218

The hashtag #ImpeachDonaldTrump was trending for over 24 hours so I’ve resolved to use it in every tweet I do to see if we can’t make it trend all the way to November, 2020.

UPDATE:

Though it’s only sixth we need it 1st again.

Will the Democrats answer their date with destiny? Congresswoman Jackie Speier called it a date with destiny last night after the House Dems four hour conference call.

FN: If I trust anyone to get this right it’s Speier-someone who was actually present for and survived the Jonestown Massacre and so understands from her own experience that conspiracies happen every day as much as some try to dismiss it all as tinfoil hat stuff-when it suits them, when the subject is a Republican conspiracy, which is probably the most common conspiracy of all.

Even now it’s not clear if the Dems will do the right thing or not.  As Greg Sargent says Pelosi is trying to walk a very careful line.

“As we’ve been chronicling, Democrats have been struggling to get their message right when it comes to whether the Mueller revelations merit an impeachment inquiry. At first, they sounded overly political and calculating, which seemed to suggest they believed they could wiggle out of it by claiming the politics are too daunting.”

“But after some blowback, on the Sunday shows Democrats engaged the question much more seriously, in a manner that suggests they grasp the magnitude and momentousness of the dilemma they face.”

“Now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has sent a new letter to the House Democratic caucus, one that illustrates the seriousness they are bringing to this internal debate but also the ways in which this dilemma will likely intensify going forward.”

Here’s one key portion of Pelosi’s letter:

While we do not have the full report and the underlying exhibits, including the grand jury testimony, two of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusions stand out: one, the “sweeping and systematic” Russian interference in our elections; and two, the President’s repeated efforts to thwart cooperation with the independent prosecutors in their pursuit of justice. …

As to the President’s conduct, we will scrupulously assert Congress’ constitutional duty to honor our oath of office to support and defend the Constitution and our democracy. That includes honoring the Article I responsibility of the legislative branch to conduct oversight over the other branches of government, unified in our search for the truth and in upholding the security of our elections.

While our views range from proceeding to investigate the findings of the Mueller report or proceeding directly to impeachment, we all firmly agree that we should proceed down a path of finding the truth. It is also important to know that the facts regarding holding the President accountable can be gained outside of impeachment hearings. As we proceed to uncover the truth and present additional needed reforms to protect our democracy, we must show the American people we are proceeding free from passion or prejudice, strictly on the presentation of fact.

“Notably, Pelosi acknowledges that there’s genuine pressure to proceed “directly to impeachment” (though an impeachment inquiry would not constitute such a step). Also notably, Pelosi points out that fact-gathering designed to hold President Trump accountable can proceed “outside of impeachment hearings,” which constitutes a declaration that the caucus for now will pursue those outside avenues, but without ruling out proceeding to such hearings later.”

“Taken with that last sentence, Pelosi is signaling that she believes this approach will persuade voters that Democrats are motivated solely by where the facts lead, whereas an immediate impeachment inquiry would appear rushed and political. This does not have to mean impeachment hearings will never happen, though it might.”

Regarding the idea that you can find gather the facts outside the impeachment process, while that’s true to a point-it’s more scattershot and less focused than a full impeachment inquiry-the trouble is this moment calls for more than mere fact gathering. We need to gather the facts with an eye towards holding Trump accountable.

At the end of the day the only way to hold Trump accountable is impeachment. The trouble is I still don’t feel I know Pelosi’s game. As she’s said, she’s a Mother. So is she treating us like her kids?

Sure you can go to DisneyWorld but just not yet. Then when you ask her later she’s like I wish we could but it’s too late now. 

I mean the case she’s making is not outrageous. You do have to build a case. While the MSM keeps repeating that the polls don’t support impeachment-they didn’t with Watergate either until Congress did the hearings. We have still even now had just one public hearing on Russia in 27 months. The Democrats now assure us there are lots of public hearings coming up-Bill Barr, for whatever value that has-Mueller, Don McGahn,  and that’s just the start they assure us.

It’s arguable that it’s good not to call it an impeachment inquiry yet until we have the public testimony as the country isn’t there yet. Trouble is I don’t know what Pelosi’s game is-is she really open to impeachment or is this a game of you can go do DisneyWorld later? 

If anything gives me some cautious optimism it’s the report that Nadler basically dismissed a contempt finding as not hard to do but legally meaningless.

Regarding the popularity of impeachment, the MSM has really undersold it-they act as if it’s a totally fringe position. Many polls show it in the mid 30s. But that’s really pretty high for a ‘President’-over 1 in 3 Americans think he should be impeached-when the economy in many ways is pretty strong-though wage growth is what really matters and that remains tepid.

The MSM keeps trying to tell us that the Mueller Report won’t move the needle of public opinion but we’ve now had three post MR polls that have shown have shown his numbers drop significantly-Reuters, Morning Consult, and Rasumessen-yes Rasmussen.

And that’s just after a few days. So I think it’s quite plausible that public hearings will further move the needle.

But there’s no question that there’s no way the Dems can ‘move on’ for not just accountability reasons-retrosepctive-but maladministration clear and present dangers to democracy reasons.

Eugene Robinson makes this point-Brian Beutler has been making it for days-if the Dems don’t go on offense, Trump will-he’ll have Coverup AG Barr run an investigation of the investigators and get Mueller, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice up on treason charges.

“The political case for moving deliberately but fearlessly toward impeachment is even clearer: If timorous Democrats do not seize and define this moment, Trump surely will.”

“What just happened is that special counsel Robert Mueller delivered a searing indictment of a president who has no idea what “honor” and “integrity” even mean — a president who lies almost pathologically, who orders subordinates to lie, who has no respect for the rule of law, who welcomed Russian meddling in the 2016 election, who clumsily tried to orchestrate a cover-up, who tried his best to impede a lawful Justice Department investigation and failed only to the extent that aides ignored his outrageous and improper orders.”

What Trump claims just happened is a “witch hunt.”

“Anyone who thinks there is a chance that Trump will lick his wounds and move on has not been paying attention. Having escaped criminal charges — because he is a sitting president — Trump will go on the offensive. With the help of Attorney General William Barr, whose title really should be Minister of Spin, the president will push to investigate the investigators and sell the bogus counternarrative of an attempted “coup” by politically motivated elements of the “deep state.”

“Here is the important thing: Trump will mount this attack no matter what Democrats do. And strictly as a matter of practical politics, the best defense against Trump has to be a powerful offense.”

This is the crucial point. Even if the Democrats want to move on Trump sure won’t. He never will. There’s not going to be some infrastructure summit between him, Speaker Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer. The Dems may not want to run on impeachment but Trump does. He will run on the idea that the Mueller Report was a total witchhunt no matter what the Democrats do.

Which is a good moment to remember the point Yoni Applebaum made in his big think piece on impeachment. 

The benefits of impeachment aren’t just retrospective but prospective. Maladministration is an impeachable offense and an impeachment inquiry-wether or not it ultimately leads to removal puts an out of control ‘President’ in a box.

The only way to defend yourself against Trump’s threats of a Bill Barr investigation into the DEEP STATE is impeachment. It’s the only thing that really can drown out Trump’s tweets and wild statements.

As for the 2020 candidates I was very happy to see Kamala Harris come out for impeachment last night.

It’s pretty obvious that Warren helped get her there.

But look Kamala got there and at least she’s second. She really should have been first though-the Democrats who really want impeachment are her own base. Warren was able to make a lot of inroads just by getting there first. I told the DCCC when they called me this weekend I will only donate to candidates not weak on impeachment.

Speaking of weak on impeachment-I give you His Sacred Holiness Truly Progressive and Most Sanctimonious  Eminence Bernie Sanders:

This one is going to leave a mark as I really think impeachment will become the litmus test of 2020. Look at how much momentum Warren got just from this announcement. Impeachment is going to be the word of the day for the next 19 months.

Any attempt to ‘pivot’ will only underscore that a candidate doesn’t give a damn about the Rule of Law and has thought nothing about what precedent is being set-if Trump can get away with all this then there is no Rule of Law.

Jennifer Rubin made an interesting point yesterday:

“Somehow the mainstream media collectively decided that the most important question following release of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report is whether Democrats will now (right now!) commence impeachment hearings. Not only is this premature (we don’t have the full report nor has Mueller testified), but it’s only half the story — the less interesting half, for that matter.”

“Yes, Democrats will need to get the entire report and hear from Mueller, then conduct hearings and then decide what to do. The notion they are “avoiding” answering the impeachment question is presumptuous and wrongheaded. Perhaps they just want to conscientiously follow a process that reflects the gravity of their obligations.”

Yes the trouble is-as I explained above-is we just don’t know where Pelosi’s head is at. Is she honestly trying to be deliberative or is she just trying to run out the clock until an election?

But Rubin is right that the GOP should be called out on their utter abdication before Trump’s abuse of power, obstruction, and illegitimacy.

Brian Stelter made that point as well and the MSM should be calling them on it. For that matter the MSM should explain why no major newspaper has called for ‘President Trump’s resignation-many had called for Clinton’s by now.

So as to Jennifer Rubin’s point-should we be pushing the Dems on impeachment or calling out the GOP’s craven placing of partisanship over the Rule of Law and the country’s national security itself, I’d say we need to be doing both. As well as calling out the MSM-why no calls for resignation?

This is just more proof of the MSM’s double standard they fail to even attempt to explain-probably as there’s no explanation that’s not entirely worthless.

My focus, personally is this: is the system itself going to fail? Maybe part of the reason I talk less about the GOP post Mueller is we know who they are-partisan, obstructing, colluding, hacks.

But we have Bill Kristol, Rubin, and other recovering GOPers to call out their party/former party; I guess Kristol still considers himself a Republican.

But if the Dems themselves don’t want to do anything about Trump what use is there calling out the GOPer who really don’t give a damn about anything but partisan victories anyway?

Then there’s the MSM’s attitude which is night and day to their attitude on Clinton.

For our system not to fail we should be calling out all three:

1. The co-conspiring GOP

2. The both sides do it faux objective but really anti Democrat MSM

3. The timid, diffident Dems themselves.

I mean what do you think the GOP would do in this situation? It’s not rocket science:

Let’s listen to a recovering Breitbart GOPer, Kurt Bardella: 

“Hours after Attorney General William Barr released a redacted version of the Mueller report, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the House Oversight and Reform Committee, called on Democrats to “read the special counsel’s report before jumping to conclusions,” and he declared that there was “no collusion” and “no obstruction.” Jordan further accused Democrats of “trying to get the president at all costs.”

“As I read Jordan’s statement, I couldn’t help but think of the many times I heard him talk about the importance of vigilant presidential oversight when Obama was in office, Republicans controlled the House, and I was an adviser and spokesperson for Republicans on the House oversight panel. During this time, we issued more than 100 subpoenas to the Obama administration, held the attorney general in contempt of Congress, filed a lawsuit challenging the president’s use of executive privilege, and formed a special select committee to investigate what happened in  Benghazi, Libya.”

All the while, Republicans like Rep. Jordan defended and championed our aggressive brand of oversight. Speaking at a contempt hearing of an Obama administration official, Jordan boasted, “The only route to the truth is through theHouse of Representatives.”

Note that Bardella was also Darell Issa’s aide.

“I have no doubt that if Republicans had a Mueller-like investigation to work with, they would have unleashed dozens of hearings and subpoenas to examine every potential thread of wrongdoing and unethical conduct with the goal of building to impeachment proceedings of the president.”

“Hearings would be just the beginning. When the Obama administration defied a congressional subpoena, Jordan and other House Republicans filed a lawsuit and ultimately — more than three years later — won in federal court. Should Attorney General Barr now refuse to comply with the subpoena for the full, unredacted Mueller report and supporting documents and evidence, House Democrats should follow the same playbook their Republican colleagues used just a few years ago.”

How can anyone have any doubt?

Actually in fairness when I say that only Warren and Kamala Harris are eligible for my vote-or anyone who cares about the Rule of Law-I wasn’t thinking of Congressman Swalwell who’s kind of a special case.

In the sense that he actually sits on both the House Intel and Judiciary Committees-Judiciary would be the one to vote on impeachment.

And look it is true that there’s a right way and a wrong way to do impeachment, and there’s no doubt the GOP did it the wrong way in 1998.

Steve Kornacki had an interesting thread on this:

https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1120346639196147719

https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1120347193834135554

They impeached him in the lame duck-after receiving a public rebuke at the polls. This is where the Dems who use this as a cautionary tale usually stop. If looked through this short term lens it seems plausible. But then you have 2000 when the GOP would go on to take both Houses of Congress and the WH-with just a little assist from the GOP Supreme Court it’s true.

They would then hold onto all three Houses of DC for six more years. It’s arguable that had Gore used Clinton it wouldn’t have been close enough for Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, Roger Stone and the GOP Supreme Court to steal. That was a direct byproduct of Clinton’s impeachment. It’s arguable that while he was popular and most Americans opposed his impeachment on the other hand it still did sully him and the Clinton brand.

Kornacki documents this but what should also be factored in is the extent to which the sullying of the Clinton brand ended up being too much for Hillary Clinton to transcend-typical that a woman was derailed for the sins of her husband!

As Clinton’s impeachment was a proximate cause of Clinton Derangement Syndrome it’s clear that not only did the GOP not pay any kind of medium or long term price, in the long term they actually benefitted.

But I also agree that the Democrats really don’t want to be as reckless and blatantly partisan as the GOP was in 1998 voting for an impeachment probe one month before the election despite widespread voter opposition and even after getting a clear public rebuke, going forward and impeaching Clinton in the lame duck.

However there’s got to be a happy medium. The GOP did more or hold a one day vote. The Dems should do a properly deliberative process that will take many months-even though the case against Trump is much stronger than against Clinton. What they are doing now may prove to be the best approach-so long as they haven’t ruled out opening an inquiry in the future.

Last thought on this for now: there’s a tendency to focus only on obstruction as well as Barr’s shamefully acting like he’s Trump’s defense attorney.

But the Dems need to not lose the thread of the fact hat collusion has not been disproven quite the opposite. It turns out Kellyann Conway’s husband has the best argument for the Dems to make in their public hearings.

Destiny is calling the Democrats but they have to answer the call.

 

 

License

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

Share This Book