The Trump Impeachment Thread

[Zaxxon]

Can we just take a moment to revel in the absurdity that the jurors assigned to a trial are openly planning said trial with the defendant?

I know the Republicans recently love the word 'sham,' so maybe they wanted to make sure they could apply it to their own work?

[LawBeefaroni]

Watching the vote.

Tangential notes:
Roby had a kid on her lap and the first vote, the camera freaked out and panned off him. The second time they showed him.

Gohmert strikes me as an asshole. He voted "no", they recorded no. But he had to go and showboat and demand that they read it back to him again. "I wanted to be sure."

[Smoove_B]

It's going to be party-line votes top to bottom, though I'm half expecting a few (D) members of Congress to break right at some point. But the (R)? They're a cancer.

[El Guapo]

It's going to be party-line votes top to bottom, though I'm half expecting a few (D) members of Congress to break right at some point. But the (R)? They're a cancer.

Yeah, that's the shame of it. There will probably be a few Democratic defections from Ds in pretty red districts. Amash is clearly going to vote for impeachment, but it's plausible (maybe even likely?) that he'll be the only R to vote yes. I'd be very surprised if the number of R defections was greater than, or even close to, the D defections.

Going to pass, but it's pretty clear that the Republican Party as a whole has failed its test.

[Remus West]

It's going to be party-line votes top to bottom, though I'm half expecting a few (D) members of Congress to break right at some point. But the (R)? They're a cancer.

Yeah, that's the shame of it. There will probably be a few Democratic defections from Ds in pretty red districts. Amash is clearly going to vote for impeachment, but it's plausible (maybe even likely?) that he'll be the only R to vote yes. I'd be very surprised if the number of R defections was greater than, or even close to, the D defections.

Going to pass, but it's pretty clear that the Republican Party as a whole has failed its test.

Amash is no longer a Republican. He is officially Ind.

[malchior]

It is hard to look at this situation. Very hard. The President has openly flouted the law and lied since before he was the President. Yet many don't care. We have a Senate Majority leader who has been effectively abusing his power for years and now went on Hannity and bragged about how he'll rig the trial and *also* took credit for gaming the judicial system. Yet many don't care. It's over folks. We've slid into the abyss.

[Holman]

It's going to be party-line votes top to bottom, though I'm half expecting a few (D) members of Congress to break right at some point. But the (R)? They're a cancer.

I wonder if there might be some surprises. 22 House Republicans are retiring in 2020 without declaring candidacy for another office. That's high.

I'm sure some of them are calculating that they can ride their GOP cred into a right-wing consulting group or whatever, but it wouldn't surprise me if there weren't, among almost two dozen lawmakers, a few intelligent people willing to stand up for the evidence against Trump rather than for the cult they're leaving behind.

[malchior]

It's going to be party-line votes top to bottom, though I'm half expecting a few (D) members of Congress to break right at some point. But the (R)? They're a cancer.

I wonder if there might be some surprises. 22 House Republicans are retiring in 2020 without declaring candidacy for another office. That's high.

I'm sure some of them are calculating that they can ride their GOP cred into a right-wing consulting group or whatever, but it wouldn't surprise me if there weren't, among almost two dozen lawmakers, a few intelligent people willing to stand up for the evidence against Trump rather than for the cult they're leaving behind.

I just saw a stat that there were 244 House GOP members in 2017. Since then 43% of them are out of office or have announced they will not run again. One part of it is the blue wave, another part is people hating to be in the minority and realizing there is almost no chance they won't be, and another is that the party is turning over and being coopted by Trump loyalists. I don't have any reason to believe any of the retiring members beyond Amash are going to stand up. There are too many rewards for loyalty.

[Isgrimnur]

Van Drew is playing the lack of conviction makes it pointless card. In reality, he barely won his seat in rural south Jersey. Still he is a chicken shit and I expect he'll flip at some point to an outright R because he just jumped on an ice sheet and paddled himself into the sea.

What are the next set of lotto numbers?

NYT

Representative Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, a moderate Democrat who is among his party’s staunchest opponents of impeaching President Trump, told aides on Saturday that he is planning to switch parties and declare himself a Republican as soon as next week, just as the House is casting its historic votes on articles of impeachment.

At a White House meeting on Friday, Mr. Van Drew sought Mr. Trump’s blessing for the move, which could be critical to his ability to avoid a primary challenge next year, and the president urged him to make the jump, according to two Democrats and one Republican who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the talks were intended to be private.

[Isgrimnur]

Newsweek

South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham once again dismissed the House Judiciary Committee's approval of two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, saying he wants to be clear he's "not trying to be a fair juror."

Graham, who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a staunch supporter of the president, told CNN International in Qatar Saturday he has no intention of hearing any part of the impeachment trial in the Senate.

The GOP senator said "I have made up my mind" already, despite the fact the House of Representatives has not yet voted on the floor to send the two articles of impeachment against Trump to the upper chamber -- abuse of power and obstruction of Congress -- which will occur next week.

"This thing will come to the Senate, and it will die quickly, and I will do everything I can to make it die quickly," Graham said Saturday during an interview at the Doha Forum in Qatar. He added that the impeachment process should end "for the good of the country. I think the best thing for America to do is get this behind us."

The South Carolina Republican rebuked the suggestion it is inappropriate to already have formed an opinion about the impeachment evidence and trial before it has even started.

"I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I'm not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here," Graham said. "What I see coming, happening today is just a partisan nonsense."

[Kraken]

Y'know which GOP trope I'm most sick of reading? That impeachment overturns the last election. No. Democrats don't take over the White House, Mike Pence does. There will still be an illegitimate incompetent in charge, most likely taking direction from the criminal who was removed.

[malchior]

A fantastic idea by John Dean! Details below but to sum it up the Dems should impeach but *not send it the the Senate*. Instead they should let the pending Supreme Court case play out and keep investigating. They can add more articles if they need to and can keep it in reserve. There are problems with the idea too but it is sort of academic because the Dems will not do it. They are too inflexible as the story describes to adopt it.

The Inquirer

[YellowKing]

They know good and well their arguments don't make a lick of sense. All they need to do is keep sowing bullshit among the dumbasses that will believe it.

[malchior]

Van Drew is playing the lack of conviction makes it pointless card. In reality, he barely won his seat in rural south Jersey. Still he is a chicken shit and I expect he'll flip at some point to an outright R because he just jumped on an ice sheet and paddled himself into the sea.

What are the next set of lotto numbers?

NYT

Representative Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, a moderate Democrat who is among his party’s staunchest opponents of impeaching President Trump, told aides on Saturday that he is planning to switch parties and declare himself a Republican as soon as next week, just as the House is casting its historic votes on articles of impeachment.

At a White House meeting on Friday, Mr. Van Drew sought Mr. Trump’s blessing for the move, which could be critical to his ability to avoid a primary challenge next year, and the president urged him to make the jump, according to two Democrats and one Republican who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the talks were intended to be private.

Hah. Nice to get a prediction like this squared. I'm not surprised because I read about him and saw video. My read was he was a spineless power seeker. Looks like I hit the mark.

I dont see that seat surviving as a Republican enclave if he does that post redistricting. They'll probably dunk it not as a gerrymander but as a eff you to him.

[Zaxxon]

[malchior]

Not a big surprise. Most of the staff will be (semi-)idealists and kids at the beginning of their careers who were given advice by nearly everyone they respected to pull the handle.

In other news, Schumer is apparently playing one of his cards and endorsing the John Dean strategy. It still is Pelosi's call but it is despite the potential problems a seemingly solid political decision. You still have impeached him, still point out the partisan Senate response, and still get to go to court saying that the inquiry is still continuing as they work on compelling production of witnesses and evidence. A solid play.

[Alefroth]

A fantastic idea by John Dean! Details below but to sum it up the Dems should impeach but *not send it the the Senate*. Instead they should let the pending Supreme Court case play out and keep investigating. They can add more articles if they need to and can keep it in reserve. There are problems with the idea too but it is sort of academic because the Dems will not do it. They are too inflexible as the story describes to adopt it.

The Inquirer

Is there any way the Senate could take it up themselves?

[malchior]

I was think about that too. Nothing stops an unrepentant McConnell from taking up an acquittal vote saying the Constitution says nothing about 'transmission' of the bill. That said I haven't heard anyone with a background argue that is possible but McConnell lives outside the box all the time.

[El Guapo]

A fantastic idea by John Dean! Details below but to sum it up the Dems should impeach but *not send it the the Senate*. Instead they should let the pending Supreme Court case play out and keep investigating. They can add more articles if they need to and can keep it in reserve. There are problems with the idea too but it is sort of academic because the Dems will not do it. They are too inflexible as the story describes to adopt it.

The Inquirer

Is there any way the Senate could take it up themselves?

I really don't get the value of the John Dean maneuver. Republicans will easily message this (if they can even do it) as "the Democrats understand that this whole impeachment thing is nakedly political and without evidence, so much so that they're not actually willing to go to a trial with what they have." I get that impeachment is (and pretty much always has been) doomed in the Senate, but still seems like the better play is to fight for a fair trial in the Senate. Maybe Roberts turns out to be an ally in that regard (and the potential reward of having Roberts support compelled witness testimony in the Senate is high). If you get a decent trial, you message that. If you don't, you message "McConnell is burying this trial because he's afraid of the truth". Meanwhile I don't know how the hell you message "yes we impeached the President but we're not sending it to the Senate".

[Remus West]

A fantastic idea by John Dean! Details below but to sum it up the Dems should impeach but *not send it the the Senate*. Instead they should let the pending Supreme Court case play out and keep investigating. They can add more articles if they need to and can keep it in reserve. There are problems with the idea too but it is sort of academic because the Dems will not do it. They are too inflexible as the story describes to adopt it.

The Inquirer

Is there any way the Senate could take it up themselves?

I really don't get the value of the John Dean maneuver. Republicans will easily message this (if they can even do it) as "the Democrats understand that this whole impeachment thing is nakedly political and without evidence, so much so that they're not actually willing to go to a trial with what they have." I get that impeachment is (and pretty much always has been) doomed in the Senate, but still seems like the better play is to fight for a fair trial in the Senate. Maybe Roberts turns out to be an ally in that regard (and the potential reward of having Roberts support compelled witness testimony in the Senate is high). If you get a decent trial, you message that. If you don't, you message "McConnell is burying this trial because he's afraid of the truth". Meanwhile I don't know how the hell you message "yes we impeached the President but we're not sending it to the Senate".

yes we impeached the President but we're not sending it to the Senate until such a time as the multiple inquiries into all of his crimes have been completed.

[El Guapo]

A fantastic idea by John Dean! Details below but to sum it up the Dems should impeach but *not send it the the Senate*. Instead they should let the pending Supreme Court case play out and keep investigating. They can add more articles if they need to and can keep it in reserve. There are problems with the idea too but it is sort of academic because the Dems will not do it. They are too inflexible as the story describes to adopt it.

The Inquirer

Is there any way the Senate could take it up themselves?

I really don't get the value of the John Dean maneuver. Republicans will easily message this (if they can even do it) as "the Democrats understand that this whole impeachment thing is nakedly political and without evidence, so much so that they're not actually willing to go to a trial with what they have." I get that impeachment is (and pretty much always has been) doomed in the Senate, but still seems like the better play is to fight for a fair trial in the Senate. Maybe Roberts turns out to be an ally in that regard (and the potential reward of having Roberts support compelled witness testimony in the Senate is high). If you get a decent trial, you message that. If you don't, you message "McConnell is burying this trial because he's afraid of the truth". Meanwhile I don't know how the hell you message "yes we impeached the President but we're not sending it to the Senate".

yes we impeached the President but we're not sending it to the Senate until such a time as the multiple inquiries into all of his crimes have been completed.

But then the obvious question is why you're impeaching him now. What does it even mean to impeach someone and then keep investigating the same topic and not put him on trial?

Also, putting Trump on trial doesn't mean that you have to stop investigating, nor that you can't impeach him twice. Put him on trial for the Ukrainian stuff, which is sufficiently well developed (slash admitted to) and keep investigating on everything else.

[GungHo]

A fantastic idea by John Dean! Details below but to sum it up the Dems should impeach but *not send it the the Senate*. Instead they should let the pending Supreme Court case play out and keep investigating. They can add more articles if they need to and can keep it in reserve. There are problems with the idea too but it is sort of academic because the Dems will not do it. They are too inflexible as the story describes to adopt it.

The Inquirer

Is there any way the Senate could take it up themselves?

I really don't get the value of the John Dean maneuver. Republicans will easily message this (if they can even do it) as "the Democrats understand that this whole impeachment thing is nakedly political and without evidence, so much so that they're not actually willing to go to a trial with what they have." I get that impeachment is (and pretty much always has been) doomed in the Senate, but still seems like the better play is to fight for a fair trial in the Senate. Maybe Roberts turns out to be an ally in that regard (and the potential reward of having Roberts support compelled witness testimony in the Senate is high). If you get a decent trial, you message that. If you don't, you message "McConnell is burying this trial because he's afraid of the truth". Meanwhile I don't know how the hell you message "yes we impeached the President but we're not sending it to the Senate".

yes we impeached the President but we're not sending it to the Senate until such a time as the multiple inquiries into all of his crimes have been completed.

But then the obvious question is why you're impeaching him now. What does it even mean to impeach someone and then keep investigating the same topic and not put him on trial?

Also, putting Trump on trial doesn't mean that you have to stop investigating, nor that you can't impeach him twice. Put him on trial for the Ukrainian stuff, which is sufficiently well developed (slash admitted to) and keep investigating on everything else.

Not being flippant, but nothing needs to actually make sense anymore. You just say that you've impeached him for these 2 articles and that there are further articles coming. And you continue to investigate and go to court to get compel witness testimony etc etc. You keep impeachment and the presidents crimes at the forefront of the news and you paralyze Washington until (God willing) you get a blue wave that takes the president out. If that doesn't happen then you're SOL and it's time to move. But it's McConnell's playbook on the SCOTUS nomination. Delay delay delay until you win or the voters send u home

[Remus West]

What Gungho said. A trial gives him something he can claim (and the public will accept) as a victory when the Senate refuses to convict in spite of overwhelming evidence.

[malchior]

The value of the John Dean approach is to use it for a couple possible reasons: one would be you say that they are holding it until there is a fair trial and two it buys time for the SCOTUS decisions on Mazars et al.

If SCOTUS rules for Trump we are Hungary anyway so it doesn't matter. If he loses then hurray tons of discovery. All of this obviously depends on them being able to message it so it is probably doomed to fail because the true weakness of Dean's plan and most of their plans absent Schiff is their continuing political incompetence.

[Unagi]

Curious why you used Hungary ?
(Asked out of an ignorance of Hungary being a good example for this )

[stessier]

Curious why you used Hungary ?
(Asked out of an ignorance of Hungary being a good example for this )

I think it's because of things like this.

Dec 12, 2018
BUDAPEST — Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary tightened his grip on power on Wednesday, as the Hungarian Parliament, controlled by Mr. Orban’s far-right party, approved the creation of a parallel court system that cements executive control over the judiciary.

Once the new system begins operating within the next 12 months, Mr. Orban’s justice minister will control the hiring and promotion of its judges, who will have jurisdiction over cases relating to “public administration” — including politically sensitive matters like electoral law, corruption and the right to protest.

Hungary’s existing judiciary, which already faces significant meddling by Mr. Orban’s government, will continue to work — but with a reduced mandate, and with no oversight of the parallel court system, known as the administrative courts.

Civil rights watchdogs see the move as the latest erosion of democratic institutions under Mr. Orban, who since entering office in 2010 has created a blueprint for backsliding from the liberal democracy that took hold in Eastern Europe in the 1990s. His example has been followed in democracies like Poland, and has won admirers among a generation of populist figures in France, Italy, the Netherlands and the United States.

[El Guapo]

Yeah, Orban has successfully turned Hungary from a democracy to a dictatorship. Could also use Poland, as that's now 90% done. Or Erdogan in Turkey.

[El Guapo]

What Gungho said. A trial gives him something he can claim (and the public will accept) as a victory when the Senate refuses to convict in spite of overwhelming evidence.

Not sending it to the Senate is something he can declare victory on as well. "They are scared to have a trial because they know I'm innocent". The public would probably accept that too.

[Remus West]

What Gungho said. A trial gives him something he can claim (and the public will accept) as a victory when the Senate refuses to convict in spite of overwhelming evidence.

Not sending it to the Senate is something he can declare victory on as well. "They are scared to have a trial because they know I'm innocent". The public would probably accept that too.

Selling a perceived victory (they don't want to try me) is marginally harder than selling a true victory (I've been aquitted). I agree that both will be perceived by his followers as victory regardless though.

[LordMortis]

I don't know the right answer but my barometer is that reasonable (aka not Trump, Jesus, and Guns against corrupt socialist thieves) can be swayed into seeing not sending the trial to the Senate as move in political corruption. You had/have the goods/the case or you don't. Playing political games is a gamble that I believe will lose. Who the President is, what he did, and who support him will be drowned by "delayed to fabricate a message in political gamesmanship"

I've always supported impeachment but I've supported that you do it right or not at all. What I believe isn't a test for what we do in a nation of laws. I only imagine how "undecideds" see it.

[Octavious]

What Gungho said. A trial gives him something he can claim (and the public will accept) as a victory when the Senate refuses to convict in spite of overwhelming evidence.

Not sending it to the Senate is something he can declare victory on as well. "They are scared to have a trial because they know I'm innocent". The public would probably accept that too.

I think they should drag it out trying to get more people to talk. Sending it to the senate will just get it shot down instantly and Trump will run victory circles. I think that's way more damaging than taking their time and not sending it over.

[Remus West]

I don't know the right answer but my barometer is that reasonable (aka not Trump, Jesus, and Guns against corrupt socialist thieves) can be swayed into seeing not sending the trial to the Senate as move in political corruption. You had/have the goods/the case or you don't. Playing political games is a gamble that I believe will lose. Who the President is, what he did, and who support him will be drowned by "delayed to fabricate a message in political gamesmanship"

I've always supported impeachment but I've supported that you do it right or not at all. What I believe isn't a test for what we do in a nation of laws. I only imagine how "undecideds" see it.

If the Senate were not openly proclaiming their adoration of tRump and already proclaiming his innocence and how little they care to do their jobs I'd agree with you.

[Holman]

President Big Baby sent Pelosi a six-page letter whining about impeachment.

It's generally grammatical, so you can tell his lawyers drafted it, but it's clear that Trump insisted on tone and phrasing.

[Octavious]

His approval rating is spiking up not down. We're doomed to deal with this asshole through 2024.

[Skinypupy]

I especially love the part about being denied "due process". Especially when you consider that every single person who has been requested to come before the committee and defend Trump's actions under oath has either declined or been told - BY HIM - not to do so.

Yet the rubes will eat this letter up as a show of his "strength" (for some goddamn reason) and continue to bleat their unwavering approval and support. As always, I have no idea how we come back from this.

[hepcat]

His approval rating is spiking up not down. We're doomed to deal with this asshole through 2024.

Yup.

[LawBeefaroni]

His approval rating is spiking up not down. We're doomed to deal with this asshole through 2024.

Yup.

Aww, come on. Putin will be in office by 2024.

[hepcat]

If we're lucky, 2021.

[malchior]

President Big Baby sent Pelosi a six-page letter whining about impeachment.

It's generally grammatical, so you can tell his lawyers drafted it, but it's clear that Trump insisted on tone and phrasing.

Its not just whining. He is claiming powers here. This is him beating at the foundations of our nation. The danger is beyond extreme right now. His man is openly pursuing the same conduct that the impeachment addresses. If he is unleashed this system will fall.

Edit: Surprise - guess who was involved in drafting this attack on democracy. Bannon lite - now with less hair, less scruples, and more racism!

[Smoove_B]

No worries. Mitch McConnell is still following the guidance of the White House lawyers on all this. Whatever they say, he'll do. Because that's how this all works apparently.

Look, I know there was zero chance of the Senate actually voting to to impeach Trump, but they're not even trying to hide it any more. Nothing matters. Rudy continuing to commit crimes? Doesn't matter. Trump bleating about his innocence in a 6 page crazy person manifesto? Doesn't matter. Nunes sitting on a committee that's tasked with verifying the validity of crimes Nunes is seemingly involved with? Doesn't matter. I'm pretty confident it's going to continue to get worse.