thought exercise: I know we’re all arguing on the left about when and how to impeach. How do you think this feels to Trump. Either way… drawing it out or actually starting proceedings… they both must be a source of annoyance… wonder which he’d prefer. Obviously he’d love if the whole thing went away but even Pelosi isn’t advocating to drop it…
1 Like
The whole process starts with gathering evidence. Which hasn’t started yet (formally). Impeachment is a shoe-in, if Pelosi gets her caucus behind it. Conviction in the Senate is virtually impossible, but it’s already time to start putting the heat on GOP candidates for Senate on why they don’t support conviction despite overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing.
6 Likes
Not formally, no. Impeachment proceedings have not been started in the House Judiciary committee. To give the investigation teeth, it should be started.
3 Likes
Question is will trump stonewall subpoenas, for himself and or other grifters, under an impeachment inquiry as he has so far?
5 Likes
These… so much both of these.
5 Likes
What are you waiting for, Pelosi? A fucking invitation? Mueller WROTE YOU ONE.
7 Likes
Not saying we shouldn’t vote democrat, that’s not what i’m saying. Pelosi and her ilk have begrudgingly taken up the stances that grassroot dems have been cheered for taking on. So from what i can see Pelosi is an unwilling ally and i don’t fully trust her.
3 Likes
That is obstruction. As laid out in Mueller’s testimony this week, attempting to interfere with an investigation or prosecution is obstruction. Success or failure in the attempt is irrelevant.
7 Likes
Is that a rhetorical question?
Because, yes he will try to stonewall all subpoenas for everything. That’s why settling the current ones is important. Simply moving to formal impeachment as a way to side step existing, just starts over again.
4 Likes
I don’t think Trump has feelings the way non-narcissists do. His mind is a continual flux of subconscious scheming and gaming those around him and the pressures put on him by authorities. The annoyance or rants that he lets fly are show biz props. He has no friends, shows no vulnerability, protects his balls continuously. His family are characters in the exudative story line of his self-reflective world. This person is a bundle of crafty, yet unconscious, impulses - ignorant, nonempathic, incurious, knowledge-bound to the 1950’s, and proud of it.
To Akimbo_NOT below:
Watergate was a real mess, and took a long time - firings, indictments, resignation of a vice president, Robert Bork and the AGs he replaced. The hearings were dramatically interminable. They set up TVs in college buildings and made us watch the hearings. It was like watching a very long Twilight Zone episode. I remember sending a telegram to my congressman saying simply, “Impeach him.” A telegram. The Western Union lady behind the counter was not amused in the least.
https://watergate.info/chronology
Worth a look just for comparison to Trump’s time so far. Nixon was just as sneering, vicious, and dissembling as The Orangista has been. Congress is different now, and the Senate. Barry freakin Goldwater, Mr. Republican who wanted to nuke North Vietnam, went to Nixon and told him he had to resign. You won’t see Mitch McConnell do that.
2 Likes
“There are also important questions about whether impeachment proceedings would produce compliance with congressional subpoenas—by either the executive branch or the courts.”
“The White House’s principal justification for its current stonewalling strategy for ongoing House investigations would not be relevant in the context of impeachment. On April 24, the president told reporters, “We’re fighting all of the subpoenas,” and Cipollone’s May 15 letter supplies various legal arguments in support of this approach. First, the letter relies heavily on the argument that there is no legitimate “legislative purpose” for the request. (Congress’s general investigative powers are derived from its power to legislate.) Whatever the merits of this argument, it would simply not be relevant in the context of impeachment proceedings, because the power to impeach is contained in an entirely separate and discrete section of the U.S. Constitution.”
“Second, the letter argues that even if a legitimate legislative purpose can be articulated, committees have limited authority to explore in detail any particular case of alleged wrongdoing, because Congress does not need such details in order to craft legislative fixes. Again, this would likewise not be relevant in the context of impeachment proceedings. The decision of whether to impeach requires the development of a detailed, backward-looking factual record of specific conduct by the president. While it is of course possible the White House could come up with different theories for stonewalling in the context of impeachment proceedings, these two arguments would fall away, leaving only arguments related to executive privilege to be made before the courts.”
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house
It’s gonna be messy.
5 Likes
I love how everyone espousing this seems to have this faith that 2020 will be a fair election that will magically reflect the will of the majority and everyone will get a free and fair chance to vote.
SPOILER ALERT: it won’t be. 2016 wasn’t, and they have had an additional four years to make things even less so. In the meantime, all that is being signaled is that the law doesn’t matter except for the little people.
12 Likes
Everyone thought the Mueller investigation would be the death knell. I try to be an optimist in life - but not in the arena of politics.
You can convince me of that, but obviously there are other people who would disagree. I mean Barr said, “No Obstruction, no collusion.” and he’s the Attorney General.
If it hasn’t happened by now the best bet it to vote him out in 2020.
2 Likes
Well, we’re already up to 100 in favor and they haven’t even started yet…
2 Likes
- Gathering evidence for impeachment is part of the impeachment process.
- Impeachment is a tactical move for winning the 2020 Senate. Here is a list of the GOP senators in at-risk districts if they have to spend all their campaign time and $ on defending why they didn’t vote for conviction and removal:
- Martha McSally (AZ)
- Cory Gardner (CO)
- David Perdue (GA)
- Susan Collins (ME)
- Thom Tillis (NC)
- Joanie Ernst (IA)
- Mitch McConnel (KY)
- Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS)
- Steve Daines (MT)
- John Cornyn (TX)
- [whoever runs for Pat Roberts’ seat in KS]
- Bill Cassidy (LA) (listed as safe, but has been anti-Trump in past)
7 Likes
FYI that’s “Moscow” Mitch. 
6 Likes
Pelosi: Look, just because President Trump was standing over the body with the still-smoking gun in his hand, saying “I killed him. I told everybody I could, so I did.” doesn’t mean we have enough evidence to start a prosecution. Let’s just hold off until they hand over the security tapes (off course they won’t erase them) and build their defense case, first.
12 Likes
She needs more than 95 of her Dems to be willing to vote to impeach. Oh, she could [maybe] force the issue but then never get cooperation again.
Cause they’re kinda not just getting to it now. I mean this specific suit yeah. But subpoenas for the unredacted report, for testimony from principals, and specific evidence were issued within in days of the report. And Court cases filed within weeks. And that’s continued with contempt rulings, further subpoenas being issued on the regular. All of them intended to get at various types of evidence relating to the Mueller report, the emoluments cases that are currently spooling, Trump’s financials and the investigation into his charitable foundation. The earliest cases congress filed have to do with requesting the courts enforce subpoenas and contempt orders. But the cases rolling out of the multiple civil emoluments cases and the Foundation investigations in NY came before Mueller’s report.
Its been going on all along, rather quietly because the media seems disinterested in covering it. And none of those Congressional suits have cleared just yet, though they don’t seem to be going well for Trump. They’ve switched arguements multiple times like they did in the Census case. But in most of the these suits the Administration is challenging base, constitutional powers of Congress and claiming vastly expanded executive powers and protections. Arguements that very much need to be defeated in court, if only so they can not be raised elsewhere.
They appear to be pacing specific cases out specific ways. If I had to guess this is the major reason, attempting to establish specific court decisions so they can be used to bolster later cases. Basically clearing Trump’s objections so they can actually get at evidence.
As to the infinitely frustrating demand it, write a letter, hold a hearing, subpoena, then file pathway?
These cases are as much about arguing that court intervention is needed as arguing congress has the power to access these things. Demonstrating that and making a tight case for it requires proving you made a good faith effort to do so through existing means and were blocked. Presumably at a certain point the rulings from certain cases can be used to demonstrate that’s fruitless, but all of the early ones are still spooling so there’s no ruling yet.
This doesn’t require magic Nacy Pelosi hero of Westeros to be playing 20 dimensional chess. This just requires the DNC to have lawyers that aren’t fucking idiots. Impeachment might be a political processes, but all of this stuff is purely legal. And their legal strategy /= their political strategy.
It was deeply paranoid and weird. One of them basically argued that any decision not to indict was not a decision and thus illegal to include in the report based on a incredibly literal reading of the law and DOJ regulations. And at least in part on public criticisms of an expired law, rather than anything binding.
But you can get them to not vote. Or split the vote.
Currently it would seem that its unlikely, blue dog and purple state Dems or those in at risk seats seem the most disinterested in impeachment. And we’ve already seen the Joe Manchins of the world rat fuck critical checks on Trump.
Pelosi could likely whip the votes for it, at the cost of further pissing off that wing of the party.
I think he’s entirely genuine about believing its a vast conspiracy and dictated on personal grounds. Trump is not a big one for reality. And he seems to have no capacity for considering consequences might reach him.
There is zero reason to believe he wouldn’t. He’d simply move from attacking congress’ investigative powers in court to undermining impeachment itself with bonkers legal arguments and frequently “wait that’s not our argument” change ups like with everything else.
And they’ve been failing. The 2018 midterms sat a bunch of civil rights judges on state supreme courts, passed a bunch of ballot initiatives and state constitutional amendments requiring fair redistricting and banning voter ID laws. Numerous voting rights cases have gone against them, often in state courts, based on state law. Where Trump appointed judges can not countermand them. There were a couple of restrictions passed in some states, and a few federal cases lost. But on balance more states will be operating on a fairer baseline than at any point in years.
To say nothing of the additional state governments that are newly DNC controlled, or where they have much more influence and the recent acquisition of Hofeller’s files about GOP vote manipulation.
6 Likes
9 Likes
