Impeachment Inquiry

[GreyhoundFan]

"Three deeply problematic aspects of newly released text messages centered on the Ukraine scandal"

Spoiler

It’s generally not a good sign when a government official sends a written message questioning the propriety of an action and another official replies by suggesting they talk on the phone. The implication is that the second official is worried about leaving behind evidence of their conversation. A phone call doesn’t leave a paper trail.

On Thursday night, the chairmen of the House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight committees — Reps. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) and Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), respectively — made public a document excerpting text messages exchanged between government officials working on the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. Those officials sat in positions that are currently under intense scrutiny, with still-expanding questions about President Trump’s behavior toward Ukraine and his efforts to get that country to conduct investigations that he hoped would aid him politically.

While the released text messages are neither comprehensive (representing “only a subset of the full body of the materials,” according to the letter accompanying the messages) nor do they directly implicate Trump, they contain significant new revelations and suggestions about the Trump-Ukraine interactions. They include, in two suggestive moments, specifically the sort of don’t-document-this responses that imply an awareness of lines being crossed.

1. There’s an explicitly stated quid pro quo.

A central participant in the messages is Kurt Volker, former special envoy to Ukraine. Until last week, he served in the administration, resigning shortly after he was identified in a complaint filed by a whistleblower in the intelligence community. The whistleblower portrayed Volker as working with European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland to try to run interference between Ukrainian officials and Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani, who was pressing for Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden.

The text messages suggest that Volker and Sondland might more accurately be described as trying, at times, to effect what Giuliani — and Trump — wanted to see: An investigation into a completely unfounded attempt to link Ukraine to the hacking of the Democratic National Committee network in 2016 and a probe of Biden and work his son Hunter did for an energy company called Burisma Holdings. The Trump-Giuliani theory is that Joe Biden wanted Ukraine to fire its general prosecutor to protect Hunter and Burisma; there remains no significant evidence that this happened.

On July 21, four days before Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had a phone call in which Trump asked Zelensky to conduct precisely those investigations, Sondland had a text message exchange with Bill Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador in Ukraine. Taylor made clear that Zelensky wanted “Ukraine [to be] taken seriously,” and not just serve as “an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics.” Part of that, it is later revealed, is getting Zelensky an invitation to meet Trump in Washington.

Shortly before the call on July 25, Volker texted Andrey Yermak, an adviser to Zelensky (who had been inaugurated two months prior). In that message, Volker was explicit about what it would take to get that meeting.

“Heard from White House,” Volker wrote, “assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / ‘get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

This is as explicit a quid pro quo as you can get: Promise to get to the bottom of events in 2016 — which could refer to either the hacking or to the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor targeted by Biden — and you’ll get the validity that comes with a White House visit.

What’s not clear is who Volker spoke with in the White House. In the call between Trump and Zelensky later that day, the meeting was raised, with Trump vaguely suggesting that Zelensky could pick his dates only after the Ukrainian leader had promised to go along with the politically useful investigations Trump wanted to see.

The extent to which that visit was important to Zelensky was highlighted when he and Trump met on Sept. 25 on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.

“I want to thank you for invitation to Washington,” Zelensky said. “You invited me, but I think — I’m sorry. I’m sorry. But I think you forgot to tell me the date.”

People in attendance laughed. Trump looked annoyed and pointed to someone standing nearby. “They’ll tell you the date,” Trump said.

“Oh, yes, they know before us,” Zelensky replied.

2. The U.S. helped shape a statement from Ukraine mentioning the Biden probe.

In a text message exchange with Volker immediately after the call, Zelensky’s aide Yermak suggested Sept. 20 through 22. By early August, though, those dates hadn’t been confirmed.

In an exchange with Volker on Aug. 9, Sondland suggested that dates would be finalized as soon as Yermak confirmed ... something. From the context of Sondland’s comments in the thread, it seems that the something is a written statement that would accompany a news conference by Zelensky, presumably to announce the new investigations.

Asked how he got the White House to finally agree to set dates, Sondland suggested that it isn’t final yet: “I think potus really wants the deliverable” — again presumably that statement. Shortly after that exchange, Volker contacted Giuliani to get guidance on what the statement should include.

The next day, Volker and Yermak corresponded by text message with Yermak, with the aide insisting that dates for a visit be set before the statement being released.

“Once we have a date,” the Zelensky aide wrote, “will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of US-UKRAINE relationship, including among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Again, an investigation into Burisma is, in essence, an investigation into Hunter Biden’s work and an effort to position Joe Biden as having acted unethically. Yermak was promising to uphold his end of the quid pro quo, once a date is set.

On Aug. 13 — coincidentally the day after the whistleblower complaint was filed — Volker sent Sondland what appears to be draft language to include in the statement.

“Special attention should be paid to the problem of interference in the political processes of the United States especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians,” the text read — an additional reference to the release of information implicating then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort in illegal payments in August 2016.

“I want to declare that this is unacceptable,” Volker wrote, presumably speaking as though he’s Zelensky. “We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, including those involving Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections, which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in the future.”

“Perfect,” Sondland replied.

Four days later, Sondland asked if they still want Burisma and the 2016 elements in the statement.

“That’s the clear message so far,” Volker replied.

But the statement doesn’t happen. It’s not clear why it didn’t — although it may again be because no date for a meeting with Trump was set.

3. There’s a strong suggestion that military aid was used as leverage — and hints at an attempt to hide that.

By the end of August, the Ukrainians had learned that the United States is withholding military aid, a decision made by Trump before the July 25 call. Trump had been scheduled to travel to Poland for an international event but, with Hurricane Dorian threatening Florida and Georgia, he remained in the United States. Vice President Pence went in Trump’s stead and was slated to meet with Zelensky on September 1.

A bit after noon on that day, Taylor, the U.S. official in Ukraine, texted Sondland.

“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Taylor asked.

“Call me,” Sondland replied. And their conversation on that central point was not recorded.

Taylor’s question is a central one to the Trump-Ukraine interaction. There are significant problems that arise if Trump tried to leverage his position and America’s interests to get Ukraine to investigate his political opponents. There are larger problems that arise if Trump halted congressionally approved funding to use it as leverage.

On Sept. 8, Volker, Taylor and Sondland tried to get on the phone, but Volker couldn’t hear the conversation.

“Gordon [Sondland] and I just spoke,” Taylor texted Volker. “I can brief you if you and Gordon don’t connect.” Taylor continued: “The nightmare is they give the interview and don’t get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.)”

Taylor’s reference to “the interview” isn’t clear, but he probably means the press announcement about imminent investigations. Taylor was apparently worried that Ukraine will give the interview but the United States would still withhold aid, to Russia’s glee.

Early the next morning, Taylor again raised his concerns with Sondland.

“The message to the Ukrainians (and Russians) we send with the decision on security assistance is key,” he said. “With the hold [on the assistance], we have already shaken their faith in us. Thus my nightmare scenario.”

Sondland replied, saying that he “believe we have identified the best pathway forward.”

“As I said on the phone,” Taylor replied, apparently referring to the failed three-way call on Sept. 8, “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Five hours later, Sondland replies — using very pointed language.

“Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions,” he wrote. “The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign.”

It’s hard to read that reply, with its unusual formality and detail, as anything other than an attempt to establish a particular argument for the written record.

“I suggest we stop the back and forth by text,” he added, reinforcing that interpretation. “If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna” — the State Department’s executive secretary — “or S” — perhaps the Secretary of State — “a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.”

No further text messages were shared.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[Alisamer]

12 hours ago, SilverBeach said:

Trump got elected because of the Russians. He lost the popular vote by three million. 

That's true! But also, without those regular joe types (and the BTs, and the evangelical "I'll vote for anyone who says they oppose abortion!" types) he would have lost by far, far more. And since so many of those people live in more rural areas, they helped swing the electoral college. Sure, the Russians had a lot to do with it, but some of that was accomplished by encouraging those people to vote for Trump through deceptive advertising and spreading misinformation.

@SassyPants, I don't get how they can't see that the people making more money than they could ever conceivably use, keeping that money stashed away in foreign banks where the vast majority of it is simply removed from the economy, should be taxed accordingly. Sure, it's their money, and they should get to enjoy it... but they will literally not be affected at ALL if they pay a higher tax bill.

The guy was equating it to his wife's income, which I guess is maybe high? IDK. But he was just not getting that we weren't talking about "regular rich people". Most people don't seem to understand just how much a billion dollars is. My math could be wrong (or my memory, as it's been a couple days), but I worked out that if you spent $90,000 a DAY, it would take over 30 years to spend a billion dollars. THIRTY YEARS. Of spending more each day than many American make in a year. Or even two years. Three years, for many people. And that's if there's no interest being earned on any of that money. That's an incredible amount of money.

Things are getting more and more insane. Any other president - no matter which party - who has said and done even a tiny fraction of what Trump has done would have long since been impeached. My mind is boggled.

 

[SilverBeach]

19 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

Things are getting more and more insane. Any other president - no matter which party - who has said and done even a tiny fraction of what Trump has done would have long since been impeached. My mind is boggled.

That's because many of the rethugs are complicit in Dump's wrongdoing. And many dems were cowed, until handed a smoking gun. I'm tired of them all, really.

I think we need to stop being afraid of Dump supporters, his "base", if you will. They are too far gone to be reasoned with. Those who stand for democracy and decency must be as loud and proud as they are.  Look at how the fundies we snark about her proclaim their love and support for Dump. They need to be called out. 

[SassyPants]

53 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

That's true! But also, without those regular joe types (and the BTs, and the evangelical "I'll vote for anyone who says they oppose abortion!" types) he would have lost by far, far more. And since so many of those people live in more rural areas, they helped swing the electoral college. Sure, the Russians had a lot to do with it, but some of that was accomplished by encouraging those people to vote for Trump through deceptive advertising and spreading misinformation.

@SassyPants, I don't get how they can't see that the people making more money than they could ever conceivably use, keeping that money stashed away in foreign banks where the vast majority of it is simply removed from the economy, should be taxed accordingly. Sure, it's their money, and they should get to enjoy it... but they will literally not be affected at ALL if they pay a higher tax bill.

The guy was equating it to his wife's income, which I guess is maybe high? IDK. But he was just not getting that we weren't talking about "regular rich people". Most people don't seem to understand just how much a billion dollars is. My math could be wrong (or my memory, as it's been a couple days), but I worked out that if you spent $90,000 a DAY, it would take over 30 years to spend a billion dollars. THIRTY YEARS. Of spending more each day than many American make in a year. Or even two years. Three years, for many people. And that's if there's no interest being earned on any of that money. That's an incredible amount of money.

Things are getting more and more insane. Any other president - no matter which party - who has said and done even a tiny fraction of what Trump has done would have long since been impeached. My mind is boggled.

 

I am not an economist and never have been, but I do have common sense. It’s pretty simple in my mind. In a consumer based economy like we have in the US, you can’t give a few people all the money and expect the economy to thrive.  We need a lot of people spending their money to drive the economy. Like you stated above, wealthy people take that money out of the economy by moving the bulk of it outside the country. They aren’t buying shoes, pizzas, cars, orthodontia in big enough numbers to keep the economy churning. Further, when they have the bulk of the money, like 99.5% of the money, they can not turf the tax bills to the rest of us, that have mere pennies. The “math” doesn’t work. This is economy for dummies.

[GreyhoundFan]

"I worked in the White House during impeachment. Trump’s team isn’t ready for it."

Spoiler

Joe Lockhart served as White House Press Secretary from 1998 to 2000 during the Clinton administration, and co-hosts the podcast “Words Matter.”

The period in early December 1998 just before the House of Representatives impeached President Bill Clinton has been on my mind lately. I’ve been thinking about those few weeks, the most harrowing of my career, ever since House Democrats announced they were launching launch a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump. While I may not be rooting for Trump, I have a keen sense of what his staff is going through right now.

An impeachment inquiry exacerbates all the stresses and anxieties that already exist in any White House. The media magnifies the slightest development; dire predictions of imminent demise are common. As press secretary — a perilous job during normal times — I personally felt the pressure to not make a mistake from the lectern, with every word I spoke analyzed for both real and supposedly hidden meanings.

Throughout, members of the press breathed down our necks, sniffing for any material that could help them characterize “the mood in the White House.” John Podesta, the chief of staff, had made clear, using quite colorful language, that he didn’t want people talking about impeachment. Not in meetings, not at the proverbial water cooler and especially not out in public, even with family and friends. It was difficult to go through this period always being watched, and always pretending it wasn’t happening.

Despite Podesta’s admonition, the few staffers working on impeachment — mostly lawyers and communications staff like me — were constantly being asked by colleagues, Hill staffers, lobbyists, friends and family what was going on. Everyone lived off rumors and secondhand information, studying the body language of the president and senior staffers. Several times a day, colleagues dropped by my office to “see how I was doing.” No one got much sleep. Once, I remember working until about four in the morning, getting about an hour’s rest, and then being suddenly woken up by my wife — while I was in the shower. I had been standing under the water, fast asleep.

We all developed a certain gallows humor. Bad jokes flew around: “If you see the vice president, tell him it looks like he’s lost weight. He’ll remember you when he starts filling out his staff.” One memorable flight back from the Middle East was punctuated by phone calls in the Air Force One conference room, about Republicans we were losing on the impeachment vote. One staffer yelled out, “We’ve lost Jack Quinn,” to groans. “Ben Gilman is now a yes on impeachment!” another added. I shouted, “We just lost Dick Gephardt!” — the House Democratic leader. That got a big laugh.

Perhaps the defining aspect of this period was its sheer unpredictability. The best way to describe the experience is by recalling the day the president was impeached: Dec. 19, 1998. It was as normal a Saturday as you could expect, knowing that the vote was coming. We knew the outcome, and we had a strategy. We would say this was all partisan, and the president would stay focused on the people’s business. Simple. People in the administration believed it, and that was our message for the day.

Then, just before noon, Bob Livingston (R-La.), the incoming speaker, went to the House floor, admitted he’d had affairs and said the only honorable thing he could do was resign. Which he did, right there in the middle of the debate.

Our simple message was suddenly trumped by an even simpler one: Do something wrong, get caught, resign. I estimated that we had about 15 minutes before everyone caught their breath and the television pundits started the drumbeat for the president, too, to resign. I sprinted to the Oval Office to get Clinton’s reaction. While waiting for other staffers to arrive, I asked him not what we should say, but what he thought, and scribbled it down. Ten minutes after the meeting, I went to White House driveway and read it aloud, word for word.

That clear statement — that it was wrong for Livingston to resign and that the politics of personal destruction had to stop — seemed to break the fever before it fully spiked. Because the media largely focused on the president’s plea for Livingston to reconsider, we avoided a full-scale outcry for him to resign.

After that, I dashed to a State of the Union planning meeting. I remember sitting there, discussing issues like health care, education and gun safety, and thinking to myself, We are going to get through this. Then, 10 minutes in, I was pulled away to meet with the national security staff. We were about 3 days into a military action against Iraq. That operation was now complete, and the national security team needed the president to announce it that evening. “You’ve got to be kidding me,” I said. “Just last week, we launched this strike and said it had nothing to do with impeachment. Now you want to announce we won the war on impeachment day?” I politely inquired if we couldn’t find more targets to hit. The national security team didn’t think that was especially funny.

We had no choice but to handle what some might call a communications problem: delivering opposing messages from the president back to back. First, we had two busloads of members of Congress stand with the president on the South Lawn of the White House for a partisan pep rally. The impeachment was all about politics, Democrats are good, Republicans are not — that was the gist.

Two hours later, after carrying the presidential lectern no more than 100 yards away, we moved inside to deliver a slightly different message. Flanked by America’s military leaders, the president declared that we were not a country of Republicans and Democrats, but of Americans, bound together by patriotism. He proclaimed the military action successfully completed, and he departed, leaving me to explain how these two messages — us against them, and we are all in this together — could fit.

At the end of this long day, I went back to my office. Waiting for me was a close colleague with two cold beers. We sat down, and I’ll always remember what he said next: “You know, except for getting impeached, we had a pretty good day.”

We survived the process because we were disciplined about keeping the president out of the impeachment debate. We had an aggressive and experienced legal, communications and political team. Most important, we never turned on one another. While being in the foxhole was never comfortable, it was comforting to know who was in there with me.

My sense is this White House has none of these things. Its lawyers have yet to develop a legal theory to extricate the president from his predicament and instead seem to be devoting all their energies to stonewalling Congress. No “war room” has been set up to plan the response — any such operation “would be [an] overreaction on our part,” Kellyanne Conway blithely told the New York Times. The political and communications infrastructure is nonexistent, with internal factions vying for control. In the meantime, the official response to developments seems to be whatever the president thinks to say. Everything seems to run from Trump’s Twitter account.

Even if they had everything prepared, I still don’t think they know what is about to hit them. With no signs of a strategy, and with a loose-cannon president, I can only wish this White House the best of luck. It will need it.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I love the Library of Congress:

 

[fraurosena]

Another republican endorsement of the impeachment inquiry.

 

[TuringMachine]

Kasich was the only republican running in 2016 that seemed like an ok human being.

[apple1]

33 minutes ago, TuringMachine said:

Kasich was the only republican running in 2016 that seemed like an ok human being.

He is the former governor of my state. I didn't/don't agree with his stances on everything, but he is a moderate and a decent human being. Unfortunately - those two things didn't seem to resonate with enough Republican voters in 2016.

[SassyPants]

You know, I don’t see why anyone is questioning what Trump did. This behavior is part of his play book. THIS IS exactly how he got elected in 2016. Substitute Russia for Ukraine and most probably China, and voila, he wins. I absolutely hate when those in control think the rest of us are stupid! Why wouldn’t Trump pull the same illegal antics this time, they clearly work. I blame those Republican senators, the same assholes who confirmed Kavanaugh. I wish that we had the ability to get rid of All of them. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s latest move to fend off impeachment might be his dumbest yet"

Spoiler

President Trump’s latest move to ward off impeachment may be his dumbest one yet.

On Friday, the president demanded that the full House must vote before it proceeds on an impeachment inquiry, and said he would not comply with any congressional requests for documents or testimony until it does.

He should be careful what he asks for.

The possibility for such a showdown has been in the air for days, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) brought up the subject herself when I interviewed her Wednesday. Her reaction: Bring it.

“We can if we want but we don’t have to have it,” she said of the prospect of a floor vote to commence the investigation. “There’s nothing any place that says that we should.”

She’s right. But then the speaker brought up something that apparently hasn’t occurred to the White House: “The people who are most afraid of a vote on the floor are the Republicans. That’s why they’re beating their tom-toms like they want it but they don’t. They have the most to be concerned about because for some of their members to say that we shouldn’t go forward with this is a bad vote.”

My hunch is that Pelosi is right here. Already, there are 225 House Democrats and one independent on record in favor of moving forward with the inquiry. They have nothing to lose by backing up their words with a vote, and the resolution would pass easily. That leaves only 10 remaining Democrats facing a potentially difficult choice of whether to join the overwhelming majority in their party.

Consider, on the other hand, the spot in which this puts Republicans. As evidence of impropriety mounts each day, and public support for the inquiry grows, do they really want to cast a vote that says, “Nothing to see here"?

And once the resolution passes, what happens then? Trump’s bluff will have been called. To resist handing over necessary materials at that point only bolsters a case for obstruction of justice, which is an impeachable offense.

By forcing the House to play its hand, Trump may find out that he’s the one who is holding the losing cards.

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

The WaPo has a live updates thread going about the impeachment inquiry. This popped up a little while ago:

Quote

6:20 p.m.: House committee chairmen send a subpoena to the White House

Chairmen of the House Oversight, Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees issued a subpoena to White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney for documents as part of the impeachment inquiry into Trump. The letter compels Mulvaney to produce the records by Oct. 18.

“Your failure or refusal to comply with the subpoena, including at the direction or behest of the President or others at the White House, shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House’s impeachment inquiry and may be used as an adverse inference against you and the President,” wrote chairmen Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) and Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.).

The letter says House committee chairmen twice asked the White House for documents related to the investigation and the White House did not produce the records or reply to the requests. The congressmen referenced news reporting that Trump plans to write a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying the White House will not cooperate with the impeachment inquiry until there is a vote on the House floor.

“We deeply regret that President Trump has put us — and the nation — in this position, but his actions have left us with no choice but to issue this subpoena,” the chairmen wrote.

 

[Howl]

I hate to be a Debbie Downer BUT, once the House votes for impeachment and it is referred to the Senate for a trial,  the Republicans are in control.  The. Republicans. Are. In. Control. of the proceedings with  Chief Justice Roberts presiding.  From Wapo: Do Democrats realize McConnell would call the shots in a Senate impeachment trial?

The structure of the 1986 Clinton impeachment is laid out HERE in a document from the Government Printing Office.  Lots of meaty stuff, including this: 

Quote

VI. The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs, precepts, and judgments, to preserve order, and to punish in a summary way contempts of, and disobedience to, its authority, orders, mandates, writs, precepts, or judgments, and to make all lawful orders, rules, and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice. And the Sergeant at Arms, under the direction of the Senate, may employ such aid and assistance as may be necessary to enforce, execute, and carry into effect the lawful orders, mandates, writs, and precepts of the Senate.

Expect huge amounts of Republican legal wrangling non stop.  Part of me feels like the disappointment of the Mueller Report was training wheels for the disappointment of the crap the McConnell will pull during the impeachment trial.  Remember that the Republicans can at anytime overrule Chief Justice Roberts with a simple vote or can even make up their own bespoke rules and vote them in. 

Edited October 5, 2019 by Howl

[Becky]

41 minutes ago, Howl said:

I hate to be a Debbie Downer BUT, once the House votes for impeachment and it is referred to the Senate for a trial,  the Republicans are in control.  The. Republicans. Are. In. Control. of the proceedings with  Chief Justice Roberts presiding.  From Wapo: Do Democrats realize McConnell would call the shots in a Senate impeachment trial?

The structure of the 1986 Clinton impeachment is laid out HERE in a document from the Government Printing Office.  Lots of meaty stuff, including this: 

Expect huge amounts of Republican legal wrangling non stop.  Part of me feels like the disappointment of the Mueller Report was training wheels for the disappointment of the crap the McConnell will pull during the impeachment trial.  Remember that the Republicans can at anytime overrule Chief Justice Roberts with a simple vote or can even make up their own bespoke rules and vote them in. 

I am right there with you.  Even if by some crazy miracle the Senate convicts the Current Occupant of the White House, who are we left with?  Pence.  Pence!  He is a true believer in the most conservative right wing causes AND as a Washington insider, he knows how to get things accomplished.  I suspect he would be far more effective than Trump.  And wouldn't he be eligible for election for two more terms, even if he finishes out Trump's?  *Shudders*

[smittykins]

I believe so, since there’s less than two years left of the Orange Menace’s first term. If there were more, Pence could only have one term of his own.

Edited October 5, 2019 by smittykins

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, Howl said:

I hate to be a Debbie Downer BUT, once the House votes for impeachment and it is referred to the Senate for a trial,  the Republicans are in control.  The. Republicans. Are. In. Control. of the proceedings with  Chief Justice Roberts presiding.  From Wapo: Do Democrats realize McConnell would call the shots in a Senate impeachment trial?

The structure of the 1986 Clinton impeachment is laid out HERE in a document from the Government Printing Office.  Lots of meaty stuff, including this: 

Expect huge amounts of Republican legal wrangling non stop.  Part of me feels like the disappointment of the Mueller Report was training wheels for the disappointment of the crap the McConnell will pull during the impeachment trial.  Remember that the Republicans can at anytime overrule Chief Justice Roberts with a simple vote or can even make up their own bespoke rules and vote them in. 

30 minutes ago, Becky said:

I am right there with you.  Even if by some crazy miracle the Senate convicts the Current Occupant of the White House, who are we left with?  Pence.  Pence!  He is a true believer in the most conservative right wing causes AND as a Washington insider, he knows how to get things accomplished.  I suspect he would be far more effective than Trump.  And wouldn't he be eligible for election for two more terms, even if he finishes out Trump's?  *Shudders*

18 minutes ago, smittykins said:

I believe so, since there’s less than two years left of the Orange Menace’s first term. If there were more, Pence could only have one term of his own.

Ok, your residential Pollyanna is stepping in here before everybody gets all depressed and dispirited.

Sure, there is a chance that the Repugs will run away with the impeachment process and stymie any attempt to get rid of Trump. But with all the evidence against Trump's criminality coming out, and with Trump adding more impeachable acts on a daily basis, that chance is getting smaller by the day. Public opinion is already very much in favor of impeachment, and even removal from office, and those sentiments are growing. When the Repugs are confronted with the indefensible and irrefutable facts and with public opinion against protecting Trump, then they will have no other recourse than removal from office.

Will that leave you with Pence as president? Well, according to the rules it would. However, it is already publicly evident that Pence himself is also heavily implicated in the White House crimes. If Dems play it smart, and all signs say they are, they will impeach Pence first, and then Trump. Now, this won't automatically lead to Pelosi becoming president, of course. Spiro Agnew was threatened with impeachment and chose to resign before Nixon's impeachment was to start, and Agnew was replaced with Ford as veep. So chances are that a new veep will be in place before Trump gets impeached. Who that will be, is up to the Senate, not Trump. 

My prediction is that before Trump gets impeached, Pence will be out (I think, like Agnew, he'll 'voluntarily' resign). A new, not controversial veep will be installed by the Senate. Only after that will Trump be impeached and removed. The new veep will become president and another new veep will be installed by the Senate. To appease the public, these two will be infinitely more palatable than the current occupants of the White House.

But both will be out of the Oval by 20 januari 2021 and replaced by a Democratic president and veep.

 

[SassyPants]

Isn’t Pence also complicit in this latest illegality? I know he claimed ignorance with Flynn, but would he play the dumb bozo card again? Maybe he too is too dumb to be POTUS!

[GreyhoundFan]

33 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

 Maybe he too is too dumb to be POTUS!

That didn't stop GW Bush.

[Cleopatra7]

On 10/4/2019 at 4:21 PM, SassyPants said:

You know, I don’t see why anyone is questioning what Trump did. This behavior is part of his play book. THIS IS exactly how he got elected in 2016. Substitute Russia for Ukraine and most probably China, and voila, he wins. I absolutely hate when those in control think the rest of us are stupid! Why wouldn’t Trump pull the same illegal antics this time, they clearly work. I blame those Republican senators, the same assholes who confirmed Kavanaugh. I wish that we had the ability to get rid of All of them. 

I feel like this preoccupation with the idea that Trump must have been elected through foreign influence is a convenient way to retain some semblance of “American innocence” while absolving the voters who actually voted for him off the hook. Let me just say off the bat, that the question of whether Russia and/or China interfered in the election does not interest me in the slightest; cyber warfare is politics by other means in the 21st century, and the US has interfered in more elections than any other country. Assuming that election interference must have been the decisive factor in the 2016 election forgets the following:

1. The electoral college gives disproportionate weight to rural, conservative states, as does the two senators per state rule. The fact that Hillary Clinton got three million more votes than Trump is irrelevant because that’s not how the president is elected. 

2. Racism and genocide are baked into this country’s DNA. Trump’s rhetoric is a return to form after about forty years of superficial politeness and dogwhistles at the national level.

3. The same people who voted for Romney in 2012 voted for Trump in 2016, and would have voted GOP even if the candidate was an inanimate carbon rod. The difference is that more whites came out to support Trump and that put him over the top in the contested states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. The gutting of the Voting Right Act depressed the minority vote, especially in the South.

I think a lot of white liberals don’t want to face the reality that a lot of Americans really like Trump and spammy Facebook ads only played a marginal role. See those mobs of angry white people counter protesting civil rights marches in documentaries? Those people never went away, because they’re our neighbors, the people we see at the mall, the nice older couple at church, and in some cases, our relatives. Furthermore, they’re not sorry for what they did, because they think all the changes they don’t approve of will be rolled back, and they are. The fundamental problem isn’t Russian psyops, but the fact that Aunt Gladys gets excited thinking about the prospect of putting black and brown people in prison.

[SilverBeach]

2 hours ago, Cleopatra7 said:

1. The electoral college gives disproportionate weight to rural, conservative states, as does the two senators per state rule. The fact that Hillary Clinton got three million more votes than Trump is irrelevant because that’s not how the president is elected. 

I don't think it's irrelevant in terms of measuring sentiment.  Al Gore also won the popular vote when he lost, but it was by a much smaller amount (something like 12,000 votes? I'm to lazy to look it up). FWIW I am all for abolishment of the electoral college, which is an outdated scheme if it ever was valid.

2 hours ago, Cleopatra7 said:

I think a lot of white liberals don’t want to face the reality that a lot of Americans really like Trump

I'm not a white liberal, I'm a black one, and I had to face the reality that many of the white members of my former church were Trumpers. This was a key reason I left, although not the only one. Foreign interference just exacerbates the Trump problem, although it isn't the root cause of it. Racism is indeed baked into the DNA of America, as you put it.  At 64, I for one am not optimistc that it will ever change in a significant way.   What does it say about the system, and the nation, that Obama could be elected to two terms, and then be followed by a white supremacist? Was Obama's election just a meaningless fluke?

During the cold war, Kruschev (sp) said "we will bury you".  The Russians haven't given up on accomplishing this goal and I believe were overjoyed when an easily manipulated buffoon was on the ballot for president. I do thing they will exploit this asset in any way they can to further the goal of weakening the most powerful democracy in the world. 

Edited October 6, 2019 by SilverBeach

[formergothardite]

12 hours ago, Cleopatra7 said:

Those people never went away, because they’re our neighbors, the people we see at the mall, the nice older couple at church, and in some cases, our relatives. Furthermore, they’re not sorry for what they did, because they think all the changes they don’t approve of will be rolled back, and they are. The fundamental problem isn’t Russian psyops, but the fact that Aunt Gladys gets excited thinking about the prospect of putting black and brown people in prison.

While I think Russia played a part, I also agree that a good bit of this is actually just the racists in America getting out to vote. That combined with the people who will only vote republican no matter what republican is presented to them and we end up with Trump. 

People who never voted got inspired to vote by Trump because he made the racists of this country realize they had a chance to get their power back. And they will come back out next election. And then you have so many, many republicans who will never vote for anyone but a republican. It doesn't matter what Trump does, it doesn't matter what the impeachment inquiry finds, if their options are Trump vs a democrat they will pick Trump Ever. Single. Time. It is hard to grasp I think how much the republicans are not devoted to a candidate but to the party. I spent way too long just mindlessly voting a straight republican ticket because the idea to not do that didn't even enter my mind. I was raised that if the only option is to vote republican, no matter what. 

Trying to appeal to reasonable republicans or even hoping that information will sway the non-Trumpster republicans, IMO is a waste of time. These people might want another candidate, but in the end they will mostly go and vote for Trump if he is on the ticket. And Mitch knows that. He knows that they could release all sorts of information and it will make republicans squirm, but they won't switch to voting democrat in large enough numbers to worry him. He also knows that if Trump goes down he takes everyone with him. Mitch has way too many secrets to risk that. 

I personally hope they don't ever get around to voting to impeach him because the Senate won't. The best bet, IMO, is to spend the rest of Trump's election year slowly leaking out more awful things he does which will force all the republicans who will have to face their voters for the next election to either defend it or criticize Trump. That will make it harder to them to get elected and will give democrats a better chance to take Congress. Congress is extremely important to reigning in a corrupt president and passing laws to prevent this sort of corruption from taking place again. 

[WiseGirl]

I bring to you a bit of SNL's take on it because sometimes I just need their take on it all. Summary under spoiler. Watch it if you can.

In other news 45 is on a tear against Romney.

Spoiler

Summary courtesy of US Weekly.

Matthew Broderick dropped by the cold open as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The actor even quoted Ferris Bueller, telling Beck Bennett’s Mike Pence, “Impeachment moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around, you might miss it.”