I’ve been an impeachment skeptic but after the Ukraine story, Democrats have no choice but to begin an impeachment inquiry. The following things will happen: Republicans won’t convict him in the Senate (and they probably will block having a trial at all), Ken Starr and Jonathan Turley will appear constantly on tv defending Trump, there will be a lot of concern-trolling about “Democratic overreach”. The whole exercise will be difficult. Jed Bartlett’s not going to show up and solve the whole thing with some crisp dialogue.
The politics of impeachment may be tricky for Democratic members of the House in competitive districts. So let’s raise a lot of money for them right now.
chopper
i just hope pelosi can stretch it out to the point where the real damage happens 9 months to a year from now, rather than let mcconnell “completely exonerate” trump in the senate in time for it to shit the bed as an election issue.
you get one shot at impeachment, if it doesn’t either remove the guy from office or ruin his/his party’s chances in an election then it’s pretty well wasted.
dmsilev
” Republicans won’t convict him in the Senate (and they probably will block having a trial at all”
Disagree. That keeps the issue alive. McConnell will try to ram any trial through as fast as possible with as heavy a thumb on the scales as he can manage so Trump can claim vindication, exoneration, blah blah blah.
Mike in NC
Fat Bastard is about to address the UN. Might we expect an unhinged attack on [fill in the blank] and the usual bullshit and bluster, plus some threats to drop bombs somewhere?
laura
Holy Toledo, the ham head is beclowning himself at the UN.
He’s just an utter moran.
Please, someone, throw a shoe at his ham head!
Richard Guhl
The op-ed in the Washington Post by the seven freshman Representatives is a game changer, especially Luria and Spangenberg in Virginia. They not only have national security credentials but also won their districts by a narrow margin.
And the House Democrats are meeting in caucus today.
Redleg
I see you’re taking the skeptic’s view that so many of us long-abused Dems have taken.
Perhaps there will be positive outcomes:
1. Galvanizing the Democratic base by actually leading instead of dithering.
2. Substantial movement of public sentiment about impeachment (polls already indicate that the majority think that Trump has committed crimes), why not impeach his ass?
3. Educating the public about the Trump crimes.
4. Getting access to Trump taxes, IG report, and other documents that are being withheld.
5. Make the Repubs defend Trump’s criminal behavior.
6. Making it more difficult for Trump to engage in criminal acts in the future.
DougJ
@Redleg:
I’m for it. I just think it’s a tough slog.
Jude
I don’t know how Trump and his minions will block information that they’re legally required to release, but they’re going to do it regardless. They’ll refuse to testify. They’ll try to tie things up in court. There’s still a lot pending on whether courts will accept the absolute power the congressional branch has to investigate a sitting president. It seems like a slam-dunk, but McConnell’s been prepping for this moment with his sleazy court picks. And what if Pelosi or someone else orders someone like Manchin or Lewandowski to get arrested and somehow that is blocked?
I’m worried for democracy’s future, but I’m ready for the fight and not going to give up until the last breath.
ETA: @Redleg is right. The ENTIRE REASON Dems were able to flip those R districts is because indies and moderates were hoping Dems would deal with Trump’s crimes. This is a huge win for people who are canvassing and trying to whip up votes in 2020.
Redleg
@DougJ:
Agreed. The Dems need to get tough because they are going to look feckless otherwise. If they look feckless, I wouldn’t place any bets on the Dem candidate to beat Trump.
MattF
Impeachment is certainly on the menu now. And I don’t see how McConnell can stop a trial if the House votes a bill of impeachment– the Constitution says “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments”, I don’t see any ambiguity there. Note, in particular, the word ‘all’.
The big question for me is the precedent of Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Impeached, not convicted, re-elected. How do you avoid this?
laura
Unbelievably insulting the world, to their faces. China’s UN representative’s face. If looks could kill. Unbelievable.
Everyone who participated in preparing his speech should get the first ride in the tumbrel.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@MattF: Clinton was term-limited, and his impeachment was, underneath all the bloviating, and sometimes explicitly, about sex.
Not that I think the trump case will be easy, or that his re-election is impossible.
SFAW
@MattF:
I was going to write “most people know the difference between impeachment for lying about a blowjob, and impeachment for corruption, borderline treason, attempted dictatorship (sending the latter-day SS after opponents), conspiracy, etc.”
But then I remembered that this is 2019 ‘Murica
oldgold
This morning Trump flat out admits he put pressure on Ukraine concerning Biden.
You can see the video here: https://twitter.com/BGrueskin/status/1176495433759232002
CaseyL
@MattF: Clinton wasn’t impeached before the ’96 election. He was already re-elected when impeachment happened.
The precedent of Clinton’s impeachment is that the GOP deemed lying about a consensual extramarital affair to be worthy of impeachment, but doesn’t believe conspiring with foreign governments to gain and keep power an impeachable offense (or even a wrong thing to do, if you’re GOP).
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@laura: I think of all the times the good, respectable Republicans– Jebbie and Rubio especially– babbled about how the US was no longer respected under Obama. It was demonstrably false by just about every poll, in almost every country except Russia and Israel, and it was never challenged. We’re now a tragedy to our friends, and a joke to our adversaries, from NorK to MENA the world is less safe and more dangerous, and Rubio tweets bible verses and Jeb and his brother sit on the sidelines while pundits say “Why doesn’t Obama speak up?”
laura
It’s reminiscent of the Saddam Hussein purge of 1979.
BlueDWarrior
@Redleg: It might put the fear of God in some Republicans, but as for Trump himself, unless he’s in an actual jail cell, he will always believe he is getting away with it.
When you’re brain is that twisted by narcissisim, along with the power of an executive position, you basically believe you are God.
I mean listen to the Messianic language, you think the funcitonal indictment from an approved Article(s) of Impeachment will do anything to derail this man.
No, the impeachment only means something if the Republicans under him start to actually waver, and openly question if he should remain in office, if for no other reason than to preserve the continued ‘good health’ of the Republican Party as an organization.
THAT is the thing that will actually cause his behavior to change. Or in other words, the calls have to start coming from inside the house.
Kay
Me too but I was wrong. This is good. For the first time in years it feels like something is working. Like it’s not all just careening out of control.
Good job, impeachment hawks! That’s my suggestion for what you call yourselves. You’re welcome.
chopper
@MattF:
i see ambiguity. “shall have the sole power to try” does not mean “shall try”.
BlueDWarrior
@Kay: I’ve been an impeachment skeptic in the sense that I don’t believe bringing the charge affects Trump’s behavior.
Now where you can leverage the charges is against the Republicans under him. Start eroding that foundation and the facade that is the Trump-Republican Party will start to crumble, if not collapse.
I do believe impeachment should go forward, but the public relations side of it shouldn’t be aimed at the top of the tower, it should be aimed at the bottom.
Spanky
I still think Pence and the Cabinet are going to go 25th Amendment in a desperate attempt to pin everything on Trump and make him the sole fall guy.
Won’t work, but Administration folk not named Trump have few options at this point.
Kay
If I were a Democrat in an R-leaning district I would portray it as “restoring order”, because honestly that’s what’s needed.
These people are out of control.
Kay
@BlueDWarrior:
Right, but people need to see there’s some authority besides Donald Trump and the low quality hires. Check them. No one signed on to 15 lunatics doing whatever they hell they want. No one voted for that.
guachi
If impeachment proceedings do go forward, Democrats better be prepared to jail and/or fine people if they stonewall the hearings.
Get to the bottom of all the malfeasance.
Spanky
Anyone need their blood pressure jacked up some more?
Eventheliberal WaPo
(No, I did not click on it, let alone read it.)
Matt McIrvin
@Spanky: This crap is making me reflexively want to defend Biden, which is not a place I really want to be.
Spanky
@guachi: Since (anecdotally) more than a few rank and file Democrats are seriously contemplating 2nd amendment solutions, I think Pelosi and Co better be prepared to lock people up in order to short-circuit such nonsense.
Leto
@laura: I wouldn’t mind if they pulled a Klingon shaming practice: standing up, turning around, and ignoring him. He sounds low energy, can barely read, is breathing heavily through his nose, and is lying with every mouth hole utterance. Most of these members, when the camera cuts to them, look utterly bored.
SFAW
@chopper:
I agree with you re: the ambiguity, but some part of me — thinking about Traitor Turtle blocking a trial — thinks of Cedric the Entertainer: “I wish a motherfucker would”
Not that I think Moscow Mitch would suffer any consequences, but I HOPE he would.
Jinchi
@chopper:
I disagree. McConnell “completely exonerating” Trump while the crimes go on in broad daylight explicitly implicates the entire Republican party. I don’t mind watching Susan Collins fret while choosing whether to lose her base in the primary or the general election in November.
randy khan
I’m in the relatively small group you could describe as “pro-impeachment, but what’s your rush?” – at least in the sense that I knew it would take a while to bring the whole Democratic caucus around and that there was no point moving forward aggressively until the caucus was united.
The WaPo op-ed from the moderates changes the dynamic significantly, and as someone said on LGM, the national security hook likely was really important to them, as having a President essentially turn our foreign aid programs into a mechanism for blackmail or bribery (take your pick) for his personal benefit is much different than trying to save himself from criminal jeopardy by impeding an investigation. And it’s obvious Pelosi thinks so as well.
jonas
I can get why Pelosi was reluctant to impeach the president in an environment where we know it will just be stonewalled in the Senate and Trump will claim vindication and have all his political mojo going into the 2020 election. McConnell can do this with absolutely no blowback — shit, everyone thought it was unprecedented when he refused to hold a hearing on Merrick Garland just because, but here we are. But we also can’t have a president who tries to openly bribe other heads of state to do stuff to damage political opponents at home. This is the worst kind of banana republic thuggery and corruption. Trump’s venality and criminality will implode on him and his cretinous family sooner or later whether or not he’s removed from office before January 2021 and Democrats should want to be on the right side of history when it happens.
Leto
@laura: Ah, speech wraps up and I see all of his shit spawn are there. I’d ask why, but at this point who the fuck cares. Corrupt criminal conspiracy masquerading as a government/political party.
jonas
@Jinchi:
The problem is, Republican voters are entirely ok with this. Which is why their representatives will either do nothing, or fight the Dems and the investigation every step of the way, because pwning the libs is clearly more important than the rule of law.
JeffG
There are zero chances for Trump getting impeached. If it were to happen, it’d already have happened. This is all just distraction and will achieve nothing. I suggest spending your time on something more productive.
Spanky
@jonas: Maybe true Republicans, but not all non-Democrats. Thankfully (for us), McConnell is facing an increasingly popular Democratic opponent in his re-election bid, and has to thread an ever-shrinking needle just to stay in office, let alone have a majority.
Matt McIrvin
I believe we will fail. None of this will make a difference. I want to fail nobly rather than cravenly.
The Moar You Know
I’ve been more than a skeptic. I think it’s insane, I think the will isn’t there and that it’s going to hurt us a lot more than help us. But now we have no choice at all. It’s gonna have to happen, even if it costs us 2020 and I think it could. But damn, we got no choice here. Not anymore.
Cheryl Rofer
@Kay: Thank you. We always need an advance guard, who take a certain amount of abuse for being “over their skis,” “not reasonable,” and such. That’s what I figured I was doing. We need a moderate faction, too, so that we don’t all look like crazy people.
Every Martin Luther King needs a Stokeley Carmichael.
Jinchi
Republican voters are not a majority of the population.
jonas
@MattF: If the House impeaches, McConnell doesn’t have to do shit. What’s going to make him? The same sense of respect for norms, traditions, and the Constitution that obliged him to hold a vote on Merrick Garland?
SFAW
@Jinchi:
But they are where it matters. [I’m talking about the morons that keep re-electing their racist/corrupt Reps/Sens.]
Jinchi
The threat of losing his majority. Republicans lost the House in 2018 because people wanted a check on a lawless president. He’s not going to let the issue just sit there. My guess is he would have a vote trying to rally his members to defend Trump.
McConnell’s preferred options are:
1.) Democrats do nothing and Republicans keep repeating the mantra that Mueller “exonerated” Trump.
2.) House tries but fails to impeach Trump, leaving “Democrats in Disarray”.
3.) House impeaches but Joe Manchin joins the Republicans in a “bipartisan” vote against conviction.
4.) Republicans vote on a party line.
5.) They do nothing, and the media constantly refers to the “impeached president Trump” all the way through the next election.
Jinchi
@SFAW:
No they aren’t. Democrats have held majorities in the House and Senate plenty of times in recent years. The difference between then and now is who comes out to vote and the percentage of people who sit out the election. When Democratic voters are energized, they can capture the Senate.
Baud
@Jinchi:
We held the Senate for six years under Obama. It was the House that was the problem after 2010.
Mike J
Judiciary’s had one running for a while now, no?
Tractarian
Yeah, it could, but I see no reason to assume that it will. Sure, impeaching may turn off a few swing voters. But not impeaching will surely turn off more than a few base voters.
“Predictions are hard, especially about the future” – and especially when we’re talking about public opinion on a fluid and complicated story. Who knows where the public will be after a few more months of this? The only solution for a legislator is to what is morally and legally right, and let the chips fall where they may.
chopper
@Jinchi:
that horse was out of the barn so long ago it died of old age. the gop don’t give a shit about that.