99

I mean we know Mitch McConnell and friends would give him a pass. But it’s beginning to look like Pelosi herself would see it as ‘too divisive for the country.’

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s assertion that impeaching President Trump would not be worth the ensuing political firestorm has split Democrats, upsetting some progressive members and triggering a debate about the threshold for removal from office.

The California Democrat’s comments to The Washington Post came amid an aggressive push by House committees to investigate Trump and his administration — and in the midst of Republican efforts to cast Democrats as obsessed with ousting the president.

If Pelosi’s intent was to push back on suggestions that Democrats were only interested in Trump’s scalp, her words also prompted concern from some in her party who argue that they should not worry about the political ramifications of holding Trump accountable.

Actually my position is twofold: the Democrats shouldn’t make this decision based on political calculus but solely based on the facts with an eye to protecting and upholding the rule of law.

Correct. The Democrats should make the decision to impeach or not to impeach based on one question: did Trump commit high crimes and misdemeanors. Pelosi’s answer-as well as Nadler back in December-seem to suggest even if he did they might decide it’s not ‘politically prudent.’

Having said that I also want to at least highly question the presumption that impeaching Trump would be bad politics. First of all, the zombie idea that you can’t impeach Trump because Bill Clinton has got to go.

Yoni Applebaum discussed the leadership Dems false equivalence obsession with Bill Clinton analogies in his very important think piece on the real reasons and virtue of impeachment-that I really wish Pelosi or someone on her staff would read:

In no small part, this trepidation is due to the fact that the last effort to remove an American president from office ended in political fiasco. When the House impeached Bill Clinton, in 1998, his popularity soared; in the Senate, even some Republicans voted against convicting him of the charges.

Pelosi and her antediluvian leadership team served in Congress during those fights two decades ago, and they seem determined not to repeat their rivals’ mistakes. Polling has shown significant support for impeachment over the course of Trump’s tenure, but the most favorable polls still indicate that it lacks majority support. To move against Trump now, Democrats seem to believe, would only strengthen the president’s hand. Better to wait for public opinion to turn decisively against him and then use impeachment to ratify that view. This is the received wisdom on impeachment, the overlearned lesson of the Clinton years: House Republicans got out ahead of public opinion, and turned a president beset by scandal into a sympathetic figure.

But even here I want to push back on another very widely held canard-that the GOP paid some great price for what was clearly a totally politically motivated perjury trap-everything the GOP says about the Democrats is projection.

True they lost a few Senate seats which was a clear rebuke from the voters. But then they impeached Clinton in the lame duck anyway and went on to win all three Houses in 2000 and hold onto it the next six years-WH, House, Senate-with a little help from Jeb Bush, the Brooks Brothers’ Riots, and the GOP Supreme Court, it’s true which is why it was really a ‘win’  rather than a win for George W. Bush.

Then after only four years in the wilderness they controlled the House for the next eight years. So where exactly did they pay any great price? The trouble with Pelosi is based on what she said yesterday it’s as if her lesson from Clinton is you should never impeach under any circumstances-she declares  ‘I don’t believe in impeachment.’

What theSpeaker needs to explain then is: why is impeachment in the Constitution at all?

I mean if conspiring with a hostile foreign government-in reality multiple foreign governments-isn’t an impeachable offense nothing is. Pelosi’s mistake seems to be that if Clinton’s impeachment was a politically motivated exercise then all impeachment is. What her and her ‘antediluvian leadership team’ don’t seem to get is that Trump isn’t Bill Clinton he’s Richard Nixon.

What Pelosi and friends seem to miss is

1. Clinton was a lot more popular than ‘President Trump.’

2. Impeaching Trump is already a lot more popular than it ever was for Clinton.

FN: Even if you take the NBC number as definitive-35%. But other polls have shown it closer to 50%. Even 35% is more than one in three who want to see him impeached today.

There are just so many zombie ideas out there about impeachment debunking all of them is rather daunting. One really bad idea that Applebaum debunked in his impeachment think piece is that ‘impeachment is a waste of time if the Senate doesn’t remove.’

Congressman Hakeem Jefferies made that-mistaken-argument last night on Ari Melber last night-that it’s a waste of time unless you get Mitch McConnell’s buy in. This is wrong on many levels. For one thing-as Applebaum explains-impeachment is a process not a destination. It’s an impeachment inquiry-the way many folks talk about it they seem to think it’s just a one day vote-to impeach or not to impeach.

Other institutions are already acting as brakes on the Trump presidency. To the president’s vocal frustration, federal judges have repeatedly enjoined his executive orders. Robert Mueller’s investigation has brought convictions of, or plea deals from, key figures in his campaign as well as his administration. Some Democrats are clearly hoping that if they stall for long enough, Mueller will deliver them from Trump, obviating the need to act themselves.

But Congress can’t outsource its responsibilities to federal prosecutors. No one knows when Mueller’s report will arrive, what form it will take, or what it will say. Even if Mueller alleges criminal misconduct on the part of the president, under Justice Department guidelines, a sitting president cannot be indicted. Nor will the host of congressional hearings fulfill that branch’s obligations. The view they will offer of his conduct will be both limited and scattershot, focused on discrete acts. Only by authorizing a dedicated impeachment inquiry can the House begin to assemble disparate allegations into a coherent picture, forcing lawmakers to consider both whether specific charges are true and whether the president’s abuses of his power justify his removal.

Ater the house impeaches a president, the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate to remove him from office. Opponents of impeachment point out that, despite the greater severity of the prospective charges against Trump, there is little reason to believe the Senate is more likely to remove him than it was to remove Clinton. Indeed, the Senate’s Republican majority has shown little will to break with the president—though that may change. The process of impeachment itself is likely to shift public opinion, both by highlighting what’s already known and by bringing new evidence to light. If Trump’s support among Republican voters erodes, his support in the Senate may do the same. One lesson of Richard Nixon’s impeachment is that when legislators conclude a presidency is doomed, they can switch allegiances in the blink of an eye.

But this sort of vote-counting, in any case, misunderstands the point of impeachment. The question of whether impeachment is justified should not be confused with the question of whether it is likely to succeed in removing a president from office. The country will benefit greatly regardless of how the Senate ultimately votes. Even if the impeachment of Donald Trump fails to produce a conviction in the Senate, it can safeguard the constitutional order from a president who seeks to undermine it. The protections of the process alone are formidable.”This is what’s missed. There is a lot of value in impeaching even if you don’t remove him. Listen if the case for impeachment is clear and McConnell gives him a pass run against McConnell and friends in 2020. They will be punished as the GOP was punished in 1974.https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/1105450764535762944Yes I don’t get that at all-unless you can go all the way don’t do anything. Because the Judge-McConnell and friends-is corrupt and partisan you don’t even try to win the case and you abdicate your own responsibility and don’t indict?But as I’ve suggested in other chapters, my goal is less removal than impeachment. There’s this canard that it’s smarter politically to ‘just vote him out in 2020.’https://twitter.com/TreasonHappens/status/1105453124733595649First of all, as noted above, the GOP got routed in 1974 after Nixon resigned. If Trump did actually resign or was removed that would be a huge political benefit for the Democrats. As for the idea ‘Pence is worse’ I assume folks who say this mean ideologically. I don’t know how after two years people still think Trump is ‘a different-somehow better-kind of Republican.’ As we speak he’s now calling for cuts for Medicaid and Medicare. https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1105210047855017989If you find this at all surprising you have been asleep the last two years where he’s actually governed like an ideological Republican on most issues-except worse as he doesn’t respect the rule of law.FN: I guess some ultra leftist types like him getting out of Syria-they just ignore the question of the process how he got to this decision; as well as the fact that it will lead to more rather than less suffering; even Noam Chomsky disagreed with it. They also may hail his ridiculous protectionism. I’m actually a liberal who doesn’t think every trade deal in human history-even Keynes’ GAAT-was a ‘bad trade deal’ and Trump is actually hurting many workers and industries.HA Goodman is so impressed he’s telling the Bernie Bros to vote Trump in 2020.Listen as much as I want to impeach Trump the reason is not because you don’t like his policies. Whatever Pence’s policies would be in a bout 1 month before the election at least he respects the rule of law and our national alliances.But this sort of calculus has no place in this question anyway. But my focus isn’t really removal-again the best of all worlds might well be to impeach him and defeat him. How does that happen? Well as I envision it the Dems wait until late in the game-maybe 11 days before the election-a la the Comey letter and then impeach. McConnell then has to spend the last 11 days taking impeachment questions and wether he thinks the Senate should remove him.https://twitter.com/TreasonHappens/status/1105467417474543616Again impeachment is a process not a one day vote so it will necessarily take time. Look at this moment the Democrats are on a decent track-Nadler has opened what amounts to if not an impeachment inquiry a preimpeachment inquiry.https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1102586173673951232And it’s possible this is what Pelosi is doing-not saying how likely it is but maybe she realizes impeachment is a real possibility at some point-again an inquiry not a one day vote-and so she’s laying the groundwork by for now acting as if she’s opposed. Palmer Report argues this is her game-ie, multi dimensional chess. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has spent the past few months running circles around Donald Trump, in such rapid fashion it’s left his head spinning. We don’t know precisely how their ongoing battles will play out. But it’s such a mismatch, the one thing we know for sure is that Pelosi will win, and Trump will suffer at her hands accordingly. So why on earth would Pelosi stupidly decide to take impeachment off the table yesterday? She wouldn’t.

Even if you take Pelosi’s impeachment comments at face value without reading between the lines, she’s simply saying that there’s no point in impeaching Donald Trump right now, today, because it wouldn’t succeed. She’s right. What’s the point of ringing up Trump on impeachment charges right now, when we all know the Senate wouldn’t come anywhere close to removing him right now?

Ok maybe she’s playing a longer game-and maybe she’s not-but even Palmer falls into the fallacy that impeachment is a failure if you don’t remove. Again it’s not there is a lot of value in impeaching even if he’s never removed-discovery and also-as Applebaum notes putting a major check on his abuse of power.

So again-as this subtle point seems to be totally lost on folks-who keep repeating ‘if the Senate doesn’t convict it’s a waste of time.’

Speaking of which, as bad as Pelosi’s comments potentially were-depending on if you read her as playing multi dimensional chess or just speaking her mind-‘I don’t believe in impeachment’-Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky on Ari Melber last night were worse.

Explain to me why impeaching Trump is a waste of time unless the GOP convicts-effectively given McConnell veto power-but passing health care and gun reform bills that he won’t put on the Senate floor are not a waste of time?

But it gets worse:

I really think the Dem leadership thinks Trump’s approval rating is 62% not 42%-even more popular. He’s not popular. And an impeachment inquiry will make him less popular still maybe even to the level that McConnell and friends to have to consider removal-but again that’s not why you impeach.

Exactly-and the process may well make removal more likely. What Congresswoman Schakowsky fails to understand is that the fact that the impeachment inquiry sucks all the air out of the room is a feature not a bug. It will check Trump’s authoritarian misrule. Trump is a clear and present danger. Pelosi seems to acknowledge this yet rules out impeachment.

So maladministration is an impeachable offense-and there are as many daily examples of Trump’s maladministration as sand on the beach. But what Applebaum points out is the process itself will be a major check on this maladministration.

“The protections of the process alone are formidable. They come in five distinct forms.”

The first is that once an impeachment inquiry begins, the president loses control of the public conversation. Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton each discovered this, much to their chagrin. Johnson, the irascible Tennessee Democrat who succeeded to the presidency in 1865 upon the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, quickly found himself at odds with the Republican Congress. He shattered precedents by delivering a series of inflammatory addresses that dominated the headlines and forced his opponents into a reactive posture. The launching of impeachment inquiries changed that. Day after day, Congress held hearings. Day after day, newspapers splashed the proceedings across their front pages. Instead of focusing on Johnson’s fearmongering, the press turned its attention to the president’s missteps, to the infighting within his administration, and to all the things that congressional investigators believed he had done wrong.

Those who live in mortal fear of Trump’s mean tweets-perhaps much of the Dem leadership?-fail to see that he loses whatever supposed ‘great powers’ he has to change the subject. The MSM will-finally-see what’s happening-rather than Trump’s gaslighting response to what’s happening-as the big story.

“It isn’t just the coverage that changes. When presidents face the prospect of impeachment, they tend to discover a previously unsuspected capacity for restraint and compromise, at least in public. They know that their words can be used against them, so they fume in private. Johnson’s calls for the hanging of his political opponents yielded quickly to promises to defer to their judgment on the key questions of the day. Nixon raged to his aides, but tried to show a different face to the country. “Dignity, command, faith, head high, no fear, build a new spirit,” he told himself. Clinton sent bare-knuckled proxies to the television-news shows, but he and his staff chose their own words carefully.

Trump is easily the most pugilistic president since Johnson; he’s never going to behave with decorous restraint. But if impeachment proceedings begin, his staff will surely redouble its efforts to curtail his tweeting, his lawyers will counsel silence, and his allies on Capitol Hill will beg for whatever civility he can muster. His ability to sidestep scandal by changing the subject—perhaps his greatest political skill—will diminish.

As Trump fights for his political survival, that struggle will overwhelm other concerns. This is the second benefit of impeachment: It paralyzes a wayward president’s ability to advance the undemocratic elements of his agenda. Some of Trump’s policies are popular, and others are widely reviled. Some of his challenges to settled orthodoxies were long overdue, and others have proved ill-advised. These are ordinary features of our politics and are best dealt with through ordinary electoral processes. It is, rather, the extraordinary elements of Trump’s presidency that merit the use of impeachment to forestall their success: his subversion of the rule of law, attacks on constitutional liberties, and advancement of his own interests at the public’s expense.
The Mueller probe as well as hearings convened by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees have already hobbled the Trump administration to some degree. It will face even more scrutiny from a Democratic House. White House aides will have to hire personal lawyers; senior officials will spend their afternoons preparing testimony. But impeachment would raise the scrutiny to an entirely different level.So Congresswoman Schakowsky gets it upside down-yes it would suck all the air out of the room and that’s a good thing. I mean how many times can you vote for-admittedly excellent-legislation that will be tabled in the Senate? In truth, though this is a false choice-the Dems can and must do both. And in the 1990s, Clinton and the GOP actually passed a decent amount of legislation even as they did everything they could think of to destroy him.

Though that’s probably unlikely to happen with Trump and McConnell anyway.

For me personally, if you’re wondering,  I’m so concerned with impeachment for three reasons.

1. Trump may well not  have won his office legitimately. And contrary to some pushing the nullification narrative, impeachment is the right remedy for that. To have been found to have rigged an election is a clear basis-the most important basis-for impeachment.

FN: Robert Reich suggested nullification and some liberals are now saying that we mustn’t impeach we must nullify. This hits on the same fallacy Peter Dao quoted above called out. Let’s quote him again:

Even if in moral principle nullification would be the truly most just solution it’s not going to happen. I mean whatever the chances of McConnell and friends convicting Trump it’s better than nullification which is zero. You have to look at what happened to Hillary as a basketball-or football-team losing a game and only after the fact discovering the refs were all paid off. There’s just no way three years later to make that right. You can’t just nullify the result and declare the robbed team the winner. The best you can do is put a giant scarlet asterisk against the team who cheated for all time and maybe take back their trophy-impeachment.

2. But the idea of not impeaching Trump if he’s committed HC&MD is particularly repugnant seeing as the GOP has shown itself perfectly willing to impeach Democratic Presidents over fake scandals like Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Benghazi, Emailgate, Lois Lerner allegedly being mean to Tea Party groups, etc.

Indeed, if this were a movie like Back to the Future you could go to an alternative post 2016 America and the GOP would already have figured out a pretext to impeach Hillary Clinton-that would have wide MSM buy in.

Yes and you can argue that even if they never quite forced Clinton out of office they so sullied the Clinton brand that by 2016 a sizable chuck of Americans were willing to believe any ad hominem accusation about Hillary up to her personally molesting children in the basement of a Washington DC pizzeria.

What offends me is the asymmetry-Clinton is impeached for lying about sex-which was clearly a perjury trap as Kavanaugh’s own notes now make clear-while Trump stands credibly accused of conspiring with a hostile foreign power-in truth hostile foreign powers-to rig an election and the response not of the GOP but of the Democrats is-gee that’s too divisive.

Actually no-because the GOP will be willing to impeach a future Democratic President for much less with a large amount of MSM buy in.

The asymmetry the widely different standards for Dem vs GOP Presidents is what so offends me. I just hate the precedent it sets.

3. Precedent. Pelosi’s argument amounts to-because the GOP is so rabidly partisan Trump shouldn’t be impeached-that’s where her position effectively gets you. Essentially this precedent will mean that a white male Republican President can commit any offense up to what is morally if not legally treason-and right now his Russia House is not promoting American interests around the world but Russian and Saudi Arabian interests-and even the Democratic leaders will say-‘no it’s too divisive.’

So what this does is destroy deterrence:

This is why impeachment is so necessary-whatever the politics are-I actually think they might benefit the Democrats as they did in 1974-it’s about setting a standard and upholding the rule of law.

We must have that black mark on ‘President Trump’s’ Presidency or the rule of law has been sullied.

Otherwise it’s just a total failure of the system:

https://twitter.com/thor_benson/status/1105287757109190656?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1105287757109190656&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fevilsax.pressbooks.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-admin%2Fpost.php%3Fpost%3D6152%26action%3Dedit

https://twitter.com/safeagain1/status/1082391858872045568

I can accept them not starting now-but Pelosi’s comments suggest she may never allow them even if Trump committed HC &MD.

As for this ‘not worth it’ thing is the integrity of our Republic worth it? 

“If the [reports] indicate that that’s become necessary, then we must fulfill our oath and proceed with impeachment,” said Rep. Ilhan Omar (Minn.), a liberal freshman.

Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, agreed, arguing that voters “really are angry about what is perceived to be happening in the White House” and that Congress has an “obligation” to see where the facts lead.

“I don’t think it’s something we decide whether or not it’s ‘worth it,’ ” Jayapal said Monday night. “If it’s a consistent pattern of abuse of power, of obstruction of justice . . . then that to me seems like it will be impeachable.”

Pelosi told The Post in a magazine interview conducted March 6 that impeachment would be divisive unless “there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan.” Otherwise, she said, “I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”

Her comments brought to the fore a debate that has been raging inside the party for months. At its crux is whether Democrats should proceed with impeachment hearings if Republicans refuse to join in that endeavor.

“The question we really have to ask ourselves is whether the country is worth it,” Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.) said Tuesday morning on CSPAN. “We in the House have to take up our responsibility.”

Green, who has forced votes on previous impeachment resolutions, said he plans to do so again but wouldn’t discuss timing.

Excellent-it will put Democrats on the record.

Indeed, some-understandably-worry the Democrats are totally blowing this.

Indeed, Richard Neal is still dithering on Trump’s tax returns.

Neal is supposedly “a few weeks” away from requesting Trump’s personal taxes, while continuing to plan avoiding requesting the more revealing Trump business tax returns. A Neal staffer explained his boss’ aversion to requesting taxes up until now by expressing the worry that if Neal requested Trump’s returns—“breaking the glass”—Neal “won’t get anything done after that” with Trump and the Republicans, upsetting his “policy-driven” boss. In other words, Neal is avoiding upsetting Trump because he wants to return to “normal politics” in which, in the wake of a major tax bill, a bipartisan “technical corrections” bill might follow.”

He actually is willing to shield Trump from rightful public scrutiny over the canard that there are bipartisan victories to be had? If that’s his motivation it’s so reprehensible-and foolish as Trump and the GOP have no interest in bipartisanship-other than as a bargaining chip to let him skate and sully the rule of law-I don’t want to believe that’s his motivation.

Greg Sargent has a very good analysis that I think hits almost the exact right note:

This is exactly right-the criticism of her is not that she didn’t come out in favor of impeachment now-there’s a good case that she shouldn’t yet. But:

She didn’t have to say she’s for it-which perhaps it’s good she doesn’t, let the Al Greens, Maxine Waters(es) and Rashida Tlaibs make that case for now. But she seemed to be coming out against it.

In her first few months (again) as House speaker, Nancy Pelosi has managed two big challenges of the Trump era with great skill. Pelosi forged messy consensus on a resolution condemning all forms of bigotry, in an area where Trumpian extremes (his racism and hate) roiled her conference, demanding an unusually ambitious response to one member’s offenses.

Meanwhile, Pelosi nixed President Trump’s address to Congress during his government shutdown and passed a resolution terminating Trump’s national emergency, in both cases demonstrating a gravity matching the threat posed by Trump’s temperamental and authoritarian excesses.

Now that Pelosi is being widely quoted as coming out against the impeachment of Trump, Democrats are divided over her comments, meaning another such moment will be litigated in coming days.

But Pelosi has not yet found her footing, and one hopes she will soon enough.

“I’m not for impeachment,” Pelosi told The Post’s Joe Heim. “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”

Some Democrats are pushing back. Rep. David Cicilline (R.I.) noted: “If the facts require us to initiate removing the president, we are obligated to do it.” Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.) criticized Pelosi’s suggestion that Trump is not “worth” impeaching: “The question is whether the republic is worth it.”

Meanwhile, some House progressives insist that the option of impeachment must be preserved. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) noted that she doesn’t read Pelosi’s comments as “designed to shut down the conversation,” adding that this would have to be “aired out” among Democrats.

Correct-AOC is right that she gave herself a decent amount of wiggle room. Still coming out explicitly against impeachment wasn’t smart-and legitimately it’s worrisome.

In fairness to Pelosi, her comments don’t entirely preclude impeachment later, provided that “compelling and overwhelming” new information arouses “bipartisan” alarm. Politico’s savvy reporters speculate that Pelosi did this to create a holding pattern for Democrats, temporarily insulating them from unceasing questioning on this topic from activists by allowing them to blame Pelosi’s opposition.

But, even if you allow that it was politically necessary, there is a cleaner way to accomplish the same thing, without the downsides.”

By the way, it’s not going to get activists to stop discussing it and it’s actually led to a lot more discussion over the last 24 hours. I-who have broken my resolution of no more chapters for this book-broke it yet again this morning as the idea that Democrats could sully the rule of law I felt demands a response.

Just like many Democrats and liberals and #Resistance folks in general my hair is on fire.

First, there is no need for Pelosi to declare that she’s not for impeachment in the present, when it would be a lot more salutary to say this is simply premature, and that in the end, the right course of action will be determined by the facts, and leave it at that.

The problem, in part, is that Pelosi is answering the wrong question. It isn’t: Do you favor impeachment right now, yes or no? Rather, it’s: Are you ruling out impeachment hearings, or are you leaving that option open, depending on what emerges?

Ok exactly correct-Sargent nails the sweet spot here-is impeachment genuinely on the table or are we being handled.

Sargent himself got me panicking on something he wrote maybe in January where he suggested that even if the Dems feel Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses they still won’t impeach him. There’s a sense that maybe Pelosi is trying to handle us like kids nagging their mother to go to Disney world. She figures we’ll forget in time-or she can plead ‘it’s too close to the election now’ and it will be a fait accompli. If this is her game she might want to reconsider.

She may think that it makes more sense to vote him out than impeach him but maybe not impeaching him will make many of us wonder what the point in voting him out is-if even the Dems won’t fight for the Rule of Law what’s the point in electing Dems-speaking of a life long voting Dem in every election since 1996?

Back to Sargent:

The crucial distinction here is between the initiation of an impeachment inquiry, and the holding of a final impeachment vote. As Yoni Appelbaum demonstrates, impeachment is a process. Just as during the Nixon years, the first step is congressional investigations (which we’re seeing now), which then might lead to the opening of impeachment hearings. Those would weigh whether newly gathered facts merit impeachment or not, to inform the public of the momentous stakes and complexities involved in this decision.

Correct-many seem to think impeachment is simply a one day vote full stop. It’s an inquiry, a process. As far as GOP buy in, there likely would be none the first day you open the inquiry but as the process goes on and more of the country becomes conviced maybe some GOPers will be forced to come around. But even if not you still go forward and at the end of the process vote to impeach if he committed HC & MD.

You might argue that Pelosi’s comments do leave open this possibility. But she still muddled the issue by declaring a personal preference on the outcome, creating the impression that we already have enough information to make that decision, while failing to clarify how this is a process.

Then he looks at the other minefield-GOP support for impeachment.

Pelosi’s suggestion that impeachment hearings can proceed only with “bipartisan” support is also unnecessarily self-constraining. Historian Kevin Kruse points out that majority support for President Richard M. Nixon’s removal didn’t develop until after the impeachment inquiry commenced. This can’t be the threshold for beginning an inquiry.

What’s more, this framing does not reckon with an important pathology of our political moment — the enormous propaganda apparatus behind Trump that is already bombarding Republican voters with disinformation painting all inquiry as illegitimate, likely ensuring they will never support any inquiry. Democrats must weigh whether this disinformation machine should be able to place an inquiry off political limits even if they conclude the emerging facts warrant it.

It’s possible that Pelosi genuinely believes the downsides to the country of hearings absent bipartisan backing militate against them no matter what the facts demand. If so, let’s litigate that, too. It’s also odd to hear the argument that no inquiry should happen simply because the Senate probably would never convict. Impeachment hearings would be carried out to benefit the public and the country, and thus can’t turn on projections of the ultimate outcome.

At bottom, this may turn on a deeper question: whether one believes simply defeating Trump for reelection would do enough to purge the country of the many stains of Trumpism. Though Pelosi has risen to the gravity of the moment on other fronts, she does appear to believe this. But we can’t make that decision until we know how foul the stains really are. As Ocasio-Cortez says, this all needs to be “aired out.”

I will argue that voting him out is not enough. If you don’t indict-if that’s where the facts lead-you have damaged the rule of law and legitimized his illegitimate ‘Presidency’

We will have set the clear precedent that while Democratic Presidents can be impeached over trivial, trumped up stuff, GOP Presidents-or even a ‘President’ like Trump gets diplomatic immunity even from the Democrats themselves.

Final thought:

UPDATE: Phillip Rucker reveals there are some happy with Pelosi’s comments: Trump’s Russia House. The overall MSM coverage seems to be that Pelosi did this to shield Democrats from GOP criticism that ‘all they want is impeachment’ but that it’s not working-the GOP will still accuse them of it.

I can’t think of a worse reason not to do it-‘because the GOP will say mean things as usual…’

UPDATE 2.0:

UPDATE 3.0

UPDATE 4.0: Charles Pierce puts it well:

I’m sorry, Madam Speaker. But this just will not do. You can’t say this:

But in terms of where we are, as Thomas Paine said, the times have found us. And the times have found us now. We have a very serious challenge to the Constitution of the United States in the president’s unconstitutional assault on the Constitution, on the first branch of government, the legislative branch. … This is very serious for our country. Forgetting politics, forgetting partisanship, just talk about patriotism. So in terms of divisiveness, that we don’t see a commensurate — I don’t want to say reaction, just action — on the part of Republicans to the statements and actions the president is taking, yeah, this is probably the most divisive and serious. Serious, because again it’s about our fundamentals; it’s not about our politics.

And then say this:

I’m not for impeachment. This is news. I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.

Madam Speaker, if you believe the former situation exists, and you should, because it does, then, if you are faithful to your oath, you don’t have any choice. “Divisiveness” doesn’t enter into it. We are a sturdy people. If there is a “serious threat to the Constitution” from this president, then impeachment is the only constitutional remedy to alleviate the threat. Given the imminence of the threat, the process much begin.

And this…

Our country is great. It’s a great country. Our founders gave us the strongest foundation. … All the challenges we have faced, we can withstand anything. But maybe not two [Trump] terms. So we have to make sure that doesn’t happen.

…is a fatuous cop-out. The solution to a president* who is a threat to the Constitution is not to beat him for re-election, it’s to make sure he doesn’t finish his first term. I mean, it’s right there in the document that Nancy Pelosi believes is existentially threatened

As the great Deplorable, Archie Bunker, once put it: Gee I couldn’t have said it better myself.

UPDATE 5.0:

Amen Charles Blow:

 

UPDATE 6.0: But I think Brian Beutler games it out best:

The most common response to the argument that Democrats should at least keep an open mind about impeaching Trump in the House, even if Republicans remain hopelessly intransigent, is that impeachment is a dead end. The Senate will acquit Trump, he will claim vindication, the public will side with him, and Democrats will have nothing to show for the whole ordeal other than a steeper climb back to power in 2020.

We know that Democratic leaders have adopted what they believe to be a cautious approach, because it is publicly calculated to protect vulnerable new members. “We’ve got 62 new members,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, “not three.”

The truth is nobody can say with any certainty how a partisan impeachment fight over Trump would play out because history hasn’t equipped us with enough test cases to draw informed conclusions. But it also doesn’t support the supposedly cautious approach of forswearing impeachment unless both parties are bought in. Republicans famously charged ahead with a dead-end partisan impeachment of a popular Democratic president, and the country punished them by electing a Republican president two years later. Richard Nixon resigned when he realized he would be impeached and removed on a bipartisan basis, but before Watergate came to a head, impeachment was a polarizing and unpopular position. It only became popular after the House initiated an impeachment process, and it seems likely that the House drove public opinion in the right direction simply by taking its constitutional obligations seriously.

It is likely that things would shake out somewhat differently today. The conservative movement didn’t fully overtake the Republican Party for another two decades after Nixon resigned, and in the interim it stood up Fox News and the larger conservative noise machine, in part to assure that a Republican president would never be driven from office like Nixon was again. If this history points to anything it’s that a good-faith impeachment process would make public opinion conform to public opinion about Trump himself—which is to say, most people would support impeachment, but a solid minority would oppose it, and Republicans would stand with the minority.

It’s hard to see what the Democrats would lose from such an outcome, but what they would gain is something that impeachment opponents routinely gloss over: a trial. If Democrats build a solid case, and pass compelling articles of impeachment, the Senate’s rules obligate it to conduct a trial, with the chief justice of the United States presiding, in a manner that will be very hard for Republicans to cheapen. As in the 1990s, we’d expect the president’s party to protect him from expulsion, but unlike in the 1990s, the charges would recall the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Nixon years. The pro-impeachment proposition is that Democrats should build the case, hold the trial, and let Republicans in Congress decide whether they want to shred our shared standards of accountability—to let their votes be counted—instead of doing it for them as they quietly sidestep the question.

In either case, the voters will render the final verdict, but in an impeachment scenario, the question would be laid before them clearly, and will place the entire Republican Party on the hook directly for the crimes they’ve been passively abetting for over two years now. It would also preserve important norms about what kinds of behavior should be impeachable.

Then there’s the issue of the terrible precedent not doing anything sets.

Under the Pelosi standard no abuse of power is too severe to tolerate if a third of the country can be convinced to overlook it. Under the Pelosi standard, Republicans enjoy a handicap where they and their propaganda allies can short circuit the Constitution through relentless disinformation and culture war nonsense, and never face a referendum on their underlying conduct or character. Under the Pelosi standard, Republicans can openly embrace any impeachable conduct that actually delights their supporters, which means Trump and future GOP presidents will have a freer hand than they already do to sic the Justice Department on their political enemies.

If Pelosi merely wanted her impeachment-happy members to dial it back, she could have told them to simmer down, let investigators compile evidence, and allow the party to decide internally whether that evidence is “compelling and overwhelming.” She instead told them that they will do nothing with the evidence, no matter how compelling and overwhelming, unless Republicans suddenly become willing to do the right thing. And that makes her declaration, if it holds, an abdication all Democrats will come to regret.

I believe they will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the Democrats are still not willing to fight back after all this they never will. At that point even I will have a hard time explaining why it’s so important to vote for the Democrats.

UPDATE:

In throwing cold water on the idea of impeachment, Speaker Nancy Pelosi in some ways was simply offering a cleareyed assessment of the state of politics today in the nation’s hyperpolarized capital: There are not enough votes to convict and remove President Trump from office.

And yet in declaring that impeachment therefore is “just not worth it,”Ms. Pelosi may also be setting a far-reaching new standard with implications long after Mr. Trump leaves office. By her reasoning, accusations of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, campaign finance violations and other offenses — even if proved — do not rise to a level requiring action by the House of Representatives.

All of which raise fundamental questions: If Mr. Trump has done what he is accused of doing, and that would not qualify as high crimes and misdemeanors, then what would? If Congress opts against impeachment regardless of what the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, reports, would that set the bar so high that impeachment will no longer be a viable option? Will future presidents have license to cross all sorts of lines because of the precedent? In other words, if not Mr. Trump, then who?

Good question-and this is the worry-the (terrible) precedent this would set. But the precedent isn’t no impeachment but only impeachment of Democrats.

Regarding Grant Stern’s idea this has turned the GOP into eunuchs this doesn’t sound like a eunuch to me.

In effect, though, Ms. Pelosi’s articulated standard then leaves impeachment in the hands of the president’s own party. So long as Mr. Trump retains strong support among Republican voters, the White House feels confident that Republican senators will stick with him, which is why the president routinely emphasizes polls showing his standing with his conservative base. In the latest Gallup survey, 90 percent of Republicans approved of Mr. Trump’s performance.

Ms. Pelosi’s conclusion, which repeated in harder terms views that she has expressed previously, roiled many in her own party, where many liberals are eager to impeach the president. Tom Steyer, the California billionaire donor who has been leading a pro-impeachment advocacy campaign, quickly issued a statement on Monday rejecting the speaker’s assessment.

No matter what, evidently, impeachment-regardless of which party is in the WH or who has the majority in Congress is the GOP’s prerogative

Brad Sherman put it in an even worse way.

But even some impeachment advocates acknowledged the practical reality behind Ms. Pelosi’s position. “We won’t actually remove this president until Sean Hannity calls for us to remove this president. Or until Laura Ingraham,” said Representative Brad Sherman, Democrat of California, who has already introduced articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump. “Until we drive home our message, change public opinion and develop more facts.”

So persuading  Sean Hannity is the standard? Sherman sounds serious.

Again does this sound like the GOP has become a bunch of eunuchs?

At the White House, the speaker’s comments offered an opportunity to claim vindication while driving a wedge among the opposition. “I’m glad that she sees what the rest of us see and that there’s no reason, no cause for impeachment,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said Tuesday on Fox News.

“It’s time for other Democrats in Nancy Pelosi’s party to get on board,” she added, and to “start doing what they were elected to do — do their jobs and quit trying to focus so much on making excuses for the historic loss that they suffered in 2016.”.

Joshua Matz, an author with Laurence H. Tribe of “To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment” and the publisher of Take Care, a blog that follows legal issues raised by Mr. Trump’s presidency, said opting not to impeach in the face of evident high crimes and misdemeanors “could create disturbing precedent for future presidents.” But another failed effort 20 years after the Clinton case could be even worse.

“Impeaching him under circumstances where the proceeding is all but doomed to failure could create a far more disastrous precedent than not impeaching him in the first place,” Mr. Matz said. “An acquittal in the Senate would be far more precedential and significant than a nonimpeachment decision in the House.”

I totally disagree with that-and don’t even understand the argument. As Beutler lays out above a nonconviction by a partisan Senate GOP would actually reflect poorly on the GOP rather than the Democrats-run against their abdication in 2020 and win back the Senate. But this would require the Dems to quit being-eunuchs.

Failure to impeach and impeachable ‘President’ is a travesty regardless of Senate math.

Back to Baker:

“But this raises a debate that has yet to be resolved among scholars: Does the Constitution give the House such discretion when there are provable impeachable offenses, or does it require it to take action?

Unlike Mr. Matz, Cass R. Sunstein, a Harvard Law School professor who once worked in President Barack Obama’s White House, argued that the Constitution offers lawmakers little choice.

“If we have a clear impeachable offense that is not a borderline one but a clear one, the impeachment process is mandatory because the House of Representatives is an agent of ‘we the people,’ the first three words of the Constitution,” said Mr. Sunstein, whose latest book, “On Freedom,” was published last month.

Speaking generally without commenting directly on Mr. Trump, he added: “It may be, as a realistic matter, the Senate is going to stick with a president to whom it has a political allegiance. But the House isn’t supposed to think about that.”

Can somebody set up a meeting between Sunstein and Pelosi?

 

Seth Abramson on the Dem’s impeachment logic.

So which step went awry?

Spoiler alert: 4.

UPDATE.

 

License

October 28, 2016: a Day That Will Live in Infamy Copyright © by . All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book