the national government.

  111. 111
    J R in WV says:

    @ola azul:

    Well said, ole blue!

  112. 112
    Yutsano says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Can I just go femme fatale on Max Rose and convince him to change his mind? This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I have a massie crush on him.

    Nope.

    Nothing whatsoever…

    *whistles innocently*

    Seriously: if his constituents aren’t there neither is Rose. Haranguing him about it won’t get him to go against the people who elected him. And he serves them first period. It’s how the House is supposed to work.

  113. 113
    joel hanes says:

    @ola azul:

    Pelosi clearly doesn’t want an official impeachment inquiry

    Yet.

    The 2020 election is still [counts on fingers] almost fourteen months away.

Comments are closed.