Democrats Need to Drive home:
1. Presidents do not need to commit a Crime to be impeached.
2. Drive home to Public this is not a coup...Impeachment is used
for Presidents who have abused their Power-which clearly has
happened.(CNN today)
6
Blocked WH documents/testimony is good reason to delay futile impeachment articles but continue full investigation up to election for voters to be the jury and not allow dishonest/disloyal Republicans hypocrites to exonerate Trump for treason helping Putin restore USSR, etc....
It's hard to fathom Reps like Zoe Lofgren saying Mueller didn't present a compelling case for impeachment. How many credible, straitforward cases of obstruction of justice did his report cite--10 or 11? And with "The Great Divider" Trump attempting a form of collusion with Ukraine as Mueller's legalisms cite him for with Russia, what a natural fit to bring the 2 together in impeachment charges!
What the Congresswoman could be saying is "we didn't have the spine for impeachment after Mueller, but we do now". Kudos to Nadler for sticking with his pre-Ukraine scandal impeachment inquiry. Hopefully such efforts will bear fruit in at least one impeachment charge against this disgrace of a president.
4
Trump has contempt for due process. That's all Washington is--committees, rules, decorum. The President is usually intelligent enough to handle this. Trump is like the student cheater using back channels because he doesn't want to read, research, write.
6
Questions:
1. Is it improper for the Attorney General to investigate an American citizen for engaging in corrupt practice with a foreign corporation that may impact the interests of the United States if there is a sufficient basis (predicate) to suspect the American citizen may have broken the law?
2. Is it improper for the Attorney General to conduct such an investigation if the American citizen is the son, at the time of the suspected conduct, of a then sitting Vice President?
3. Is it improper if that Vice President is a candidate for the nomination of President when such investigation is undertaken by the Attorney General?
4. If the Answer is "No" to 1-3, is it stupid for the President to attempt to do himself what his Attorney General could properly do instead? Whether stupid or not, is it impeachable?
Stipulated: That if there is no proper basis (predicate) to make such an inquiry in the first place such an investigation of any citizen would be improper and an abuse of power, and it done by the President as against a political opponent, without predicate, impeachable and worse.
Let's have that conversation, it is the only one that is productive.
2
They can’t do it quickly enough to suit me!
The Republicans have already been raucous in their high decibel protests during the House Intelligence Committee closed-door and public hearings. Histrionics and stunts like barging into the private depositions of those willing to break the attempted Trump stonewall. They will obviously continue their antics when the Judiciary Committee considers articles of impeachment. We’ve already had a preview with Jim Jordan’s loud protest that an attempted bank robbery as in Donald Trump confiscating money earmarked by Congress for Ukraine is not a crime if he’s caught in the act and then hands over the money. More such such grade school illogical thinking is sure to be on display in a futile attempt to distract from the facts presented and corroborated by multiple witnesses with firsthand information that Donald Trump sought personal assistance from a foreign government which Robert Mueller noted was a “crime” and that he committed bribery in refusing to release the military assistance funds until and unless they agreed to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.
1
"...the White House counsel, turned down an offer from Mr. Nadler for Mr. Trump or his lawyers to participate on Wednesday"
This is why we lose.
Opting for Impeach-O-Quik, Pelosi, Nadler and the gang cut off the American people just as they begin to pay attention, just as minds begin to consider changing one day, maybe.
And they make themselves look like wimps, weaklings of low resolve, petty people with no conviction.
What do you mean the President declined?
Make him show up.
Of course, he won't. Take it to court. Wait for the result.
Its not only about this precious impeachment process, its about reigning in the most concerted attempt to overturn our fashion of government from the inside.
Its about reestablishing real checks and real balances.
Its about teaching our ignorant citizens (yes, we did away with those ridiculous civics classes) that you can try to get what you want, but you have to do it the right way.
It will also provide an acid test of how far gone is our formerly important SCOTUS.
This dash to the finish is foolish and self-destructive.
What we have seen and will see as this process moves forward is a shining example of elected officials understanding the importance of those TV cameras and reporters' notebooks in front of them. It is theatre at best, a charade at worst. As others have long noted, the outcome is predictable...impeachment in a partisan House and acquittal in a partisan Senate.
No longer are our elected representatives really representing Us. They represent whomever pays the bills, but always with an eye to that part of the electorate called their "block." Nothing we have seen and nothing we will see will change that. It is partisan politics, plain and simple.
15
@Michigan Michael
I currently find that I, as a member of Us, feel very represented by elected representatives who are investigating the likely impeachable misdeeds of Trump. I believe that these politicians understand that they will suffer consequences for pursuing Trump, and that they rise to the level of statesmen and states women by doing their constitutional duty even in the face of political peril.
8
@Michigan Michael
It is one side trying to shed light on factual occurrences.
And another side trying to dismiss those factual occurrences.
That is not "partisan politics".
That is True vs False.
Nice try with that obfuscation though.
6
Here's an an interesting idea for Democrats to ponder: Suppose Trump is impeached and then Pelosi did NOT immediately send the case to the Senate, but instead declared it would be wrong to hold a trial in a hot election year, but that it could be picked up later. Of course, Trump would yell bloody murder about his "right" to a speedy trial but no such right exists, and besides, didn't McConnell invoke the same in the Merrick Garland case? This would leave Trump twisting in the wind while the Dems pursued their winning kitchen table agenda. Of course, a Democratic victory would make the case moot while a Democratic defeat would still leave the option open to try and remove him. Your thoughts?
83
@Jay S
Interesting idea, but this thought occurred to me...What if, horrors of horrors, Trump is somehow elected again? We would also have a new Senate and a new House. Would the articles of impeachment carry over to that new House? Or would they have to start over again at the beginning? If both the House and Senate wind up being held by the Democrats, fine, Trump is history. But what if they don't? For the life of me I simply cannot understand why this man is still our president...he has flouted just about every law on the books and done it in plain sight. He has thumbed his nose at our Constitution and gotten away with it. Apparently, the Republicans are afraid of his base...why? Are they afraid that the base will literally use that 2nd Amendment solution Trump so cheerfully suggested be used against Hillary? Or are they afraid that they will lose votes? The Republican base will never ever vote Democratic, so no worries there. What are they so afraid of? There is absolutely no reason that I can think of for Trump to still be in the White House...and yet he is.
11
@Jay S
There is no way Democrats can afford a trial in the Senate.
Republicans will call witnesses that belie the sham.
They’re stuck.
6
@Jay S
I like your new 'Trump paradigm' idea.
Call it the McConnell doctrine! (LEH!)
Another possibility;
Trump wins, but the D hold the house and retake the Senate. This opens the possibility of a good majority voting to remove, though probably not a supermajority.
But your idea of simply leaving it dangling out there will drive the boy nuttier and nuttier. If nothing else it would be hilarious.
13
Nadler is no Schiff. I hope these proceedings don't undo all the arduous work and compelling results of the Intelligence Committee. Nadler must maintain order and move things along.
33
I agree with those here who argue there is no need to rush this process--especially with the holiday season coming, during which people are certainly going to be distracted by other events and even more prone than usual to grandstanding propaganda tactics that will surely be in the forefront of Republican gameplay.
There is no reason not to slow walk this, proceeding slowly and deliberately, making sure every 'i' is dotted and 't' is crossed, and let this play out for some time after the holidays, both for the reason that there may well be further revelations coming--none of which will make Trump look any better--and for the reason that the longer this remains in the public consciousness, the more the accumulation will weigh on Trump, which not only also continues to erode how at least more moderate non-cultists perceive his administration but might also drive him into "unforced errors", by Twitter, TV, or behavior.
Keep the pressure on.
58
@Glenn Ribotsky
"slow walk this..."
Not likely.
This impeachment is strictly a partisan political exercise and the Democrats have a time table--impeach in the House before Christmas.
This allows the Dems' presidental hopefuls to concentrate on the primaries.
Of course, a trial in the Senate could make it difficult for those senators running in the primaries, but hey, at least the Dems can show their base that they have accomplished what they have been working on since mid November 2016 (i.e. impeach Trump).
3
Two critical things the democrats should do.
1-Go slow, there is no hurry. If they speed things up, the public may view it as a show trial instead of what it is, a indictment of an alleged serial criminal Trump
2-If a clear majority of the public is not for impeachment, especially in swing states don't do it. It doesn't do America any good if the democrats are technically correct but help give Trump another term.
3-If a majority of Americans are not for impeachment, get rid of Trump thru the ballot box and nominate the best candidate that can beat him, not somebody who is pc with big liberal states and not swing states.
18
@Paul typo...three things...
1
"Loud and messy."
So is cleaning up after a hurricane, but it still has to happen.
The Dems should focus on "abuse of power", which covers a lot of separate issues...ignoring congressional appropriations, claiming the constitution gives him "absolute rights", falsifying weather data in a state of emergency, ordering even former employees not to testify before Congress, and probably hundreds of other examples.
They should also work overtime to separate Russia/Mueller issues from Ukraine-related problems. The GOP will try to throw them together, and cover them with the same random spray paint to the effect it's all partisan, and when nothing came out of Mueller (which itself isn't true), the Dems turned to Ukraine.
Maybe the Dems should use an ongoing large display of the text of the Constitution and work through it in order, highlighting or crossing out phrases and words that Mr. Trump has ignored, thinks don't apply, actively violated, misinterpreted. or conformed to previous presidential interpretations.
Every judicial and judicial-lke proceeding (civil, criminal, equitable, and a variety of others) in the U.S. depends on law and on fact. Law schools spend a lot of time teaching students to separate the two in their writing and issue-framing. Chairman Nadler should focus the committee's attention on the law here and explain the distinction over and over, if necessary, to resist GOP de-clarification.
1
Guilty! That what I thought yesterday when Trump and his lawyers refused to legally defend themselves in court. He claims he is not getting "due process" and told America he wanted his day in court so he cd testfiy! But alas, he has this, and refuses.
Only someone guilty doesn't testify in court when given the chance.
2
Some Republicans falsely will claim it is an attempt to undo a bona fide election.
So let’s remind them that Richard Nixon left office 21 months after being elected with majorities in 49 states and 18 million more popular votes than his opponent. This is what happens to a crooked President.
Let’s also remind those Republicans doing propaganda for our most corrupt prez in our history:
Trump tried to CHEAT and INTERFERE in the normal course of the upcoming 2020 national election. THAT is a federal crime.
3
What a travesty that such a tremendous amount of time and effort is expended on investigations and hearings that will likely be be a quixotic adventure leading to an obvious conclusion in the Senate.
We have so much to fix in our badly broken system.
8
@Bronx Jon Are you saying that because the fix is in in the Senate, that no investigation of these crimes should see daylight.
What about the Citizens of the United States?
What about our democracy?
Doesn't anything count besides what you can get away with?
3
@dannyboy I’m just saying it’s got to be fixed so there’s no fix.
It’s beyond absurd.
1
@Bronx Jon If you don't think the Presidency, our democracy, our reputation are broken, you must have been sleeping for the last 3 years.
It isn't that Representative Doug Collins of Georgia doesn't take Trump's alleged wrongdoing seriously, on the contrary, his resorting solely to partisan attack in the president's defence reveals nothing so much as how weak his argument and deeply worried he is.
3
December 2, 2019
The America people must expect the dignity of our political system to function with respect for the process of how we live by example and whatever is heard and how the ruling Committee and those given testimony should strongly proceed with the professional expertise and grace as expected in this being the high court of justice. There is really nothing new under the sun and this we are urged to guide our temper and participation to this historic process and how we will administer our social collective and individual grace with pride.
1
Impeachment proceedings with absolutely ZERO bipartisan support raises a very dark cloud and is an extremely risky gambit at best. The political consequences could be devastating and long lasting.
4
@JTK Yes, we now clearly see the depths of Trump, his party, and his supporters.
Best to be clear-eyed when facing this challenge.
4
@JTK The problem is, any elected Republicans who support impeachment, like Justin Amash, are summarily booted from the party. Not to mention the hundreds of Republicans and conservatives who support impeachment outside of Congress but are branded "Never Trumpers" and also not considered true Republicans. So it's literally impossible *by definition* to have "bipartisan support" for impeachment when to be a Republican in this day and age fundamentally means being against impeachment or any accountability of the President as a litmus test.
2
@JTK
The other option is the consequence of a precedent allowing the President to use the office of President, and resources allocated by Congress, to the benefit of their personal political campaign.
That happens in dictatorships, not in democratic republics.
1
Democrats had better be prepared, because the GOP will use everything at their disposal to disrupt, misdirect, distract, confuse and otherwise derail these proceedings.
I really hope for once they bring guns to this gunfight.
103
I hope they bring quiet determination and resolve,and don’t do a crossfire show.
17
@Pat
Nadler is a weak and ineffective member of Congress... it does not look promising.
5
How could the House Judiciary Republicans act more stupid than those on the Intelligence Committee? Guess we are going to see. Already we see Trump’s second-line lawyer, Cippone, is just a white bread Rudy, without a legal strategy.
4
T has - and continues to - proven daily that he is a liar, a cheater and is a person deeply unsuited to be the leader of the United States of America. And to this retired U.S. Air Force officer, his pardoning of CPO Gallagher is the worst offense of all from this president.
12
Nixon had his "Deep Throat" and Trump has his "Anonymous"..... Both invaluable! I have to laugh that Trump and the Republicans want to know the identity of "Anonymous"... What for??? Russian style punishment? May the Judiciary prevail on every count. They have the support of over half the country.
10
"Likely to be loud and messy . . . ."
Really? When has impeachment ever been soft and neat ?
6
Far as I can see, the salient point in this good article is that the Republicans have precisely zero to put on the table by way of evidence or the Constitution or the law.
A secondary point is that these hearings should make for good TV, provided that you enjoy seeing guys as dumb and ignorant as Louie “Gay Space Stations,” Gohmert scream his tiny head off.
Let’s hope that Rep. Nadler does half as good a job of remaining focused and disciplined in the face of lunacies as Adam Schiff did.
4
When will Americans, indeed the whole world, recognize that all this fake Republican outrage and backlash against the impeachment is just a highly orchestrated diversion tactic.
Meanwhile Trumputin operatives work behind the scenes quietly and carefully to hack the voting machines throughout U.S. key states to throw the election to Trump.
Wake up Democrats.
7
This shows the extent that the Democrats in the House are the tools of the neo cons and their nasty anti Russian belligerence. The Democrats are in the unenviable position of trying to find some smoking gun to use against Trump. The Joe Biden quid pro quo mitigates against Trump's alleged efforts to deny Ukraine aid to pay for the USs effort to promote and ethnic war in Ukraine. The 2016 election unleashed a crazy effort on the part of the Democrats to overthrow Trump's less than spectacular win in the electoral college. First they tried the Russian interference nonsense which was belly up a year before Mueller released his report. Trump is a very beatable candidate in 2020 but the Democrats seem poised to once again seize defeat from the jaws of victory.
3
Remember that House Judiciary drafted articles of impeachment against Nixon; he resigned just before the full House could adopt them. Thus, this will be the FOURTH (not third) time House Judiciary has voted to seek the impeachment of a President; it won't be the third impeachment till the full House adopts the articles voted out of Judiciary.
@rbbrittain Naddler's fumble on this will make the Razorbacks look like national champs...
So Cipollone said that it's essentially a "show process"? The lines of argument of the Trump followers can soon really be described as more than just crazy. In the absence of plausible material counterarguments, it is known that nothing needs to be attacked except the investigation itself, and it is already more than grotesque to what terms they are now oriented. Which term comes next? People's Court? Terrorist attack? This is already severely decoupled from reality and says nothing good about the facts thus created.
2
Impeaching President Trump will make it clear that Democrats know no limits to their duplicity to overthrow the elected president.
The Deep State self-professed Anti-Trump FBI agents couldn’t generate any evidence to support criminal charges.
The Deep State Anti-Trump Pro-Democrat DOJ investigators couldn’t come up with evidence to prove criminal conduct.
So now we are seeing the moving target of alleged illegal conduct so that Democrats can claim he did something wrong - anything wrong - to stage their coup.
It was wrong to impeach Clinton - it’s wrong to impeach Trump - let America vote in 2020 and both parties accept the results.
5
@Happy Voter Impeachment is a constitutional process run Congress, who are themselves elected democratically. It is not "overthrowing the election". Were Trump to be removed from office, elected Vice President Pence would assume office. You are wrong.
2
@Happy Voter
Yeah, um, Barr is in charge of the DOJ. He is a Trump sycophant. So how is the DOJ against Trump?
2
I'm reading Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski's "The Right and the Power." Replace Cipollone's name with James St. Clair's (Nixon's attorney in 1973-74) and you'd be hard pressed to spot the differences between their letters/comments on the issue of Nixon (or Trump) getting a fair trial or whether people should appear under sub poena or evidence should be forwarded from the White House to the impeaching committee etc etc. It's textbook stuff, same tone and attitude, possibly phrases. I think Cipollone must have the old file on his desk!! The prevarication and obfuscation can be whittled away, but what worries me is that there isn't a court-based angle to all this, no Judge Sirica to depend on nor a full factual report from the Special Prosecutor, at least on the Ukraine bribery and departure from normal government issues, sent to a court of law and from there to the impeaching committee. Nixon faced a weight of facts, evidence brought together by a top team and handed over to the Committee. Does the Judiciary Committee of today have enough weight of facts yet? The whole case-building approach is different enough that it may not fly. One clear point made by Jaworski is that Nixon clearly had interfered with the normal functioning of government, for his own ends. There, I think, Trump is exposed without doubt.
1
Today's congressional Republicans have lost their way. These are elected representatives without a moral compass, without ethical standards. August 7, 1974 is why I post this. When Senator Barry Goldwater, Senator Hugh Scott and representative John Rhodes, all Republicans, visited the White House to inform Richard Nixon he needed to resign or be impeached, those congressional Republicans would had voted to impeach the 37th president had he not made the decision to go peaceably into the night. Those Republicans took their constitutional responsibility seriously. Republicans on the Hill today are mere shadows of their 1970's predecessors. Political analysis is needed to explain how this happened.
2
Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with the Federalist papers or the Constitution knows that Trump is the founding fathers’ worst-case-scenario nightmare of the personification of impeachable offenses and high crimes and misdemeanors. On the other hand, the hear-speak-and-see-no-evil RINO’s who defend and enable him are loudly proclaiming their ignorance of, or indifference to, these cornerstone documents of our democracy. If these proceedings will be loud, raucous and messy, it is because nothing less than our democratic government, for, of, and by, the people, is at stake. The question before the House, Senate and nation is, do we want to keep the democracy that has served us well for nearly two and half centuries, or do we want to junk it for a junk commandeer-in-cheat who is hellbent on perverting it into a Putinesca kleptocracy? The question before Congress is, will they vote for their grandchildren, or the Kremlin gremlins of which Trump and his supporters seem so oddly fond?
3
From all of the knowledge gained from the Impeachment Inquiries, testimony from others, and more to come, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that there is more than enough evidence for the following charges to be drawn up against this president:
Count one - Extortion (Extortionists are criminals)
Count two - Bribery
Count three - Contempt of Congress (defying subpoenas that common ordinary people will be ARRESTED for)
Count four - Obstruction of justice
Count five - Abuse of power
Count six - Retaliation (Firing of Yovanovitch and others)
Count seven - Witness intimidation (on 11/15/2019 on live television right during Yovanovitch's testimony with MILLIONS of witnesses)
9
the President is allowed to make countless tweets attacked the House Committees and the witness
But talk is cheap-Let him testify under an oath. Of course, he will not. He reminds me of the Wizard of OZ -all bluster and no substance- in other words a phony
3
It's amazing how this article has drawn of Trump supporters out of their knotholes and cracks in the wall.
As far as I am concerned, anyone who defends Trump's bribery of Ukraine has a serious cognitive problem. Or is similarly corrupt.
And it was not just any country, but one which needs our support to stem Russian invasion in the region. The evidence for bribery is water tight, ironclad, and any "president" who resorts to this for election purposes is rotten to the core.
20
1. no rush. subpoena and jail all who refuse. giuliani bolton mcgahn pompeo pence nunes (vienna) for starters.
2. use roger stone judge playbook in impeachment trial: no tweeting or other media grandstanding during trial.
3. try for obstruction and convict.
4. going forward: make it illegal to lie in/to media and enforce. that includes fox and alex and rush etc.
6
@David Godinez: "...for the Democrats, impeachment has always been more a political cause looking for a reason,.."
Kindly check Hamilton in Federalist #65:
"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL [caps. in original], as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."
4
Rushing through this process is not going to help the Democratics. It opens themselves to the criticism that they haven’t heard testimony from people with firsthand knowledge and that they don’t want to (even though the transcript is clear enough). But additional testimony from Bolton or Mulvaney isn’t going to change minds. Republicans will argue that Trump’s actions are not impeachable (even though the Constitution lists bribery as a reason for impeachment).
If they abort and decide to censure they have a chance to get Republicans on the record to say that this was unacceptable, which I’m thinking they would do, and that might change some minds going into the election.
1
Censure would leave the door open to future presidents to solicit foreign investigations of political opponents. Do we really want that to become normal?
2
Include the Mueller Report. Include the blatant disregard for the Emoluments Clause. Why do this so quickly and ram it through? That only gives the GOP a talking point. Even though Mueller didn’t give us the spectacle they wanted, he basically told the House to start impeachment proceedings because his hands were tied. I think the biggest mistake in all of this was not starting this process when the Mueller report came out. He found TEN COUNTS OF OBSTRUCTION, let’s not forget. Make the case that this president is not only arguing that he is above the law, but also above the Constitution itself! He is completely disregarding our democracy. The only way to do that is to bring all of his transgressions (as president) to light. Four articles are not nearly enough. Ten for what Mueller found, one for each violation of the emoluments clause, one for abuse of power for meddling in a presidential election, one for disregard of democracy, and one for disregard of the Constitution for stonewalling an impeachment proceeding.
Which brings me to other questions... How is it Constitutionally logical that the President can stonewall this?
And the whole notion that “we can’t subpoena Bolton because it would take too long,” why is the Judicial branch pushed to the side in this? It is a coequal branch yet it basically has no role in an impeachment of the President. Impeachment is the ultimate struggle between Congress and the Executive, yet we give no referee power to the third branch.
The House Intelligence hearings did away with standard procedures from previous impeachment hearings, eg Republicans couldn't subpoena witnesses during the closed hearings and could only do so with permission from Schiff during the public hearings.
But many people so detest Republicans, and Trump in particular, that they were citing protocols from the 19th century to justify how it was handled.
That feeds Republican rage and claims of unfairness.
The PR around these hearings has been atrocious. These hearings should have been above reproach in how they were handled.
2
The Intelligence Committee hearings were investigative not a trial.
This ‘whistle-blowing’ matter draws attention to the deliberate trump slow-walking of Congressional funding support of the Ukraines in confronting Putin’s territorial aggression. It is also a reminder of trump slow-walking sanctions imposed by Congress for Russian meddling in US elections for over three years now. Incredibly, prominent GOP senators McConnell, Graham, Cruz, Cornyn, Burr, Johnson, and Thune are all in lock-step support of trump’s ceding to Putin’s demands for US sanctions relief on Russian oligarchs and their business interests. They voted for such relief as recently as early this year. Romney was among them. It shows how deeply and all pervasively trump’s obstruction in plain sight has seriously jeopardized national security. Under normal circumstances this kind of blatant political meddling would sound alarms all over the place. But a kind of public malaise about these developments seems to have settled in, emboldening these senators to sense that they can turn a blind eye to presidential malfeasance definitely within the realm of outright treason with impunity.
3
Why are the Democrats are in such a hurry??
All that can happen in a hurry is that they will turn over the gavel to Mitch McConnell and it is hard to foresee what mischief he will manufacture. And a vote outcome in the Senate is well known in advance anyway. Why hurry it up?
Better to let the House hearing continue to its more natural conclusion. Better to wait for all the final court appeals on the subpoenas come to decision. Better to have Bolton, Giuliani, Pompeo, McGahn and company come in and testify.
Closer to the election.
3
Impeachment will and must go forward if for no other reason than this clause from Article II, Sec. 2:
"...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses [sic] against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
This would refer to whoever is President in the wake of this executive debacle.
Ever wonder why Nixon resigned rather than push the House to a vote? Ford's hands would have have been tied in terms of a pardon if a vote to impeach had actually been taken.
2
I won't watch. While the intelligence committee hearings were well run and mostly on point (for Democrats, anyway - Republicans were mostly engaged in character assassination and obfuscation), the judiciary hearings are going to be a veritable circus of grandstanding. I'm satisfied the evidence is there for articles of impeachment - don't need to see the sideshow now.
2
The only reason it would be loud and messy is that the Republicans are trying to cover for, and distract from, Trump's obvious guilt.
5
Impeachment of a president should be a painful and difficult process. But the Republicans rejection of the facts and their promotion of dangerous conspiracy theories (in lieu of a defense) is infuriating to watch. They are the circus. They are the kangaroo court.
Much credit is due to the Democrats, especially Chairman Schiff, who have managed thus far to keep the proceedings focused and firmly rooted in reality.
6
Wish so much the Dem majority in the House would focus on kitchen-table issues. It's what led to their recapturing the majority in this chamber in the first place. Sadly, their obsession with Trump is gonna shoot them in the foot come next November, mark my woods. They just don't have the goods on Trump, much as I and many others would like for them to. All this wasted time and money (paid for me the public) should be devoted to issues like health care, infrastructure, middle class tax relief, gun control. And so the nightmare continues...
3
"weighing a desire to demonstrate fairness to Mr. Trump against a determination to maintain forward momentum in the proceedings. It is one of the many delicate tasks, fraught with political risks and legal intricacies, that have fallen to the judiciary panel as the impeachment inquiry enters a critical phase."
vs.
"Republicans instead want to mire Democrats in a sloppy fight, making the hearings into such a confusing mishmash of competing information that even Republicans troubled by Mr. Trump’s actions see no upside in breaking with him."
Does anyone else see a big difference between these two parties?
11
The real question is how to preserve democracy when an entire political party is willing to do everything possible to undermine it.
31
@E Something we can all agree upon.
1
Very happy to read that Judiciary Committee lawyers have been hard at work behind the scenes, sorting out the rules and strategy for this perilous process - it is critical for Judiciary Dems to be over prepared to make their case and maintain order. Having said that, once the necessary preparation has been made it will be time for Nadler and his colleagues to work with one common strategy to bring on Trump’s impeachment. Egos need to be kept in check, freeing intellects and a sense of common purpose to carry the day.
5
Nadler doesn't have the strength or resolve of Schiff. Nor is he an articulate or compelling man. Insisting on keeping him as Chair of the Judiciary Committee is just another example of weakness on the part of Democrats. When the stakes are this high, you put your best forward. I'm not optimistic this will go well with Nadler at the helm.
20
@Tom Absolutely correct. He is simply not sharp and easily rattled and the GOP will endlessly torment him with motions. It will not be pretty.
1
If you think about all the inquiries, depositions and meetings surrounding this impeachment, climate change comes to mind. Yes, this impeachment is leaving a carbon foot print on our environment and there is scientific evidence to support it.
Please save our planet with a censure instead of impeachment then re-elect Trump and move on.
7
Trump withheld aid, appropriated by Congress, from Ukraine until Ukraine publicly announced an investigation into the Bidens and you’re worried about the minor impact on the climate? I trust you’re not serious. The president is guilty of extortion.
Trump literally is trying to illegally cheat his way to victory in 2020 and you think we all should let him by just waiting for the election. Maybe he’ll publicly ask China for help again since Ukraine is, presumably, out.
2
@RS You fail to see that at this point in time Trump has few real accomplishments other than loading the Supreme Court and an un-funded tax cut . He's got lots of " business " cooking , but nothing is done or settled .
-China Trade War .?
-North Korea nukes?
-Re-written NAFTA ?
-Better ,cheaper healthcare ?
-Lower rug prices ?
-Wall "paid for by" Mexico ?
-Unified American citizens ?( Worse than ever )
-So far he hasn't destroyed the economy left to him by President Obama .
1
@RS
Oh RS, I beg you, please show us this scientific evidence.
While you're at it, lets see if you can come up with any scientific evidence to support that re-electing Trump would be better for the climate than this impeachment proceeding. Because I for one would love to see how much worse for the environment this impeachment proceeding is than 4 years of Trump.
I'll help you get started:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/climate/epa-coal-pollution-deaths.html
Trump plans on increasing pollution deaths by 1,400 a year. How many pollution deaths with the impeachment proceeding cause?
1
Ah, yes, nothing goes together better than impeachment and Christmas. I can just hear Nadler and Schiff singing, "It's the most wonderful time of the year," during the hearings.
6
@Richard Sorry, this country became less wonderful and less great when Trump took office.
2
@Richard
Somehow, I think that Christmas carols are not a big deal in the Nadler & Schiff households.
3
These days I feel as though I'm living in a country that is teetering on a tightrope without a net.
8
Of course it is unfair when a society’s rules collide with one’s behaviour. I wasn’t asked whether the law I broke should have been enacted in the first place. The farmers of the Constitution never asked me my opinion on the whole phony set-up. Any charge against me is a witch-hunt and a hoax. Every witness and piece of evidence that comes forward is prejudicial to me because I’m not permitted to spin an alternate reality of fake stories and conspiracy theories in the real world. The fantasy life of a sociopathic personality collides with reality. So unfair!
28
Anyone who believes this sideshow benefits either party is delusional.
10
@PeterC
Seems to me that benefiting either party is not the objective. Observing and upholding the constitution to benefit the republic is the objective.
29
@PeterC You must realize that this is being done FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS DEMOCRACY.
It is not a "What's in it for me?" thing.
But Trump, his party, and his supporters have completely forgotten about the Country and Democracy.
Self-interest will do that.
18
@PeterC I don't care if it doesn't benefit either party. I DO care that it benefits the country, the rule of law, and justice.
6
Trump called the Democrats bluff when he released the transcript. That changed their narrative and destroyed their strategy. Now they can impeach and take it to the Senate. They won't. They know that is where their continuous charade will be exposed for what it really is. Nothing more than the slander that was Stormy, Mueller, obstruction, Blasey-Ford, racism, homophobia, misogyny, collusion, et. al.
10
@Duane Mathias - Any yet, everything on your list is accurate and true. Go figure!
5
@Duane Mathias Trump called the bluff when he released smoking gun evidence of his crime? That's an interesting take there.
4
No one released any transcript. The White House released what turned out to a doctored "summary" of the call. In addition, the call was just one incident in a thoroughly documented months-long effort to pressure/bribe/extort a foreign government to intervene in our election in favor of Mr. Trump. You seem to be fine with a president violating our Constitution - most Americans are not.
2
Big mistake if the Democrats decide to include anything related to the Mueller report. Stay focused on Ukraine. It’s much easier for the public to digest and is most relevant at this time.
4
@CRL
Ask any Republican whether they support the Trump Family charity.
@CRL:
Mueller concluded that Trump committed obstruction 10 times.
He also refused to exonerate Trump.
What more do you want?
NYT Please Advise: Given...
...the perilous trajectories of our country and planet,
...the powerful evidence presented during the House impeachment hearings,
...and the anticipated sham trial of Trump in the U.S. Senate,
...at what point does the NYT take the lead, as one of the nation’s most respected news organizations, and call for Trump’s resignation (without the benefit of a Pence pardon – for Trump or himself)?
Thank you.
+++++++++++++++
FYI: A bit of history from Wikipedia:
Impeachment Process Against Richard Nixon
On November 4, 1973, Senator Edward Brooke became the first congressional Republican to publicly urge President Nixon to resign. That same week, several newspapers, including The Atlanta Journal, The Denver Post, The Detroit News and The New York Times, published editorials also urging him to resign. Time magazine, in the first editorial in 50 years of publication, did so as well, declaring that the president "has irredeemably lost his moral authority" to govern effectively, and that Nixon "and the nation have passed a tragic point of no return."
9
Jerald Nadler is clearly no Adam Schiff.
Nor is Jerald Nadler any Peter Rodino.
Which was really lucky, smart and wise that this Ukrainian bribery and extortion scheme credibly fell within the bailiwick of the House Intelligence Committee.
1
I’m beginning to see this impeachment circus as it was practiced in the Soviet Union; present an obvious political accusations to rub out an opponent and have the rest of the minions pile on to approve an beforehand agreed upon verdict.
Yes this is and will be a circus made for MSNBC.
10
@Jerry Davenport I don't recall the Soviets involving the opposing party in their proceedings, so I believe you have that part wrong. I do agree with you that Trump made and continues to make "obvious political accusations to rub out an opponent" with his whole Burisma/Biden approach.
8
@Jerry Davenport ...n ow when they were out to get Hillary...well, that was different .
3
"It will be up to Representative Jerrold Nadler, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to maintain order and inject gravity and fairness into the proceedings.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times"
The Republicans and Supporters thrive on Their Leader's degrading and demeaning behavior.
That's about all that you can expect.
8
So, "this spring", Representative Nadler was asking his (Democratic) colleagues on the Judiciary panel whether "given the facts before us", they were "heading toward" impeaching the President. This question was put, of course, weeks if not months before the presidential conversation with the Ukrainian President that now has them all in a partisan froth. This proves that for the Democrats, impeachment has always been more a political cause looking for a reason, than a response to high crimes. That makes this the equivalent to the Clinton impeachment, generally now acknowledged to have been a political mistake for the Republicans. That's why the Speaker has been reluctant to allow this process to go forward, and should be something to keep in mind for Representative Nadler as well.
10
Asking a foreign government to dig up dirt on your political opponent is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote high crimes and misdemeanors. They did not mean did you have sex with that woman. Big difference. This is more akin to Nixon than Clinton. Nixon was using domestic interference to find dirt on his opponent. Trump took it one step further and asked a foreign government. Clear enough for you?
18
@David Godinez Manafort, Gates, Flynn, Papadopoulos, Cohen...what other candidate or president has surrounded themselves with such an unsavory crew? The fish rots from the head down.
12
@David Godinez Back in the spring, we did not know about the Ukranian call yet. That is true.
However, we did know about Trump's campaign finance violations to pay off pornstars, his enriching himself off of the presidency with taxpayer dollars going to Secret Service stays at his resorts and renting his golf carts while he golfed all day, his corrupt charity that has since been shut down and we were learning about the extent of his obstruction of justice as well.
What this proves is that Trump is the most brazenly corrupt president in US history. And while every act of corruption gets blended into our daily outrage stew until it becomes normalized, this Ukraine phone call has proven to be so clearly corrupt and unAmerican that the question can no longer be debated. This president must be impeached.
The president withheld Congressionally appropriated funds to an ally under attack to get a fake investigation into a political rival. And didn't release the funds until he was caught. He's then obstructed the inquiry at every turn and we're supposed to let this go unanswered?
How would you feel if President Biden withheld Congressionally appropriated funds to an ally under attack to get their president to announce a fake investigation into Mike Pence to hurt his 2024 election? Because that's the standard we'd be setting if we didn't impeach.
20
Larry Schiff does the handoff to Moe Nadler.
Go Moe.
Now all you need is a reason to impeach.
Don’t give up.
We like comedy.
11
I wouldn’t worry. We’re all distressingly aware of precisely the level of humor you guys enjoy; regrettably, I got past all that a little before the stage in which the funniest thing I ever saw was a fellow fifth-grader who I’d provoked into blowing milk out his nose at lunchtime set in.
3
@Ken It's completely amusing that you use this analogy, because, as someone who has seen DJT in New York for decades, I have long thought he acted like ALL three of the stooges. He's even worse than he was then.
3
@Ken Moe Nadler?
The press learned nothing from 2015-2016. Nothing. And every single day they continue to demonstrate that fact, the farther into depression I sink.
Back in 2016, the Times ran dozens of stories about how Clinton had used a private email server for government business and talked endlessly about how dangerous it was. Then in 2017 we learned that Pence, Kushner, Ivanka, and numerous other Trump administration officials had used private email accounts, Chinese owned apps, and private encrypted communications platforms, for official government business and they only covered each incident once.
In 2016, the Times ran a piece that said the FBI had found no clear link between Trump and Russia. Which was the exact opposite of the truth and then instead of apologizing for that coverage, they reflexively defended it.
And now they’re covering this impeachment proceeding the exact same way. They’re making it sound like what Trump did was somehow subjectively okay. It’s not. What Trump did was objectively immoral, unethical, and possibly illegal. Again.
Let’s not forget that Trump, individual 1, was already implicated in multiple felonies by Michael Cohen’s testimony but the prosecutors didn’t want to have to be the ones to test whether or not a president could be indicted for a crime. So they let him off as an unindicted co-conspirator.
What Trump did in the Ukraine was objectively wrong. To suggest anything else is to aid in the obliteration of the very idea of reality.
45
Please explain how in the world this article legitimates Trump’s actions in any way at all. It looks like it simply covers what’s expected of the Judiciary Committee hearings to me, with heavy emphasis on the expected nutty obstructionism from Republicans.
Be specific, please. Maybe you’ll be able to talk me into seeing your post as something more than media-bashing that looks suspiciously like trump’s, and one more leftish scrabbling for alibis.
Oh, by the way. I have yet to see a leftish “critique,” of the media that really gets to where the real problems are. Here’s a hint: they mostly have to do with capitalism, which ain’t going poof any time soon.
1
@Robert
This right here.
“Even at this late date,’ Mr. Cipollone wrote, ‘it is not yet clear whether you will afford the president at least these basic, fundamental rights, or continue to deny them.”
Why include that? It adds nothing of value to the discussion. Nothing. The House has invited Trump to present a defense.
The proper way to address the issue of Trump & his legal representation not attending is simply to say, “President Trump’s legal representation has indicated they will not participate.”
Period. Because that’s the truth. There’s no journalistically defensible reason to include that statement.
Have you ever heard of gaming the refs? Republicans are masters of this strategy. They continually and perpetually accuse the media of bias when none exists, until the press becomes so terrified of being accused of bias that they actually become biased in favor of Republicans.
They publish bogus and unsubstantiated attacks and outright lies from prominent conservatives daily, without making mention of the fact that their attacks are without merit. Then, they dare to claim objectivity?
I’m not anti-media. I’m anti-corrupt-millionaire/billionaire. Seeing as how most of the media is owned by corrupt wealthy people, I can see how my opposition to corrupt wealth is perceived as an anti-media stance.
4
1) Interactions instigated by fulminating trumpican diversionary rants should be handled via a dignified, and, if possible, wittily sardonic use of the Socratic method, whereby instead of responding to a lie with indignant rhetoric that just fights fire with fire, one poses simple questions to the enabler designed to reveal the false narrative or explicit distortion (aka lie) behind the original rant.
Trumpicans are clearly intending to behave like spoiled children throwing tantrums. This requires parental discipline and a plan how to neutralize such tactics calmly and forcefully.
2) References to the Ukraine server conspiracy should always be characterized as putin's planted conspiracy. Repeatedly connecting the name putin to what jones, gohmert, gaetz, et al will go on and on about will gradually emphasize to all but the core how much this trumpican lie is an english version of putin's.
3) The committee should remind everyone that subpoenas to appear have been issued to x, y, z...because their testimony would help clarify the intent behind the actions. "Procedural unfairness" is an irrelevant reason for ignoring a legal subpoena.
4) There should be clear explanations why
the hearings are not "unfair" since it's an accusation
we'll hear by the committee's pouting child adults who believe whining will ultimately work.
5) Why has giulani been allowed to ignore a subpoena, and why has he not been arrested for stiffing the committee?
11
I watched much of the Intelligence Committee hearings live. I won't do that with the Judiciary Committee hearings. Doug Collins is right to say they will be a sideshow, a circus, and a kangaroo court. Any proceeding that includes Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, John Ratcliffe, and Collins cannot be anything else. I'll watch the highlights (if there are any) on MSNBC.
9
So we don’t really have a government of laws at all. What we have is government by those who can shout the loudest. Why can the GOP enablers of Trump disrupt the House Judiciary Committee hearings by engaging in behavior which would get ordinary citizens and taxpayers hauled into jail for contempt of court?
16
One of the GOP politburo members has been demanding that Adam Schiff be called to testify before the Judiciary committee.
Shouldn't Nadler/Schiff agree with the following condition;
'If Ranking Member Nunes is sworn and appears at the same table to take questions as well we'll do it'.
See how quick the GOPers back off that!
(Huge laugh emoji here!!)
18
I hope Nader has the skill and confidence to keep the GOP circus in check like Adam Schiff did in the intelligence committee. Schiff kept the GOP spin doctors under tight control and came across as serious and not bothered by the absolute childish shenanigans of the GOP.
I actually hated the 5 minute questioning in the hearings as they were mostly media stunts to get sound bites for the evening news. The most productive questioning was done in the 45 minute segments by the staff lawyers - and the opening and closing statements of the chairs. (Though Nunes statements were Russian propaganda and his time could have been much better served if he had something worthwhile to say).
We’re in for an interesting ride the next couple weeks.
25
Many of Trump's defenders should know that they too are in the frame, which when you think about it, only encourages them to defend him. Until of course they cut and run. Guiliani in particular should be worried: maybe people will start to look at his time in NYC and wonder if he was fronting for Trump while he was mayor.
11
In the public glare.
In the cause of justice.
Move forward with resolve, Judiciary Committee.
18
"Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel, turned down an offer from Mr. Nadler for Mr. Trump or his lawyers to participate on Wednesday." As anyone, eager to prove their innocence, would do. Yep, makes perfect sense to me. Not one tweet, legal maneuver or action that's been taken, by Trump or his team, has indicated that we are dealing with an innocent man.
30
Gott to wonder if the Judiciary Committee is really ready to swiftly debate and draft articles of impeachment as they don't even start work until l Wednesday while most people with serious jobs are already at work as this is written. Then the committee is going to waste at least a day with a lot of yada yada from some professors whose opinions are strictly academic. All the while momentum and public interest are dying. Speaker Pelosi needs to read Chairman Nadler and the other Democrats the riot act.
1
I admire Nadler, but I believe he is ill-equipped to maintain order in the proceedings like he failed to do in the Mueller investigation hearings.
12
The GOP line of defense - that the deep state is out to get him - is both nonsense and true. There is the old saying that it’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you. In that context Trump and his minions do have a point. We really are out to get him. From the beginning of his bizarre, crude, confabulating campaign, a majority of Americans have opposed him.
That’s called democracy, not a deep state conspiracy. Trump’s lack of fitness, temperament and preparation are self-evident. Robert Mueller’s report cited broad cooperation with a foreign power in election tampering and highlighted at least 10 instances of obstruction of justice that might be prosecuted if not for the Justice Department memo suggesting that a sitting president may not be indicted.
It is not a stretch to compare this bizzaro world to a story of organized crime figures whining that the cops are just out to get them and those darned reporters just keep printing photos of the bodies and blood. It’s just so unfair!
60
How can the White House put up a defense when it’s unclear what the charges are? While witnesses who testified during the impeachment inquiry presented many reasons why they think Americans should not vote for Trump in 2020, none of them alleged the president committed treason, bribery or a high crime or misdemeanor. (People who disagree should cite testimony.)
Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified that he put “two and two together" and “presumed” that the president would refuse to meet with President Zelensky at the White House unless Zelensky publicly announced he was investigating Burisma and the Bidens. The two presidents met at the United Nations instead of the White House. The expectation that the Senate will remove the president from office for meeting Zelensky at the UN instead of the White House is delusional.
Committee Chairman Adam Schiff coaxed witness Fiona Hill into recounting a childhood incident in which her classmates set her pigtails ablaze, but it's unclear whether the articles of impeachment will alleged Trump had anything to do with the incident.
8
"Dats a nice family you got there. It would be a pity if something happened to them."
By your reasoning, the comment above is not a threat. It's just a friendly expression of concern.
17
William Case, King of Cherrypicking
10
@William Case
Generally, witnesses don't allege crimes. That's the job of the prosecutors.
In this case, prosecutors would point to 52 USC §30121, which makes it illegal for a person to solicit anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a federal election.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121
9
The entire process will made stomach turning by the endless displays of Republicans who, absent of any actual defense for Trump, know no lows in creating an ugly sideshow.
Trump is nothing less than your standard tin pot dictator with his endless lies and greed. His blatant and obvious strong arming of the Ukrainian government, his misuse of the office of President and Congressional funds for his personal political gain, would be an open and shut case among patriotic representatives intent on doing what is best for our country.
But Republicans in office are not interested in doing what’s best for our country. To a man — and they are mostly men — they are sacrificing our country for their narrow focused self interests: pandering to a minority base seduced by Trump’s lies.
Watching your country being destroyed by such men is heartbreaking.
America was a dream. Republicans have made our country a nightmare.
53
I'm so tired of hearing the republican talking point that these proceedings are not fair.
Yes it's so unfair to hold the president accountable for holding up taxpayer funded military aid to bribe a strategic ally for his own political gain.
Poor unfairly treated Trump...
112
Fandos writes, "[a]t least one senior member of the committee, Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California, said in an interview that she remained unconvinced that Mr. Mueller’s case united House Democrats in the same way the Ukraine affair has."
This sort of navel-examining by members of Congress who swore to uphold the laws and Constitution is maddening. Who cares if House Democrats are 'united' about evidence that Mueller testified--albeit after being forced to do so, but under oath--satisfied every element of no fewer than three counts of obstruction of justice?
The Democrats' failure to prosecute bona fide charges amply supported by evidence will undermine our constitutional democracy just as surely as Trump's tactics analyzed elsewhere in these pages.
24
Impeachment in the House is as inevitable as acquittal in the Senate. The process will change no one's mind & voters will vote regardless of the outcome. What we might get is a public demonstration of where the Democrats & Republicans stand on the rule of law. And with senators like Kennedy parroting Russian propaganda, it doesn't look good for Republicans. Everything I've read says in private the Republicans in both houses would love to see Trump's removal. This is their chance to acquit themselves in the eyes of the country & history.
139
@Benedict Hughes Dream on. The GOP's first loyalty is to keeping their jobs, and with Trump owning the Republican electorate where one tweet can sink them, that translates to a loyalty to Trump. I'd be surprised if there's a single GOP vote to impeach him.
23
@Benedict Hughes Do you think so? It is difficult to understand how an entire party has become entangled w Russian oligarchs. In retrospect, JFK sleeping with the mob? Multiple deaths in high places that remain shrouded in mystery. We have Khashoggi and Epstein as our country is disassembled.
2
@DB
This impeachment is one last attempt to save what is left of our country.
If Obama had acted anything like Trump, with the tweets, the lies, the misuse of the office of President and federal funds, you’d be singing a different tune.
If this is your country— and perhaps it’s not — you should actually care about it.
17
Too bad. We were hoping for a polite, formal, well organized and quick impeachment.
6
@Ted That's funny....
2
It would be a serious mistake to rush to draw up impeachment articles if they do not include obstruction of justice. As clear as the case is about the attempted strong-arm of Ukraine, the evidence of obstruction is as plain as the nose on your face.
An obstruction charge is not only warranted, it is required to defend the rule of law and hold the chief executive accountable.
It would also be smart to let the courts work a while on the spurious cases put forth to shield potential witnesses. We're seeing favorable judicial rulings. Let them continue to build.
And yes, put some teeth behind the congressional subpoenas. If the bribery charge has some folks wavering, seeing recalcitrant witnesses jailed would bolster the obstruction charge. Congress has a right and duty to call witnesses and compel them to appear.
The articles need to be as strong as possible to have a chance of helping some republicans grow a backbone and do the right thing for our country.
86
@Steve W
Every Republican hopes the Dems follow your advice. It is tragically wrong-headed.
1
In these Brave New P.T. Barnum times, relative to the coming impeachment and elections, I'm looking forward to being appalled, frightened, thrilled, angered, and generally thoroughly-distracted and entertained by a proper three-ring circus, which is I believe is the entire point of the entire exercise. The oldest story of governance after Lust and Greed, is the ever-so-vital Constant Distraction, to cover said Lust and Greed, and to get from vote to vote without having to actually perform all of that tedious governance. -C
5
Trump has stonewalled the impeachment investigation by ordering current and former employees to not cooperate. And now he has the unmitigated chutzpah to whine about his due process rights.
The Constitution does not provide much guidance on how to impeach a president, so Congress has had to create the procedure. The president is entitled to a full trial in the Senate where he is afforded the right to counsel, to introduce his own witnesses and evidence, to cross examine witnesses, etc., etc.
25
“When all is said and done, given the facts before us, are we heading toward impeaching this president?”
You tell lies: The Democratic Party, and its supporters, have called for impeachment since the day after Trump’s election. It’s not based on “facts.” The premise of this article is that the Democrats were struggling with a decision about whether to impeach or not. The premise is false and insincere because the decision to impeach the president was made before he ever took office. In addition, “The Blue Wave” Democrats ran on impeaching the president. It was a campaign promise. So there was no struggle to decide. The only “struggle” was how to present it so it would succeed.
11
Yes. There was talk of impeachment from day one. Most likely because collusion with Putin was so obvious. Not because anyone was simply “out to get him.”
161
@David
Who in the Democratic Party called for Trump's impeachment the day after the election? Names and citations, please.
Where are your "facts" to back up that statement?
43
@David
Fortunately most on the Democratic side chose to handle their frustration in the same way that the Republicans heavily communicated murderous hatred towards Obama--- however restricted their political actions to those that law and Congressional rules permitted.
8
"Mr. Collins, a Georgia lawyer with an auctioneer’s cadence and a lawyer’s knack for tripping up committee business.."
Collins is Trumps pick to replace Senator Isakson who is retiring for health reasons. But the wind wiil be taken out of his sails. Unless things change in the last minute, Governor Kemp wiil appoint a moderate businesswoman, Kelly Loeffler.
Loeffler has never held public office before, and though her bio tells little about her, by all accounts, she will be a far better pick than that loose cannon Collins.
18
Isn't time to stop pandering?
Isn't time to forget about partisan politics?
Isn't it time to work on what is good for America?
Isn't it time to move forward?
(The election is less than one year away.)
Isn't it time to move past the impeachment fiasco?
Isn't it time to implement policy?
Isn't it time to stop gerrymandering?
Isn't it time to implement legislation?
(After three years, all we as a nation have accomplished is more divisiveness and polarization!)
Isn't it time to move on?
2
What are you suggesting?
Moving on and allowing the current regime to operate without checks and balances? (After all, Trump did win the vote in the electoral college, and shouldn’t we support their decision?) Or are you suggesting we move on to the next president?
16
@bsb Isn't it time to put our collective heads in the sand." After all, future presidents will not be guided by the excused corruption of this president. Right?
19
@bsb Isn't it time to stop sitting by and letting someone completely abuse the power of the office?
31
I wish that the Judiciary Committee would put these hearings off until after the Holidays. I also wish that everyone would stop giving so much weight to the public opinion pools. They have rarely been accurate.
The Judiciary Committee should focus on one thing only. To do the right thing. Maybe they should concentrate on having the Capitol Police arrest all those who refused to testify at the behest of Trump. If that isn't a case for Obstruction of Justice, I don't know what is.
In any case, Trump has proven in his own words that he did have a quid pro quo in mind and in fact. How much more black and white does something have to be before he is iImpeached?
By the way, it isn't the Impeachment process that is dividing our country. It is the collective closed minds of Republicans and the power structure that has caused it. Impeachment of Trump will not be what keeps our Country divided. It is the GOP and its minions.
What is keeping our Country divided is its persistent inequality in
our Country from gerrymandering to Voter suppression, to lack of choice and upside down economics, including the Tax Reform Bill, and the continued lack of Separation of Church and State.
Until these problems are taken care of, we will remain divided.
260
@Jean Excellent Jean. Clear and accurate.
16
@Jean
Your summary is stirring, but there's one giant problem with it -
"Upside down economics" - yes, very real and exacerbated almost daily for 3 years - would SEEM INEVITABLY destined to shatter Trump's coalition of wealthy folks who could care less about things like "an opioid crisis" or attacks on freedom of choice re pregnancy... and the much less privileged folks in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc. who brought Trump to power.
And it obviously has NOT achieved that. Our only hope - and it's starting to look out of reach - is that the white suburban women in those states basically look themselves in the mirror and ask, "WHAT AM I if I vote for DJT... again?!"
In short - we've blown our responsibility to educate our citizenry!
Somehow, we've gone from a time when people had the smarts to distinguish between pols who "mostly" were in their corner from the ones looking to gut them... to NOW, when there ARE millions of Americans who think that the greatest danger to our country is at our southern border.
I kinda get the chaos re Britain and Brexit, but for the U.S. to have elected a man who fabricated "thousands of rapists" looking to immigrate here... and then campaigned successfully on "build a wall" can only be explained by the kind of ignorance and mis-education that was the subject of a court case a year or 2 back.
And those same schools and teachers must be doing a bad job teaching "judge people by their actions - not by the color of their skin!"
7
Basically until everyone adopts my “progressive” values we will be divided. Not a rationale viewpoint.
1
With a Senate acquittal guaranteed, and McConnell skilled at putting on a circus, it's crazy to impeach Trump and hand the torch to the GOP. The smarter path would be to broadcast to the public that we know the game is rigged and we're not playing. Pass a strong censure and get back to campaigning on the kitchen table issues that won the House in 2018. We have both a winning and a losing formula. Choose to win!
4
@Jay S Not an unreasonable analysis or suggestion but with acceptance of a pre-ordained outcome (such as Senate aquittal) there never would have been a battle at the Alamo and the Jets wouldn't even have bothered to show up to play in Superbowl III.
We can hope to be surprised by the outcome of a Senate trial (the Jets example) or, if that goes as anticipated, a backlash in the fall that sends 45, McConnell, and everyone else who backed their play packing (the Alamo example).
8
@Mike
We might also be surprised by the exposure of some unexpected players in the Ukraine Affair. (Including those on the Other Side of the Aisle).
Be careful what you wish for, if there is a trial in the Senate it will be epic, even Shakespearean. Nothing like Slick Willy's.
1
Please! Just do it!
Someone has to speak up for those of us who rightfully fear Russian take over in our elections, Russian takeover in other aspects of our lives, our fear of the power of Vladimir Putin and his influence on Donald Trump, and ultimately our country.
This isn’t about winning or losing votes in 2020. We cannot make it be that. This is about the corruption of Donald Trump, the disrespect, dishonor, and total regard this president has for us.
Witnesses have testified the truth, that they know the wrong Donald Trump has done. Let the chips fall where they may down the road.
Do you think Fiona Hill doesn’t know what she’s been talking about and testified to? And all the others?
The American people deserve our rights, and for elected officials to stand for us. Right is right, wrong is wrong. Donald Trump has wronged us. He has and would wrong our children, our future generations. This cannot be ignored.
Impeach!
167
@MIMA
Democracy, itself, is on trial in these hearings.
I hope that the NY Times will write about the "Democracy" song. In 1992, Leonard Cohen wrote this prophetic song.
"Democracy is coming to the USA"
I fear is that Trumpsters believe democracy is no longer needed. After all, we have prosperity, technology, computers, etc, now.
Who needs a slow, painful, trial and error, democratic process? Let's move on, in the 21st century, to a United States of Trump?
Please, NY Times, write about the "Democracy song" now.
"Democracy is coming to the USA"
8
@H Pearle
In Cohen's song, Democracy is a sailing ship, and anyone who sails knows there is no direct line from here to there, even with the wind astern (as there are always hidden dangers) :
"Sail on, Sail on, Thou Mighty Ship of State.
To the Shores of Need, Past the Reefs of Greed, Through the Squalls of Hate. Sail on,
Sail on, Sail on, Sail on." (L. Cohen)
Democracy is a journey and like all journeys must be adaptive to the conditions that present themselves along the way. I would really like to see a remake of 'Democracy'
(authentic, not jazzed up with fluff) become
the theme song of the 2020 election cycle.
3
I fully understand the political risks involved in proceeding with these hearings. But let's be honest, the democrats are between a tyrant and hard constitution. There is no doubt now that Trump bribed/extorted a foreign country to do his political dirty work---that is a fact. The only question that remains is this type of behavior a high crime---what we will hear this week from constitutional scholars and YES---this is exactly the kind of behavior the founders wanted addressed. Again, understand that impeachment is a political process, but, reading the facts and the pertinent laws of this case leave the democrats with only one option--which is impeachment. Yes, they may lose in the Senate and even jeopardize 2020 race, but, if there ever was a clear case of the forefathers impeachment intent---this case is it.
67
Like any grand jury, a highly partisan House can impeach a ham sandwich. There need not be any crime at all, let alone a high crime. There need not being any direct evidence under the Federal Rules of Procedure, as they are not applicable here, as in a grand jury. There may not be any underlying ethical rationale. If running for office in primary provided immunity from investigation, either by a foreign government and by logical extension, a domestic one, then any criminal should perpetually stand for office. Drawing up some articles of impeachment is not a difficult task. Getting the highly partisan House to pass then with a majority vote is not a difficult task. Getting the Senate to convict is another matter, admittedly hopeless. Getting the American people to buy into this political gamesmanship is the greatest challenge of all.
5
@drcmd
I think you mean the federal rules of evidence, not procedure or more properly criminal procedure.
@Bathsheba Robie I did not want to distinguish between Civil and Criminal Procedure as I am not sure which is more analogous to impeachment. Of course the rules of evidence are defined in the Rules of Procedure, thus the broader category covers the narrow category, and more.
1
Since Nadler let Corey Lewandowski get away with such disrespectful behavior in the previous hearing I’m very skeptical that he will be able to control and contain the Republican members of his committee. I hope he can use the facts and only the facts to bring his case forward. Maybe he should consult Joe Friday.
39