Well, I actually would disagree with your implication that this argument is illogical, even if I don’t agree with it because I don’t really think the blame lies with Mueller. I would say that the fact that the Republicans showed that they were willing to defend the President at all costs during the Mueller testimony is what emboldened Trump. I do think that the Republicans are complicit in all of Trump’s crimes. Trump is like a toddler who is testing his parents’ limits. I think if the Republicans made it clear that they won’t tolerate lawlessness, it might well rein in Trump (although it is sort of irrelevant because at this point, the only way for them to show they won’t tolerate lawlessness is to support impeachment and convict him in the Senate).
By contrast, Nunes was just totally illogical, essentially saying that the fact that Trump’s phone call occurred the day after Mueller’s testimony was evidence of how the Democrats were just out to impeach Trump at all costs.
I appreciate your anecdotal information. Not wishing to be rude, but… what would your wife consider an impeachable offense, if not this?
I feel compelled to point out that Nixon was on his way to removal from office on the basis of far less egregious conduct than this. At the time, it was shocking – but it was based on a domestic attempted theft of damaging information from the DNC (sound familiar?). The coverup added many more counts of impeachment: Obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, etc.
Clinton was impeached but not removed for lying about a personal, consensual sexual encounter. By today’s standards, the conduct may be gross, and lying to Congress is a serious offense – but at that time, few would have considered it a basis for removal from office. And he wasn’t.
Trump, on the other hand, has demonstrably attempted to cheat us out of another election by secretly extorting a vulnerable foreign nation, an ally, into saying (not actually producing evidence of, mind) they were conducting a non-evidence-based investigation into his chief political rival, via the use of personal henchmen who could not get lawful security clearances if their lives depended on it. And by the way, thereby significantly benefiting his handler, Vladimir Putin in Putin’s quest to conquer Ukraine – fully against our national security interests. Trump has lied about every aspect of the scheme every step of the way. He has failed to comply with lawful subpoenas. He has obstructed justice at every turn. He claims immunity that doesn’t exist. In short, he flips the bird at the rule of law.
I am not a Constitutional scholar or a lawyer, but I’ve paid close attention to many speaking who are. Without exception, all say that if they were teaching a class on impeachable conduct, this would be the black letter case.
I appreciate the hearing fatigue. We’re all suffering from it. But dear god – if this is not impeachable conduct, we may as well just strike the language from the Constitution, because in my opinion, it’s meaningless.
I realize your post was not about this. But your post leaves me in despair, because you’re right.
Republicans like to make rules and laws to enforce on others. They do not like have those laws and rules enforced against them because they realize how out of whack they really are.
Which is going to really suck when a Democrat is elected to the Whitehouse and the first thing she does is to order every single Republican house member locked up. And they themselves are the ones who gave her the power to do so.
There was a brief, shining moment, when it first broke, when it looked like there were cracks at Fox news, and some cracks in the Republican lawmakers, that seemed to show that with this latest behavior, enough was enough. That they would show some honesty and actual shame, and do the right thing.
But with the circling of the Republican wagons it feels like a death march now - a slog through to the end (for there’s no turning back now, I know that), where honest people get angrier and angrier, but have impotent voices in front of a foregone conclusion. And it increases the stakes and panic in that other death march, towards November 2020. Because if we fail punish this level of malfeasance at the ballot box, whelp, that’s the end of meaningful Congressional oversight in favor of authoritarianism, really. And my feelings about 40% of my fellow citizens who continue to support the man grow worse. I hate this feeling, because it’s exactly the way Republicans want me to think, but I find myself saying “maybe the Dems should be doing nothing but health care, health care, health care or something else towards that election, instead of this”.
But boy, I’m still going to say to any pollster who calls that I support the damn thing.
No it’s not
If a Democrat ever gets another blowjob (or a right proper tongue lashing?) in the oval office, then it’s still right and proper that person should be removed via impeachment.
How else are the republicans to hamstring a future blue president if not through the use of investigations into trivial wrong-doings. Remember always that impeachment is a political process and if the red side doesn’t win - then of course the politics are right to impeach
on a more serious note - I read that the original swathe of witnesses have now all testified.
Given the NEW evidence that has emerged, and what has been learned, should / can the inquiry now force those remaining witnesses closest to the president to testify?
And should King Ralph himself have to appear (can he be required to?)
But that won’t happen because, if a Democratic president did do something like that all of the Democratic voters, myself included, would stand up and demand her removal. This is the uneven battle field that Democrats find themselves in. Unlike with the Republicans, lying cheating and stealing will turn away the liberal base. Its the same reason that there isn’t a left wing equivalent of Fox News and talk radio. So one side gets to cheat and the other side doesn’t.
Health care, schmealth care. At the very worst the hearings are completely meaningless, but not a waste of time, because the time can’t be spent on anything better. They could pass health care dozens of times and it won’t even come up for a vote in the Senate, and the GOP would whine “look at that do-nothing House!”
No further moving of goalposts is required. The message is now ‘it doesn’t matter what he does: he’s the President and he can do anything he wants to.’
Trump has good reason to believe that chanting a phrase actually is magic; after all, “no collusion” worked perfectly for him.
I suspect that Kris Kristofferson might have a little something to say about that. He may be 83, but from what I can see, he’s still up and around (and unlikely to be a Trump fan).
So all the media outlets are signaling this is the end of the inquiry…or that is moves to the judiciary comity or something. Is that really it? Trump just obstructed his way through blocking the big-hitting witnesses from testifying? Mulvaney is off the hook, as is Pompeo, The Ghoul, Trump himself–Rick Perry…? Significant documents will not have to be turned over?
That it’s better to wrap this up as soon as possible rather than let the cogs of justice grind on a while?
No chasing Bolton, who is dying to testify under cover of the courts?
I find all this incredibly depressing. I thought the hits just started to land and there were bitter hits to come. Instead, Trump WON? His obstruction worked?
On CNN tonight they posit that Trump will probably pick up some Dem votes (not many, but some. Indicating he flat out won on this deal).
Can you imagine how awful he’s going to be moving forward?
I feel like that other really pessimistic poster on this forum right now, but it feels kind of justified.
Just to expand on my thoughts, I don’t understand why it’s better to be efficient and quick through this process at the sake of sacrificing the true and legal subpoena power of Congress. This is a referendum on authoritarianism–a test of checks and balances against unfettered presidential power to ignore the law, ignore checks and balances, to ignore fundamental pillars of democracy, and apparently it’s worth sacrificing those things* just to go real fast thought the process*.
If it was a referendum on authoritarianism, authoritarianism won. How does this reflect on us as a democracy moving forward?
You can believe the coming election is going to be all about
“Witch hunt, I was found innocent, terrible Democrats trying to subvert democracy!!!”
And Trump is going to win, because the Democrats will nominate someone unelectable.
Trump, in 2021 is going to be able to do anything, ANYthing he wants. Ultimate, uncontrollable power in the hands of a narcissistic, brain damaged traitor.
As I understand it, the House runs the prosecution in the Senate, rather than having some Senator take over the case.
If the Senate was taking it over, fully, I would expect them to do a better job. The House is always patently amateur hour compared to the Senate.
As it is, my expectation is that we’ve seen what they’ve got and they’re just going to do it a third time in front of the Senate. And, as expected, through leaking and public hearings, they’ve ensured that everyone knows everything that there is to know well before the trial actually occurs and that everyone is long-bored of the meat of the issue. By the time there are Senate hearings on the matter, everyone will have long long since moved past it and the trial is liable to simply keep the Senate from Senating with no real hope of going anywhere.
The only mild hope would be that there are enough Senators, on the Republican side, who have decided to cash in their chips and do their job before retiring.
I think that there was an opportunity to win this. But, ultimately, Pelosi didn’t believe that there was a way. Despite that, she was forced to go ahead with impeachment by everyone, and she opted to half-ass it and use it as a fundraising gimmick rather than actually do what was being asked for.
That’s not pessimism, that’s just the read of the players and their actions. I’d have been optimistic if they’d looked like they were working the job for real.
OK. so maybe tell twenty five or so Republican senators that if they vote correctly, the Dems promise not to run a candidate against them. Free pass, one time only.
Soon as they turn their back, pull out the dagger and give them that good old Republican acupuncture. Run a bright, young, articulate, brown, female veteran and say…
Honestly, is it against the law to leak to the press? I don’t know if the whistleblower did, or didn’t, but if so, is it a crime? I’m curious, because we see news reports and read newspaper articles all the time that say something along the lines of, ‘"This outrageous thing happened’, say sources close to the subject under the promise of anonymity, or something to that effect. If leaking to the press was illegal I don’t think anyone would risk it, anonymously or not.
I wouldn’t blame him/her if they DID leak to the press. Following all of the rules and reporting it in the proper channels apparently added up to exactly jack and shit until the press somehow got hold of reports that the complaint existed at all. Only then did the wheels of justice begin to grind slowly.
I’m feeling so disheartened at the moment that the mounds of proof and testimony and evidence haven’t made a dent in the wall of Republican partisanship. If not even one House Republicans can bring themselves to say that this warrants a jury trial in the Senate then this country truly is no longer the America I grew up in and i fear for the future.
One possibly bright note: a lawsuit involving McGahn’s testimony and the lawfulness of congressional subpoenas overriding presidential immunity is due to be decided Monday, and it looks as if Congress is going to be the winner in that fight. If that comes to pass, maybe the investigation committee can finally force Mulvaney, Bolton, Pence, Barr, and all of the others to get their tails into the witness box before this is all over and another rigged election is upon us.