There was some talk about this idea last week:
There’s a growing view that unless McConnell agrees to hold a fair trial, the House should vote to impeach but not send the articles to the Senate. If the Senate won’t do its job honestly, they shouldn’t be allowed to do it dishonestly.
— Ian Bassin (@ianbassin) December 16, 2019
The notion is gaining some currency this week since Chuck Schumer demanded documents and submitted witness requests to Mitch McConnell, who is in control of the trial and doesn’t have to produce documents or compel witnesses to appear. Congressional Dems know that, and I assume they’ve thought through another impeachment hack that was floated earlier, i.e., asking the Chief Justice to rule on compelling witnesses to appear during the trial in the Senate. Steve M at No More Mr. Nice Blog says there’s no one weird trick, so they should hold the damned trial:
Now that impeachment is under way, force Trump to endure the House vote and the Senate trial. Let him squirm — the shame is getting to him. He’ll beat the rap and claim victory, but damage will be done.
I think it’s clear Trump doesn’t want to be impeached, and though he’s been assured he won’t be removed (he probably hounds McConnell for a whip count daily), the process is making him even loopier than usual. But to answer the question at hand, let’s take a step back and review what our objectives are. We went into this impeachment inquiry knowing that Congressional Republicans won’t hold Trump accountable. The goals were to:
- Uphold the U.S. Constitution by affirming that no president is a monarch
- Focus public attention on Trump’s criminality and corruption
- Expose Republican complicity and hypocrisy
IMO, Democrats have achieved goals 1 and 2 about as well as they could have within the limits of their power as one half of one branch of government. Public support for impeaching and removing Trump rose sharply when the Ukraine scandal broke and has stayed pretty steady since, with a plurality saying Trump should be impeached and removed. So there’s probably not much more ground to be gained on goal 2, especially in a trial that McConnell controls.
Republicans have done their part to achieve goal 3, and polling reflects that — most people think Republicans are the partisan actors here, despite the constant HOAX-WITCH HUNT-PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT whining, the machinations of the corrupt AG, and the maximum efforts of the wingnut propaganda outlets combined with reflexively shitty Beltway media framing.
One argument folks (including John Dean) have made for impeaching in the House and not forwarding articles to the Senate is that Democrats could keep up oversight activities and would have the option to add more articles, which might serve as a check on further attempts to hijack the 2020 election. I don’t find that convincing. The House will fulfill its oversight role as best it can with 100% obstruction from the executive branch, but Trump will continue to be shamelessly corrupt until he leaves office by whatever means.
For me, it boils down to this question: which option would extract maximum political pain from elected Republicans? I’m leaning toward thinking a trial that McConnell & Co. have already announced would be rigged would reflect most poorly on the Republican Party, underscoring that they’re corrupt henchmen for a criminal president. What do you think?
BGinCHI
I think you’re right, Betty. Make the trial a trial of the whole GOP. Drag it out and call attention to every detail.
The GOP hollered for public hearings, witnesses, etc. in the House. Having to answer why that won’t do in the Senate is indefensible.
There’s only one problem with all of this, of course: the spineless American media who are thriving off false equivalence.
We’re gonna need some tumbrels.
Jerzy Russian
I agree with this. I think they should go ahead with the Senate trial. There is a nonzero chance that Trump will do even stupider things that will lose him some small amount support. As it stands now, he is still there and is still a danger, so there is no point in waiting for the trial.
BGinCHI
Adding, from the ever-solid Greg Sargent:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/16/democrats-just-made-strong-case-that-trump-committed-crimes-now-what/
TCS
Impeach but hold articles from the Senate until after the first of the year. Let the public give congress an earful over the holidays.
BGinCHI
Adding this, from the ever-solid Greg Sargent:
Constance Reader
“I’m leaning toward thinking a trial that McConnell & Co. have already announced would be rigged would reflect most poorly on the Republican Party, underscoring that they’re corrupt henchmen for a criminal president. What do you think?”
I think we already know that they are corrupt henchmen for a criminal president and ‘underscoring’ it will not change any voter minds or any votes. A senate trial would guarantee acquittal, it would ensure that any further attempts at impeachment would be shot down by Republicans (and their judges) as a violation of double jeopardy, and it would be a complete waste of taxpayer time and money. Under no circumstances should the Dems/the House hand the GOP these three Howitzers to use during the election.
Baud
Being creative comes off as playing games. Just send impeachment over to the Senate in due course.
feebog
I don’t know, it’s obvious that McTurtle wants this over with sooner rather than later. Ditto Trumpov. There is nothing in the constitution that requires Pelosi to take an immediate vote. But I get the distinct feeling Pelosi wants a trial and vote in January as well, timing it right before the primary season. The problem with holding it as I see it is that the public will lose interest at some point, even if there are additional witnesses and revelations along the way. Better to pull the trigger now and expose Republican hypocrisy while we have the the focus on the process.
Lapassionara
@BGinCHI: I don’t see how the Senate Dems do this if McConnell has total control of the trial. In the present circumstances, I envision a one-day event, with motions to dismiss made and carried.
Then it is over for good, even if the release of his financial records reveals corrupt practices for years.
MattF
I think there should be a long series of compare-and-contrast TV ads, each one focused on a specific R Senator. The dishonesty and hypocrisy are out there and are documented in great detail.
Baud
Also, when can we impeach Cloudfare?
ET
If they go with the impeach but not send to the Senate, the standing reply by everyone, should be
If Mitch McConnell won’t do his job honestly, he shouldn’t be allowed to do it dishonestly.
or the variant:
If Senate Republicans won’t do their job honestly, they shouldn’t be allowed to do it dishonestly.
That should be the mantra of every House and Senate Democrat.
oldster
“For me, it boils down to this question: which option would extract maximum political pain from elected Republicans?”
Exactly the right question.
And to add to it: “which option will allow the maximum number of new investigations into other instances of corruption, crimes, and impeachable offenses?”
We need to communicate to Moscow Mitch and Putin’s Puppet that this is not going to be one and done. Convict on the Ukraine abuse of power or don’t convict: either way the House is going to keep the investigations rolling.
There is no way — no f’ing way — that the Democratic Party should get the subpoena power into its hands and not use it to get the tax returns before the 2020 election. We know that whatever is in those tax returns is so bad that their disclosure is Trump’s #1 fear.
So: more investigations! More lines of enquiry! More hearings! More subpoenas! And get the damned tax returns!
Jay
An issue that is going to come into play, when the Senate votes to acquit, is defeatism.
Toss in an MSM that is at it’s best, bothsiderist, at it’s worst, gleefully complicit, add bots and trolls, vote supression,……
Not a good look for 2020.
Geoboy
@BGinCHI: Doesn’t Uber provide a tumbrel service?
Hungry Joe
Send articles of impeachment to the Senate, and let the rigged trial proceed for all to see. A few more fence-sitters will tumble our way, and that could make all the difference.
I cannot fathom why McConnell and Graham are crowing about running a sham trial when they could just as easily proclaim that they’re going to be fair and open-minded, and THEN run a sham trial … while insisting they’re being fair, of course. What’s the upside of bragging about being a corrupt, in-the-bag stooge?
Jay
@ET:
yup.
BGinCHI
@Lapassionara: The only way is to litigate it beforehand, using the media and any means available to put pressure on the Senate to follow established standards of fairness, rule of law, etc.
I know the GOP doesn’t give a shit about this, but that’s precisely what’s on trial here.
It’s the political part that matters, and that means exposing them to shame. Even if they don’t have any, the Dems must project it onto them.
BGinCHI
@Geoboy: I think they blew through their VC for that one already.
Pitchfork rental from Lowes, though.
MattF
@Hungry Joe:
It’s what Trump (and the R base) want.
Jay
@Geoboy:
Nope, the Dark Web does, but many online Tumbrel services are just bitcoin scams.
https://harpers.org/archive/2020/01/click-here-to-kill-dark-web-hitman/
chris
“Well, Jake, obviously the Democrat Party doesn’t have enough evidence to go to trial in the Senate. Total bul… a complete hoax as we’ve said since the beginning.”
“Hmm, interesting point, Senator.”
“Time we got back to business, selling off the government and oppressing the lower orders, the Merkin people demand it.”
Geo Wilcox
Bottom line, Trump knows that no matter what happens he is guilty. If he is impeached and removed, if he is not impeached due to a sham trial in the Senate or anything in between Trump KNOWS he is guilty. It shows in his every move, his every tweet, and his every rally.
A rigged trial will NOT exonerate him in anyone’s eyes but his moronic cult followers.
Hildebrand
Vote in the House, forward to the Senate in a timely fashion…and then announce that investigations will continue, as Trump continues to commit crimes and impeachable offenses (it is not a matter if he does, but when). Keep Trump paranoid and freaking out, so let it be made known that just because ‘this’ impeachment trial is wrapping up, doesn’t mean that there can’t be another one when the next round of Trump crimes comes to light. By letting him know that they aren’t taking their foot off the gas he may be just rattled enough to lay off the crime-ing.
Then hit him on a daily basis, saying, ‘Trump is too afraid of us to not cheat, so we are going to keep an eye out for his perfidy, and when it occurs, we will bring that to light too.’
Scott P.
@Constance Reader: Double jeopardy applies to criminal trials, not impeachment.
Jay
@Hungry Joe:
Cleeks Law
“”Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today, updated daily.
Brachiator
I don’t know. This could reasonably be seen as abusing the impeachment process for purely partisan purposes. And it would be too easy for the Republicans to play at being aggrieved, claiming that the Democrats were preventing Trump from defending himself or proving his innocence. Of course, they will simply vote not to remove him, and use that to declare him blameless. Or the GOP might find some procedural way to avoid a trial no matter what the House does. This mess is not going to resolve itself cleanly no matter what the House does.
It’s been noted that none of the Senators who voted to absolve Andrew Johnson were ever elected again. The GOP has already crossed whatever political Rubicon exists in deciding to back Trump no matter what. If a majority of voters are not willing to punish the GOP for this, I am not sure what else can be done.
MJS
@Hungry Joe: Because their client, Individual 1, would not understand. So McConnell and Graham saying that they’re keeping an open mind would be taken at face value, and Trump would then target them. Then, when they personally reassured him that they would do whatever he wanted during the trial, he’d announce that via twitter to the whole world. Better to just get it out in the open now.
Jay
@Scott P.:
and Double Jeopardy only applies to the same charges on the same evidence.
new trials can be held on new charges for the same crime, or the discovery of new evidence, if the new charges or evidence are significant and withstand challange.
Joey Maloney
@Hildebrand: Upstage the Senate trial with more investigations? I like it.
Betty Cracker
@Hungry Joe: & @MattF: I think that’s right, but not merely in the usual PR sense — I suspect Trump is demanding public oaths of fealty, even if they ultimately hurt the party, and people like McConnell, Graham, etc., are afraid not to comply. We’re used to Trump’s demented antics, so it hardly registers anymore, but he really has dialed up the lunacy recently. They’re afraid. McConnell’s appearance on Hannity looked like a hostage video.
Ruckus
I see the point of not sending it but there is nothing as best as I can tell stopping the sending the two counts now and continuing to investigate and send more charges a second time.
That might be more effective, especially if it exposes moscow mitch to a much higher focus. If the the senate has a sham trial, which is highly likely, exposing him for a second one might be the ticket and would focus a lot of the public on the very partisan way the senate and executive are being run and how criminal the republican party has become.
Yarrow
Delaying sending the articles to the Senate will make it look like the Democrats are playing politics. That plays right into what the Republicans want. Democrats vs. Republicans. Both sides.
Maybe a short delay would be understandable given the holiday and it may take time to get the paperwork together (or whatever) but not much past January 1st. The articles need to go to the Senate because Democrats understand the issue of impeachment is a serious one and the trial is the next step.
Agree. Too many Americans support impeachment and removal for the Republicans rigging the trial not to have consequences. Also, John Roberts seems to have concerns about his legacy and how he’s seen so perhaps he will not be happy with some of the Republicans antics. I know he’s a Republican but his legacy as Chief Justice is not completely tied to their legacy.
Jay
Kay
I want the Trump people to testify just because they’ll all be horrible witnesses.
As far as I’m concerned the perp confessed. Listening to his low quality hires lie for hours only has one upside- they’re awful people and they’ll behave horribly, which might help the opposition politically.
Rand Careaga
@Hungry Joe:
I think the upside for them is precisely the display of naked what-are-you-gonna-do-about-it power.
Kay
@Jay:
I ask conservatives a different question now- rather than “is that racist”? I ask what would be racist. An example of racist behavior. They’re stumped. Nothing is racist. They can’t give you an example.
Martin
They should hold the trial in the House. They have a choice – try to remove him from office via the Senate, or hold the trial in the House, lose the ability to remove him now, but shape the 2020 election instead. McConnell and Graham have already said the Senate trial is rigged. I don’t see how this is even a debate.
Run a full impeachment trial in the House as it should be run in the Senate. Invite the Chief Justice in. Call the witnesses – let them defy subpoenas with the backing of the Chief Justice. Call Trump as a witness. Let him defy the subpoena with the backing of the Chief Justice. Hold the vote in the House. Find him guilty and refer the matter to the electorate regarding the issue of removal from office.
JoyceH
I’ve been an advocate of “impeach in February, try in March”. Reason is that there is just SO much stuff that is almost within reach and it would be a shame to stop just short of the finish line. The way their lawyers are dropping enticing hints, it sounds like both Bolton and Parnas want to testify so what’s the harm in holding off a little while? Various subpoenas are reaching the end of administration appeals layers as well.
Saying you’re going to have a thorough investigation which will end by x date reminds me of that half-assed sham of an investigation on Kavanaugh. So yeah, vote for the articles but don’t rush about sending them over. Keep investigating while Trump and McConnell stew.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@JoyceH:
I think Bolton wants trump taken down, but doesn’t want his finger prints on it. Same with Romney and probably a few others
debbie
Can’t the House send the Articles to the Senate and continue their oversight? Why has this become an either/or situation?
bemused
@MattF:
There’s no doubt in my mind that the trump base wants to hear every corrupt lie and law breaking method Republicans will use to stop impeachment of trump. It’s what they live for.
jc
Trump, to Dems: You can’t see any evidence or documents or testimony. Take a hike. (what are you going to do about it, liberal scum?)
Trump, to America: There’s nothing to see here. Total exoneration. Move along, everyone.
This is the bottom line that Trump must not be allowed to get away with, IMO.
Jay
@Brachiator:
technically, it’s up to the House completely, after voting on the Articles of Impeachment, when they decide to send them to the Senate.
IMHO, the House should hold the Articles, and “leverage” past and current ReThug statements on Impeachment, to force the Senate hand on the rules and conduct of the trial stage of the Impeachment.
Yurtle wants a half day mock trial/exoneration at the most. Force him, rule by rule into a real trial with full powers and no loopholes, as best is possible, by “shooting down” his proposals with actual ReThug quotes and past rat fuckery and errors.
Eg. The Senate provided Oilly Ollie with limited Immunity for his Senate Testimony. The Courts later ruled that his Limited Immunity, meant that evidence and testimony from the Senate, could not be used as evidence in his Criminal case, and so Ollie waled on the charges of criming and what was in effect, treason.
Dan B
@BGinCHI: I agree with litigating in advance in MSM and social media. If McConnell and Graham get it there will be nothing but a faint whiff of corruption remaining in a few weeks. The public doesn’t understand that Trump has corrupted the rule of law and our security. They have a feeling that he’s not honest but the severity of the problem has sunk in with maybe half of citizens. The message that the GOP is corrupt and dangerous must be repeated as long as possible. It needs to be tied to pocketbook issues like taxes for the average person, threats to healthcare, threats to social security, supression of wages, threats to farming, and threats to science.
We don’t know if Nixon ordered the Watergate break in but the coverup got him. What are McConnell and the GOP hiding? A short trial will mot provide enough time to get the message out there and the House Dems didn’t state that clearly and simply. Delaying for a couple months while pumping out the coverup: “Is the senate covering up crimes?” would be invaluable.
We are being attacked and it won’t stop until the Dems push back with a simple message repeated until it finds its audience and gets traction. The NAZI’S knew this was rule number one, Madison Avenue knows this, Frank Luntz knows this. Dems need to give voice to what the public is feeling. We are at war and the Dems can save the country. People will vote for the strong person when they feel insecure.
Ksmiami
@oldster: I think in this case and in the modern worthless media environment slow blood letting would be more advantageous- I think Trump is seriously decompensating and he’ll get worse
NotMax
From a footnote to history, the opening of which could as well have been penned today.
;)
Heywood J.
The statement that should (but won’t) come from the Democratic leadership:
“We believe firmly, and with good reason, that Individual #1’s tax returns contain a great deal of inculpatory information which would immediately necessitate expanding the current scope of investigation. There are also other current violations, such as the ongoing violations of the Emoluments Clause, which also not only permit, but compel us to pursue to their proper conclusion.
“It should be clear by now that Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation was ended abruptly by AG Barr, on partisan grounds and at the behest of the subject of that investigation; i.e. the aforementioned Individual #1 (Ind. 1). The curtailment of Mr. Mueller’s investigation, and the subsequent summary of the report which provided an analysis that was not consistent with the findings in the actual report, provide additional cause to review the particular process that AG Barr chose to undertake. AG Barr’s selective contempt for the fair and impartial application of the law, as well as for a genuinely democratic process, mirrors that of his employer.
“For these reasons, the HPSCI and the Judiciary Committee, in addition to seeking a hearing on the current two Articles of Impeachment, will establish an ad hoc team to pursue these additional allegations regarding Ind. 1’s clear and established pattern of criminal behavior, rendering Ind. 1 unfit to hold office and open to criminal prosecution.
“This process could be streamlined and clarified greatly if Ind. 1 would simply make public these past tax returns, as he has repeatedly promised to do, and as he has been repeatedly asked to do. It is entirely understandable why Ind. 1 would now be reluctant to make good on that promise; however, it is in the nation’s best interest that he cease further hiding and evasion. It’s only gonna get worse from here, champ.”
Jay
@JoyceH:
House and State subpoenas for financials have been appealed to the Supreme Court, which has scheduled them for docket in May, 2020, so no preliminary hearings until June, 2020.
Many of the House and State subpoenas winding their way through the lower Courts will probably have the same fate.
And we know how much attention most voters pay to the Courts,……
Betty Cracker
@debbie: My understanding is they will continue oversight, but I don’t think anyone believes they’ll do impeachment hearings again (for all kinds of reasons), so there’s a limit to what they can do if they discover further criminality.
tobie
Now you’re talking! Once upon a time I would have argued on principle but now I’m only concerned with what is most effective since the threat to the republic is existential. I don’t think McConnell will allow a fair trial in the Senate in which Democrats can call the witnesses they want to, so my feeling is that the House should not forward articles of impeachment and should continue its investigations in the Intelligence Committee. The hearings were in my view effective because Americans had sympathy for the people testifying.
brantl
I’m leaning toward thinking a trial that McConnell & Co. have already announced would be rigged would reflect most poorly on the Republican Party, underscoring that they’re corrupt henchmen for a criminal president. What do you think?
The only way this looks bad for the Republicans, is if the evidence is presented AGAIN, which it won’t be. Mitch can sit on this like a fat-bottomed duck on an egg.
Jay
For those Jackals on Twitter, Drunky Judge Jean needs some twitter comments about the War on Christmas in her threads,
Jay Noble
I’d been thinking about this for some time and Jennifer Rubin and others have touched on it recently – Senators must take an oath to be impartial. Several have quite publically said they won’t be impartial. Normal jury duty practice would be to send those potential jurors home.
So John Roberts gavels the trial in. At that point the Senate belongs to him and the Senators are just jurors. Then Roberts directs the Sergaent of Arms to remove the following Senators (lists the worst offenders) for already publically violating the oath they just took. Or even wait until the vote to do it when they will have made public statements revealing their bias while they were jurors.
And here is where it gets interesting – And no person shall be convicted
without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present. Roberts could even toss a couple Dems to look fair but that 2/3s gets easier to achieve when you dump McConnel, Graham and a few others.
Or bunch of Repuplican cars could could break down on the way to the vote or they could get locked in a bathroom or . . . That members present thing just intrigues me.
Yarrow
@Kay: Yep. Being racist isn’t a problem for them. Being called racist is the problem for them.
Kay
My youngest is texting me a good (NPR) poll for Sanders. He has a snow day. My son, not Bernie Sanders.
I texted back “UNLIKE YOU, I will support the winner of the primary”
You have to be tough w/Bernistas :)
Next I start referring to him as “comrade” – he hates that!
Chief Oshkosh
There are good arguments made in this thread for moving as fast and possible and, alternatively, holding off. After reading them, I lean towards simply moving forward at the pace dictated by the evidence, the other responsibilities of the House, and the realities of the calendar. Also, I respect Speaker Pelosi’s political instincts and her ethics (I’m lukewarm on her marketing skills, but you can’t have it all). Speaker Pelosi stated that Trump would self-impeach, and by Dog, he did. I think it would be great if she (or Nadler or Schiff or all three) announced right after the vote to impeach that “We are now sending the first two articles of impeachment to the Senate. Our ongoing investigations will determine whether more articles of impeachment will be sent to the Senate.”
To spice it up, I wonder if it would be useful for the House to open an investigation into Rep. Kay Granger (R-Tex.), the House member who went to Russia on July 4th, 2018 with Sen. Johnson and the other Moscow Mules of the Senate. Subpoena minutes of her Moscow meetings and all of her staff. No doubt there will be overlap between her staff’s activities and those of the Senators’ staffs. So, they’d just have to subpoena Senatorial staff, too. Granger’s meeting minutes would of course need to be checked against those of any Senator who attended the same meetings, so those will have to be subpoenaed, too. Any proposed actions in those minutes would, naturally, need to be followed up on. That means subpoenaing staff and documents related to that visit right up to today.
No doubt there’s a fatal flaw (or two or three) in my cunning plan.
tobie
@brantl: Yeah, I don’t think Republicans pay any price for rigging things. It will be reported on the news as follows: Dems complain/whine/moan about the rules, McConnell and the GOP repeat that the rules are fair. What’s hurt the GOP the most are the witnesses not only because of what they’ve said but because Americans hate politicians and seeing Gaetz, Jordan, Stefanik and others attack fact witnesses only made them hate career politicians more.
Jay
@brantl:
for Trumps base, being seen as utterly corrupt henchmen for the Dolt is “the dream”, it’s not a negative, its a positive.
forcing Yurtle to hold a real trial,
a) hammers home the corruption once again,
b) will infuriate the Deplorables and Trump as it will show not only their impotence, but also casts it back on the very ReThug Senators who were unable to rig the process as much as they would like.
the twittershit from the PosUS will include not just Shifty Schiffvand Noxious Nancy, but Spineless Mitch.
Jay Noble
Question. In all of Trumps litigious history, has he ever lied when actually under oath? Well besides when he was sworn in as President.
We know is lied in private, in public and on paperwork but I don’t recall seeinghim ever get charged with perjury.
Baud
@Kay: Excellent. Next, inform him that your will is RIGGED against him.
JPL
@Kay: Ask him why Bernie hasn’t released his medical records, since he promised he would.
Kay
@Jay Noble:
I don’t think they bring enough perjury charges. I’ve only seen two here locally, and one was a whistleblowing police officer who ratted out another police officer to a grand jury, so was phony, IMO. This is over a lot of years!
They need to enforce it. Especially now, what with the lowered standards.
Ladyraxterinok
@Brachiator: That was a totally different world. I think some in South couldn’t vote. Still South had lost after yrs of war, majority of country KNEW they were not in favor of the United Tates ideal of democracy.
MattF
…And that NJ D congressman who is planning to switch parties? All but one of his senior staffers have resigned, according to Politico and the WaPo. Trump, I’m guessing, has promised to endorse him… but sentences with the words ‘Trump’ and ‘promise’ should also include the word ‘asshole’— and I’m not seeing that.
kabiddle
@Constance Reader:
you bring up a very good point — that immunity would become blanket after aquttal in the senate. Republicans are pretty confidant they’ve got this system gamed — after all it’s the higher courts that will decide. The Republican Senate has been very busy.
its always kind of been known that Trump’s impeachment will be decided at the ballot box. To render him basically immune — because that is what he’s striving for here, make no mistake — is to hand over the keys to the kingdom.
Acting with impunity is the role model we’ve learned from this branch of leadership. It’s working. Stalling and obfuscating while trying to clean up their own acts from all that largesse is busy times. There are quite a few people in office who took that oligarky money because it was easy and they’ve now grown beards:)
Jay
@Jay Noble:
Trump has lied in Court and in depositions under oath.
Perjury charges have a distinct bias.
Trump and many, many, many, many other people of “stature”, authority and power have many, many, many times comitted easily proven perjury in Court and never been charged,
even when the acquittal or removal of charges has been due to the demonstrated perjury.
Barry
@Kay: “I ask conservatives a different question now- rather than “is that racist”? I ask what would be racist. An example of racist behavior. They’re stumped. Nothing is racist. They can’t give you an example.”
Black Lives Matter would be their first reaction.
OzarkHillbilly
This times 1,000.
Kay
@JPL:
Are we sure about the medical records release requirement? It starts to get weird. What are we going to do if we get “bad” medical records? Imagine how bad the analysis will be. Remember when Clinton admitted she had a bad cold? They went bonkers.
He has some heart problems. Voters can just roll that in. They have what they need. Life is full of risk.
Jay
@kabiddle:
the Senate can provide limited immunity to a witness that the Courts have ruled applies outside of the Senate. They got burned with Ollie North and so, should never be allowed to do that again.
Acquittal in the Senate on Articles of Impeachment do not provide immunity for criminal charges outside of the Senate, nor does it provide immunity to the House bringing forward the same charges again. There is no legal “Double Jeopardy” in the Senate, there is only political “Double Jeopardy”.
Groucho48
Our argument for delay should be that Republicans don’t believe there is enough evidence to convict, therefore, we are waiting until our subpoenas are honored so we can prove to even them that Trump is guilty.
Jay
@OzarkHillbilly:
for the Deplorables, it’s a badge of honour,
for the MSM, its just bothsiderist politics,
for the low information voter, it’s just a buzzing noise in the background, just not loud enough to be annoying,
so, what’s the downside for ReThugs?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
blinking guy gif
low-tech cyclist
In #2, we’re talking about thousands of cases of child abuse. Can’t believe the Dems haven’t done more with this already in the way of public hearings, establishing who gave what orders, and where in turn those order-givers got their orders from, all the way up to Stephen Miller, and see if he’ll take the fall for The Donald. Establish a record that can be used to prosecute everybody involved, so that once there’s a Dem AG, everyone involved can be thrown in prison for a long time.
Jay
@Kay:
it’s about promises made and not kept.
Bernie said he would release his medical records, and yet hasn’t.
Bernie said he would release his tax records, but really hasn’t.
schrodingers_cat
I trust NP to make the right call. The media’s both-sidery bias helps Rs. So any strategy has to account for that.
marcel proust
@TCS: Impeach but hold articles from the Senate until
after the first of the year. Let the public give congress an earful over the holidays.the end of July so that they either linger over the Republican convention, or if McConnell goes for the no-trial trial, that is the last thing the Senate has done before the convention.OzarkHillbilly
@Jay:
With their base? None. With everybody else? Just try winning an election with 41% of the electorate.
schrodingers_cat
OT: I wrote a blog post about what is happening in India, the Citizenship Amendment Act which passed last week and the protests that have followed after that. I usually try to keep myself out of my India posts but I was not successful with it this time around.
I have sent it to AL and she will FP it but if you have questions leave them on the link I have included here. Now back to impeachment of the Orange Concealer.
Jay
@low-tech cyclist:
#2 is not illegal. The Concentration Camps are legal. The Law is at times, an ass.
the process for moving the Concentration Camps from being legal, to a Crime, and then Impeachable, is something American Exceptionalism will not allow.
Percysowner
I think a tack of “we don’t want the trial being held before the holidays, oh whoops! now it’s election year and look Trump has done X more things that are impeachable, let’s investigate more” might fly. If it doesn’t, the impeachment can be forwarded to the Senate, preferably around the time of the Republican Convention. You know, in order to be really, really fair to Trump and give him a chance to find witnesses that will clear his name and all that.
debbie
@Betty Cracker:
They can publicize it all the way to the polls.
Roger Moore
@Hungry Joe:
They think it’s to their political advantage to be seen as corrupt, in-the-bag stooges. They apparently think it’s more important to please people who want the rest of the government to be Trump sycophants than to court those who want Congress to be an independent branch of government.
Kay
@Jay:
Ok. I get mad with the taxes because ordinary people have to turn over their tax records constantly, but (for example) I thought it was weird how we had to know Obama used a nicotine patch. That’s Jake Tapper territory.
mad citizen
I like these three comments a lot: jc 42, heywood at 47, Groucho48 at71. The Dems should be talking about the subpoenas–more specifically, using the “What is he/what are they hiding?” question over and over and over. It’s one thing I keep coming back to–what’s in there, why can’t we see it, an innocent person doesn’t act this way. Also, not sure why more hasn’t been made of the call readout vs. the mysterious WH server/recorder, and why can’t we have actual transcripts? Thought I saw a news item the other day that trumpov is now going to simply not allow anyone to listen in on his calls. Great.
sdhays
Awhile ago, someone here (sorry, I can’t remember who) pointed out how awesome impeachment is for the Beltway media. All of this news happening right in front of them! They get all of the excitement about being right in the middle of consequential things without any effort at all! Whoever takes away a Senate trial, either the Democrats by being too clever or McConnell because he knows every day that we’re talking about Dump’s crimes is bad for him and his majority, will pay a penalty.
Lindsey Graham is currently within the margin of error with his Democratic opponent, and some of that apparently is voters in South Carolina finding his abdication of responsibility off-putting. I say force the Senate to do something and let the voters judge them on what they do.
JimV
I would like to see more impeachment articles added, e.g. on emoluments, and I’ll bet he has lied under oath to various tribunals (what Clinton was formally impeached for IIRC). However once he is impeached by House vote on any set of articles, that impeachment should be sent to the senate, because that is the way our system is supposed to work. I.e., due process implies speedy trials or at least not delays for political reasons.
But I’m not an expert so I’ll endorse whatever Elizabeth Warren says is fair. (I’m sure someone will ask her, if they haven’t already.)
kabiddle
@OzarkHillbilly:
yeah but it’s giving up the game early. The man has prob 10 lawsuits coming at him for things he did as civilian. This man wants an out.
The Moar You Know
Dems have that option anyway, and frankly should open another inquiry (I think they’ve got enough material) as soon as the Senate lets Fat Bastard off the hook for the currently charged GOP crimes.
Don’t think it matters, if people don’t think that Trump is a 100% sack of lying crap by now nothing’s gonna change their minds.
Martin
Test
sdhays
@The Moar You Know: No one disputes that he’s a lying sack of crap. He barely disputes that himself. The question is whether people care.
Roger Moore
@Yarrow:
It makes them, and their case, look weak. At least that’s how I expect the Republicans to play it: the Democrats are afraid to send the impeachment to the Senate because they know the charges are bogus and won’t stand up to scrutiny. It’s much better to send the charges, fight to have a real trial in the Senate, and then roast the Senators who vote for a sham trial.
Tata
Hopefully, extended investigation would focus on the emoluments criming we see right out in the open. I wondered why that wasn’t included with the articles.
sdhays
What it really comes down to is: what leverage does withholding the articles of impeachment give House Democrats? McConnell really doesn’t want to have a trial, so the Democrats…let him not even have a sham trial?
It’s just not much of a threat. Unless having it hanging out their makes Dump completely lose it – like pulling down his pants during Chopper Talk and taking a dump on the White House lawn on national television.
Jay
@OzarkHillbilly:
Presidential elections are decided by the Electoral Vote, not the Popular Vote.
Roughly 40%, ( sometimes higher, sometimes lower) don’t vote for reasons.*
*A significant, ( the difference between winning and loseing given current electoral conditions) number of the electorate are denied the vote, ( disenfranchisement, supression) or their vote is negated ( gerrymandering, poll “errors”).
*A significant number, (etc) of the electorate have their potential to vote, negated, through inadvertent and organized campaigns selling voter impotence and other forms of ratfucking and disinvestment.
That 59% isn’t 59%.
Keep in mind, polls don’t actually poll voters. At best they poll people who claim to vote or claim they will vote.
Gyms survive off Post Christmas Good Intentions that never translate into habit changes.
PJ
@Constance Reader: There’s no double jeopardy for impeachment. Impeachment is a political remedy, and does not result in a criminal conviction or acquittal. Furthermore, additional impeachments would be for different crimes. Republicans will scream no matter what Democrats do, so let them scream as evidence of new and different crimes is put before the public in open hearings.
CaseyL
The thing the pundits have not been able or willing to grappled with, that the press has not been able or willing to grapple with, is that the Trump Admin and its enablers in Congress are the endpoint of a strategy 20-40 years in the making to remake the country into another Gilded Age oligarchy.
Dems in the House and Senate need to hold daily press conferences, with graphics showing the history and result of GOP treachery, from the Clinton Wars to the present day.
They need to present and press the case that the impeachment fight is a fight for the very existence of a free and sovereign US – because if Trump is still in the WH in 2021, and the GOP is still in charge of the Senate, the US is simply done a a liberal (in the classic, rather than ideological sense) democracy. The US will be an oligarchic state allied with other oligarchic states, like Russia.
Jay
@Roger Moore:
the House is fully within it’s rights to withold sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate,
until the rules of the Senate Impeachment Trial are formalized.
sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate before the Rules of the Trial are formalized, removes any practical leverage the House has in preventing Yurtle from taking attendance, issuing the oath, reading the Articles, then immediately holding a vote on dismissal, which would pass.
O. Felix Culpa
Nancy doesn’t play games. She does strategy. Delaying sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate would be games-playing and rebound negatively against the Democrats. Nancy will continue doing what is best and necessary under the circumstances.
Jay
@sdhays:
holding back the Articles of Impeachment is the only leverage the House has in forcing the Senate to even consider having even the appearance of a real Trial.
Until the Articles of Impeachment are tried in the Senate, they remain. Yurtle has to try to clear them in either this Senate, or the next, and he may not have another Senate.
Yurtle’s trying to hold a trial with no witnesses, no testimony and no evidence for the “prosecution”.
By holding on to the Articles and playing hardball, the House can force as best they can, the Senate to hold a “real trial”, even if the Judge and Jury’s in the bag for the “defendant”.
Jay
@Chief Oshkosh:
“grounds” for an investigation are required when the “suspects” are ReThugs.
Chief Oshkosh
@Groucho48:
That’s an interesting point.
sdhays
@Jay:
I don’t follow this. Are you saying Democrats might wait for 2021, take control of the Senate and then hold a trail? Why would that bother McConnell?
Jay
@O. Felix Culpa:
Nancy is damn good at politics, eg: Impeachment,
“Playing games” part of politics. Thus the Impeachment that never would be, is. The neverending Impeachment in the House, has ended. The lengthy vote sometime next year is over and won.
So Nancy will “play games” with forwarding the Articles of Impeachment to the House, until she gets what she wants from the process, which could be either procedural, ( a real trial for example) or political, ( tarring of the ReThugs), but will be what she believes is best, and she is damned good at it.
Roger Moore
@Jay:
Sure. But at the same time, the Democrats do need to send the articles of impeachment sometime. If they hold them for any length of time, the public will want to know why. At that point, it becomes a set of competing narratives about why the Democrats who were so hot to impeach Trump are now so reluctant to see the impeachment go to trial. The Republican narrative is obvious: the Democrats are afraid to go to trial because they have no case. Unless the Democrats have a good counter-narrative, the Republican version will win. That’s probably worse for the Democrats than a sham trial would be, since they can probably sell people on the idea that a half day trial with no witnesses and no evidence was a sham.
J R in WV
@Constance Reader:
There is no concept of “Double Jeopardy” in Impeachment, nor in court when the charges are different.
Baud
@Jay:
Fixed.
Jay
@sdhays:
if the Democratic Party wins the Senate, there will be a “real trial” and a conviction.
Yurtle is counting on an aquittal to wash the criminal stink off of POSus and the ReThugs and turn the Impeachment into “just partizan politics” for more than just the Deplorables, with the willing help of the MSM.
a “real trial” and conviction doesn’t wash that stink away, and Dotus or no Dotus in 2021, the stink sticks to the ReThugs.
They can’t play the “Bush Two Who? Never Heard of Him Game” in 2021 and forward when Dotus is still lashed to the mast.
in order to win in 2019, Scheer had to deal with is own issues, and Harper, who’s stink was still reeking up the Party more than 4 years later, and he couldn’t do it. Funny thing is, with Scheer bailing under a very Harperist corruption cloud, and all the Harperite vultures circling the leadership position, the Harper stink in the Con’s Party is only getting stronger, and coming back,
like skunk sprayed clothing after a rain.
Philbert
I am embarrassed to say I think Schumer’s gambit is good, pushing the GOP to have a less unfair trial. If McConnell won’t agree, or goes back on an agreement, makes them look worse.
I mention again that the Clinton impeachment did not fail: by sliming the Clintons it got Bush II elected and arguably Trump.
prostratedragon
Goodness, I hope they don’t come this far and now decide to get cute. You know those movie scenes where someone has a gun on someone else, but before either using it or deciding not to, they have this lengthy dialog (or soliloquy) during which the gun is still held up? Think anyone could get a good shot off after even just a couple of minutes of that? Movement is better as long as possible.
Between outstanding matters not addressed in the two articles and materials to be uncovered if those subpoenas finally are fulfilled and what he does tomorrow there will be plenty of ways to keep the pressure on while still moving toward something, even if it’s just toward further knowledge.
Heywood J.
@mad citizen: Thanks. I think we all know these basic truths:
So with all that in mind, time and thoroughness are really on the Democrats’ side. They shouldn’t be afraid to draw it out. As long as they keep digging, they will keep unearthing more and more criminality. Stopping at two articles of impeachment is nuts. Every commenter in here can provide at least a half-dozen more off the top of their head.
But the tax returns really are the Rosetta Stone to all of it. Getting those will simplify the process. We need a Daniel Ellsberg in the IRS to just do the right thing already and leak the damned things.
gvg
@Jay Noble: I think his written answers to Mueller count.
Before he was sworn in, there were stories about how he would say anything in general but under oath stick to the truth even if it contradicted something he said the day before. Then after it was over he would go out and go back to the lies. This used to worry me, but not really anymore. First, he doesn’t seem as bright as he was 20 years ago (relatively) 2nd before he wasn’t President with every American and most foreign reporters watching every move he makes. 3rd, he has told so many lies I don’t think he can keep track. I am not sure he knows what he should lie about or what the truth is. He hasn’t actually learned what the laws are, so of course he has broken them.
terry chay
@Hungry Joe: they can’t not announce it because trump and their supporters demand to be assuaged.
brantl
@Jay: How do you “force him to hold a real trial”? Everything he does in this is a simple majority vote, and he has that, or am I missing something?
Jay
@Roger Moore
The Democratic Strategy should be, negating Mitch and the ReThugs claims with Mitch, Dotus and the ReThugs own words, over and over, until Mitch gives them bent rules,
Which they beat on, over and over with past examples of the bent rules not being rules at all, until they get rules rules.
Mitch having an acquittal vote a minute after the Articles of Impeachment are read, looks bad for the ReThugs but won’t win any votes for the Democratic Party, because it is what it is.
Mitch having the same acquittal vote after a real trial, real evidence, real testimony, while ReThugs smirk and jack off in public, is a worse look for Mitch.
The House hearings swayed opinion against Doltus and the ReThugs because of the contrast, even in the sound bite wars, and if Nancy can force a real trial, it will do so again, even if it will have no impact on acquittal.
It might cause a few more ReThugs to decide to spend more time in 2020 with their
Wives, families, pets, mistress’s, lovers, bdsm Doms, farm animals,lawyers, and cause a few more ReThug Senators to vote “present”, which will notbwin them any primary favours.brantl
How do you “force him to hold a real trial”? He has the majority votes, that’s all he needs for procedural stuff, he can soft shoe this right out the door.
Shalimar
I’m worried about a Merrick Garland situation, where it reflected very poorly on McConnell and was a big deal for the first 4-5 months of 2016 but wasn’t an issue at all in November. Yes, a rigged trial where Democrats don’t even get to present any evidence will look terrible for Republicans, as will the subsequent vote. But will it still matter even a little bit by the time the Democratic Convention rolls around?
BGinCHI
@Dan B: Spot on. Totally agree.
geg6
@Scott P.:
Not to mention, it only applies to the same crime. If he keeps committing impeachable acts, say doing the same thing he did in Ukraine with another country like perhaps El Salvador, then he can be impeached for that and there’s no double jeopardy there, even if it wasn’t impeachment and it actually was a criminal trial.
Jay
@brantl:
the House get’s to appoint the Managers, ( Prosecution) for the Senate Trial,
the House gets to decide, when they want to forward the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Until the Articles of Impeachment are forwarded to the Senate, the Senate can hold no trial.
Under the “norms” of Impeachment, the “rules” of the Impeachment process, ( schedules, time limits, presentation, rebuttal, questioning, immunities, witness lists, testimonies, evidence) are all agreed to before hand.
Yurtle is trying to “break” and game the norms.
So, the House has it’s cards and if well played, rather than caving, can force a “real trial”, with the ReThug clownshow limited to cross examination, exculapatory witnesses, ( Rudy won’t do well) and of course, the Senate vote.
Roger Moore
@Shalimar:
I think it will at the very least make good material for Democratic Senate campaigns, which is very important.
geg6
@kabiddle:
Not a good point at all. There is no double jeopardy in impeachments as far as I can tell. Certainly the Constitution does not mention it. And impeachment isn’t a criminal procedure. And lastly, you can, even in criminal matters, bring charges against a murderer who murders again the exact same way. Or who commits other crimes during either of those murders. I think both of you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what double jeopardy is and what impeachment is.
Bill Arnold
@Rand Careaga:
McConnell has been floating many conflicting approaches to handling an impeachment handed to him by the House, so IMO it’s likely he’s seeking one that will maximize outrage/freakouts/defeatism among liberals and thus (Cleek’s law) maximize the desired “owning the libs” effect. So smart progressive influence operators[0] could use this effect in a multi-level Br’er Rabbit[1] tactic (doesn’t take much, so hard to detect. :-) , whereby progressives freak out about something that will actually maximize their benefit, and the Republicans reflexively decide that This Is Good for them when it is actually Not Good for them. Cleek’s Law makes political billiards a little easier. :-)
[0] This is mainly for any lurking Republican operatives. :-) I might not be entirely serious.
[1] My aunt loved these stories and made sure I read them as instructive tales. This, I did not know: “Folklorists in the late 19th century first documented evidence that the American versions of the stories originated among enslaved West Africans based on connections between Br’er Rabbit and Leuk, a rabbit trickster in Senegalese folklore.”
brantl
@Jay: Trump and everyone in his cabal have broken every rule they touch, you don’t think Moscow Mitch will break all of these? I think you’re being very naive.
Zinsky
Force the Republican vermin to hold a real trial and call real witnesses germane to the impeachment (i.e. not Hunter Biden) or Dems keep the articles open and keep adding to them each week! Hell, we have 18 women who have accused Trump of sexual assault! That’s one count of sexual assault until July of 2020!
kabiddle
@Jay: Full circle. Once Trump is exhonotared by the senate, there isn’t a judgeship willing to take pending suits or counter suits — it’s not going to happen. A Senate acquittal is a walk away.
kabiddle
@geg6: The “blanket immunity” here is one of perception. Is that not any jury? If Trump is aqitted in the Senate it will be next to impossible to convict him in the courts and you know that. We are being told by the pundits to get on with it — shopping season is here. Accountability would have kicked in by now.
Jay
@brantl:
the Rules are Rules, not norms. The House can censure for rule breaking, the Managers can impose,
sure, Yurtle and the Clown Car can try to turn it into a shit show, but the Dem’s can then do that in every Senate Commitee and Sitting going forward, because the Rules are No Longer Rules.
Break too much in the House and Senate and then the “winners” are the ones still standing when the smoke clears. The GrOPer’s arn’t going to start the Civil War by shooting up the Senate.
Right now, the House has the power of “No”. They are not, as so many would have us believe, powerless. And there are things that moral people and people with integrity do, because “It’s the Right Thing” even if they are unsure of winning.
Rolling over and showing your belly is not a “power move”.
Rina99
@Baud:
Agreed. Outside of the major players growing a conscious and telling the truth in public (never gonna happen), we are not going to wring much more benefit from this. The same people currently unmoved by the sight of children in cages are simply rejecting anything that counters their thinking.
Send it them on and let things play out.
Yutsano
@Heywood J.:
Don’t.
Tempt.
Me.
Jay
@kabiddle:
Impeachment is the purvey of the Senate, the Courts have no say,
but I understand, the Senate Acquittal is a forgone conclusion, so why bother bringing Impeachment at all,
the Senate is round filing almost everything coming out of the House, so why are the Representatives bothing to go to work at all?
Dotus is vetoing and EO’ing so why not just let the Facists facist?
why bother, at all?
Quitters never win, dude.
lee
The emoluments lawsuit is still working its way through the courts.
Trump could be the first president to be impeached twice. Once with this set of charges and then again after the emoluments lawsuit.
Jay
@kabiddle:
the Courts have 0 jourisdiction over Impeachment.
Criminal charges can be brought in the Courts.
Lower Courts have ruled against Dotus and there are over 39 court cases against the Dotus, Civil and Criminal, grinding along, plus several Grand Juries and a bunch of National Security investigations.
Two completely different things, comrade.
sdhays
@Jay: Once Dump is out of office, impeachment doesn’t matter any more. And if he is still in office in 2021, we’re fucked. Any strategy regarding impeachment expires in November 2020.
Assuming the voters (at least) remove him, then it will be time for law enforcement to get off its ass and nail the jackass. Congress will be busy with cleaning up mess.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Jay: The House cannot impose rules on the Senate. The Senate operates on it’s own set of rules and that is decided by a majority of the Senate. The only thing that speaks to the process is the Constitution which says only that the House impeaches and the Senate holds the trial. Once the House impeaches, the Senate could hold the trial. If the House impeaches in the morning the Senate could hold the trial that afternoon if the Senate’s rules would permit it(remember rules can be changed by a majority vote in the Senate).
Jay
@?BillinGlendaleCA:
the House sending the Articles of Impeachment are a formal process in the Constitution, and there is no time requirement for the House to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, after being passed, and before starting the formal process of sending the Arcticles. ( yes, it’s been codeified and written down).
there are few “Rules” in the Senate governing Impeachment. There are many “norms”, ( which mean Jack Shit to Yurtle) and lots of past precident for Rules being adopted by the Senate for past Impeachments, ( which again, mean Jack Shit to Yurtle).
there are just shy of a majority of Democratic Party Senators in the Senate, many of whom sit on Commitees.
The Managers for Impeachment, ( the Prosecution) are from the House,
in the past, both the Majority and the Minority in both the House and Senate, negotiated additional Rules, norms and terms under which an Impeachment Hearing was conducted.
it’s not a “Winner Take All, Zero Sum Game” unless the House and the Democratic Party Senators allow it to be one.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/3_1986SenatesImpeachmentRules.pdf
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Jay: There is nothing in the Constitution about “sending articles of impeachment to the Senate”. Article I, Section 2, Number 5 says the House “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment“. Once the House votes, the individual is impeached. Article I, Section 3, Number 6, says “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that enables the House to delay the impeachment process, once they take a vote. The Senate can hold a trial immediately after the House votes, all that is required(in the case of a Presidential impeachment is for them to get the Chief Justice to walk across the street to preside.
J R in WV
@Chief Oshkosh:
What minutes, Товарищ Chief?
J R in WV
@Jay:
Maybe child abuse is legal in Canada, but it isn’t legal here in the Unites States.
Wake up, dude!!
Or don’t, I don’t care, but you’re showing your ignorance here!
J R in WV
@Tata:
I heard on the news just the other day that Trump was meeting with some group at “his hotel” just a few blocks from the White House. Again, a clear violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.
I would like to ask Miss Lindsey under oath how many times he has sworn to uphold the Constitution and defend it from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. And then, under oath, ask him what the hell is wrong with him not defending the Constitution from Trump!!!
Finally ask him if he can’t protect it from a lousy cheap domestic enemy like Trump, how the hell can we expect him to protect the Constitution from Russians, or Chinese, Turks or Afghans?? I would love to hear those answers!
J R in WV
@Jay:
Maybe you should move to the US, and become a citizen here.
That way you could vote, and your vote would count. As opposed to being somewhere else, and just telling us what WE should do~!!~
J R in WV
@Jay:
Actually, a new Senate, and a new house, would mean that the Impeachment articles the OLD House passed would be null and void. They would have to start all over again.
If the Democratic party wins the Senate, i would expect they would win the House, and the White House.
What do you think about whole wheat crust for your pies? Do you think we should use vodka to moisten the crust before rolling it out? Do you prefer pie with a top crust, like apple pie? Or a lattice crust on cherry pie?
What about single crust pie, like pecan, or lemon meringue? How do you mix your crust?
Jay
@J R in WV:
the Concentration Camps are legal.
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944),
if they were illegal, there wouldn’t be 234 Concentration Camps in the US on domestic soil including 121 Concentration Camps just for the children holding over 240,000 refugees as of the end of fiscal 2018.
If they were illegal, they would all have to be sited in Gitmo.
kabiddle
@Jay:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/scotus-cases-on-trumps-finances-are-a-test-of-whether-courts-will-condone-presidential-illegality?ref=home
An aquittal in the Senate will bring blanket immunity to Trump. All other lawsuits will fall apart. To deny this is naive. That is a reliance on the Rule of Law that this whole exercise is about — will it withstand this new attempt to redefine it in ones’ favor? Bill Clinton is still walking around doing what he does and I will say this agiain — thank goodness he isn’t wandering around the White House.
There is an opportunity here that is going to be hard to fill. This current president has basically shat where he sat but for some reason a lot of people like that attitude. It is defiant and has some kind of bedrock anger that just doesn’t see or recognize the essential corruption that is this man.
I didn’t watch “The Apprentice” or Wrestling so didn’t realize the reach of this guy and his “woe is me” schict. He’s pretty new to the list of charlatans in my book and he’s President. That was some fancy PR doing. Also, apparently, a long time on TV.
The evidence-gathering time is still in House Hand it to the Senate and it will be dispatched post haste, just as the Mueller report was done. No on
One thing Mueller did was lay a groundwork for the House and Senate to follow. You either took its conclusions seriously or you didn’t and the “didn’t” persons are getting pretty damn brazen.
This is about immunity for one guy who could prob name a lot of names. Done right out in the light of day. Forever. Now that! was a magic trick.
artem1s
my question exactly. Is McConnell hoping the Dems won’t send it to the Senate? I’m wondering if he’s concerned about keeping the GOP Senate in line over the course of a long trial. I’m wondering if he’s been threatened by members of the GOP that he’d damn well better shut this down before ‘I’ get called in to testify.
artem1s
@mad citizen:
He has no control over whether NatSec listens in on his official calls. If he could have prevented that he already would have. Anyway, I’m sure his private phone has already been hacked. Everyone is listening in on those calls.
artem1s
It got Gore to bail on running on the successes of the Clinton administration. He stupidly rejected the biggest coattails since FDR died because – blow job.
Steeplejack (phone)
@Kay:
Stay strong, Kay!