Thanks for saving me having to look it up. My rep was a holdout until now since we are a red state, I’m happy to see she did the right thing. I was worried she was one of the two.
One Dem didn’t vote. So, you better check.
You’re under estimating how little attention some people pay to the news, current events, and especially politics. I know some people who have opinions about Trump but no clue what’s going on.
Some people might think it will energize his base, or that it’s too close to the election, or sets a precedent that Republicans will exploit.
I’m not one of those people, but I felt very conflicted about impeachment before the Ukraine call came to light. One of my biggest concerns about Trump from the beginning has been how much he would damage our democracy in irremediable ways. I think a president should be impeachable for gross incompetence or gross unfitness for office, but I think impeachment sort of presupposes that coming to light after the election. So, on the one hand, I thought he was essentially impeachable from the day of his inauguration, but also that it would drastically break our system of government to do so. (Largely because the narrative would be that Democrats just wanted to undo the results of the election – which would be true, but it would be because the result of the election was to elect a person supremely unfit for office). I thought firing Comey plus the results of the Mueller investigation would provide specific enough grounds, but the politics and the narrative didn’t wind up working.
But the Ukraine call is so specific, so clear, and such an easy concept to grasp, that I think impeachment is worth the risks that come with it. Others might weigh the risks differently. Or see impeachment differently.
I’m pretty much with you. I thought the Mueller investigation took too long and made little attempt to knock down the barriers being thrown in its path. Then the report was too long and too lawyerly for the common guy to grasp. To move the masses, you need a smoking gun. The Ukraine scandal is the smoking gun. It’s much easier for the average guy to wrap his brain around and the witnesses are going to be compelling and convincing.
I don’t fret that the possible acquittal by the Senate will gain DJT any supporters who aren’t already in his camp, unless the vote to acquit is bipartisan. If anything, acquittal votes are going to hang like millstones around the necks of Republicans.
Trump “commiting felony bribery” as he funds GOP senators ahead of impeachment. How on Earth is this legal?
ETAsk: does this administration have any ethics lawyers? I know they literally cancelled ethics training after the inauguration. Is there an ethics lawyer?
I have little doubt that it’s an ethics violation. But there are some high hurdles around making a case that campaign contributions, as opposed to direct payments, are bribes. Among other things, it brings us back to that phrase, “quid pro quo,” which must be expressed.
This thread has been riveting. Really, one of the best threads I’ve read and I’ve read many. Even the hijacks have been kept way down. It has been enjoyable and appreciated.
Your posts, in particular have stood out to me. They’re always timely and informative, often entertaining and sometimes downright funny. 
Thank you from a grateful lurker. Well, mostly lurker.
Personally, I think that the Democrats should have impeached Trump for everything that he has done which is impeachable.
They’ve completely ignored the Trump Foundation, the campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice, giving subordinates illegal orders, etc. They should have forced the GOP in the Senate to vote that slam-dunk evidence of criminal activity is, somehow, not a crime and kept forcing them to do it every month for every new thing for two years straight.
Wear the public’s willingness to defend Trump down. That the Democrats keep overlooking criminal and corrupt activity just makes it seem like it was all a conspiracy theory even when we’re talking about stuff that’s already been through court and put people into jail. That’s insane. It just helps to insulate Trump from accusations of criminality since people keep pointing stuff out and then no one does anything about it.
I was thinking of a “catch-all clause” in addition to the main ones.
- Ukraine
- Obstruction
- The following 158 acts which taken separately might simply be troubling, but taken together establish the President is fundamentally unfit for office.
From <checks watch> Tuesday:
Today:
Translation: I give up.
And I think that, again, would be a way that Trump would irretrievably break our democracy. I’m not saying it would be wrong in principle. But I also don’t think it would “wear the public’s willingness to defend Trump down.” On the contrary, I think it would make the public stop paying any attention to alarms being raised about his actions, and the public would let Republicans do the same thing to a Democratic president, no matter how competent and ethical.
ETA: I think a general article of impeachment for unfitness, citing specific evidence, may not be a bad idea.
I hope you are right, but I’m starting to get worried. More and more damning evidence has been coming out on almost a daily basis, and the public opinion needle doesn’t seem to be moving. Hopefully the hearings will draw more people’s attention, but I don’t know that we’re going to find out anything that will come as a huge surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention up to now.
Well, of course Mr. Trump has utilized his brilliant executive leadership skills to build a highly organized and professional political machine capable of recruiting and assisting high-quality candidates. Oh, wait.
Prosecutors on TV shows (which is where all my legal knowledge comes from) often introduce a bunch of evidence unrelated to the charges to establish the character and behavior patterns of the accused. Is that a real thing? And if so, can the Dems present all the Mueller stuff, etc, as such evidence – even if the only actual charges relate to Ukraine and obstruction?
I know none of that will sway GOP senators if Mitch tells them to acquit, but it might convince a few hundred thousand undecided voters that, “Hey, this guy’s *really *a scumbag!”
I can’t speak for TV, but in real courtrooms the use of character evidence is limited by rules like this:
I would guess the rules of evidence don’t apply in an impeachment trial.
Since when is it a trial?
I think the Senate might vote on whether, or which, rules of evidence would apply. I seem to vaguely recall that happening in the Clinton impeachment trial, and I think they may have voted to have Rehnquist rule based on the Federal Rules of Evidence. I can’t look it up right now, though.
In addition to the rule quoted above, there is a rule stating that character evidence is generally inadmissible, but there are exceptions when character is an issue in the trial. That exception is interesting to think about in the impeachment context. If character is considered to be at issue, then it can be proved by both opinion about his character and by specific instances of conduct.
Oddly enough, one other exception to the rule barring character evidence has to do with evidence relating to a witness’s character for honesty. It can only be proved by reputation or opinion evidence – not specific instances. So, if Trump we’re to testify, there could potentially be a bunch of character witnesses talking about his reputation and character for dishonesty.
Since the Constitution.
Wow, the law is weird. So if I’m establishing Trump’s dishonesty …
[ul]
[li]The 10,000+ documented falsehoods he’s spoken or written since taking office are not admissible, but[/li][li]Some random person’s opinion that “Trump is an inveterate liar” is admissible?[/li][/ul]
In relation to the impeachment rules vote, I think that the Democrats are making a mistake to televise this.
Impeachment is like sex with a condom on. Even if you do everything perfectly, the end result is that nothing happens.
The removal trial, in the Senate, is the actual deal.
Previewing material weakens it. People are already moving away from (according to the FiveThirtyEight poll aggregate) pro-impeachment simply because time has passed and counter accusations have had time to flow freely, even as proof has mounted of the crime. There is no proof that cannot be railroaded, given enough lead up time to do so. Parading it around, months in advance, is just a chance to see like you’re doing something - to gain favor with your constituents - while fundamentally screwing the effort to oust Trump.
Schiff is, unfortunately, just the a-hole to try and make it his big moment on the tele.
I have zero hope that he will restrain himself and both he and Pelosi are to blame for failing this game. If the House goes big, they’re playing games for cash, not doing their job.