I’m amazed as much as Republicans talk about Clinton lying under oath, Dems aren’t calling for trump to testify under oath

12/12/2019 10:55:01 PM

https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1205319459348582401?s=21

If the GOP is anything, it’s transparent. They don’t even bother with the pretense of impartiality. Just go for it. McConnell is essentially god reincarnate to DC journalists though and everything he does is chalked up to “political savvy” and never really scrutinized as being corrupt and/or destroying norms.

Democrats will never, ever do this for two reasons. The media would KILL them to look “impartial” and they believe in and revere government/institutions too much.

Until the mainstream Dems realize that to the GOP they will always be illegitimate and the only thing that matters is winning the culture war in any way possible up to and including corrupting the entire political process from top to bottom we are gonna be where we are. And where we are is counter-majorian rule and where we are going is sliding deeper and deeper into it.

I’m fully convinced that Trump will win re-election and likely lose the popular vote by 5-8%. Nice country we got.

[Edited on December 13, 2019 at 7:13 AM. Reason : X]

12/13/2019 7:13:20 AM

yeah the media has the same problem that social media has, they go so far out of their way to appear impartial because they are afraid of right wing criticism that they are easily manipulated and used by right wing propagandists


democrats badly need to learn how to counter this "hack gap", and i think the first step is by starting to have coordinated and sustained media strategies. democrats need more people saying the same thing to balance out the right wing's attacks. right now it's the same issue with any story or issue; the GOP fabricates an issue or controversy and their operatives and talking heads push the narrative, journalists take it seriously in an attempt to be impartial and "both sides" the issue, and progressives or other people who actually have factual reality on their side still end up having to play defense. lather, rinse, repeat.

[Edited on December 13, 2019 at 9:12 AM. Reason : .]

12/13/2019 9:08:05 AM

https://twitter.com/merica/status/1205497180397674496?s=21

Lol, Tulsi is so going to be on Fox News in a year decrying Dem partisanship but “from the left.”

12/13/2019 9:51:48 AM

judiciary recommends both (lol) articles of impeachment on party lines

12/13/2019 10:11:39 AM

Old white male wasps

[Edited on December 13, 2019 at 10:44 AM. Reason : .]

12/13/2019 10:44:19 AM

Quote :

"Pelosi is saying she wont whip the vote This is the correct thing to say in public, but jesus christ I hope that's not actually what she's doing"

I think she is whipping the vote, otherwise I don't get why Van Drew is switching parties (freshman Democrat that was voting against impeachment from southern N.J., has now stated he's becoming a Republican). The other public Democrat against impeachment represents a sprawling western Minnesota district on the borders of the Dakotas that goes almost from the southern border with Iowa all the way up to Canada. He's been in the House since 1991.

12/16/2019 8:04:22 AM

Quote :

"yeah the media has the same problem that social media has, they go so far out of their way to appear impartial because they are afraid of right wing criticism that they are easily manipulated and used by right wing propagandists"

Yeah, because when I want impartial media, I look at social media.

Regards to social media and its impacts, read this on the BBC website this past Thursday:

Quote :

"A Labour press release on Wednesday evening said the party ran 'the most successful election social media campaign the country has ever seen'."

...ended up being the Labour Party's worst election result since 1935.

[Edited on December 16, 2019 at 8:29 AM. Reason : /]

12/16/2019 8:08:51 AM

I assume he meant the social media gatekeepers.

12/16/2019 9:41:08 AM

their social media was very good

[Edited on December 16, 2019 at 9:41 AM. Reason : .]

12/16/2019 9:41:50 AM

It’s super cool that the latest polling I’ve seen has over 50% of the country supporting impeachment AND REMVOAL yet the media parrots the GOP lies about impeachment support crumbling.

The media is simply not equipped to report accurately on the GOP lies. It used to be small things they’d lie about that the media could “both sides” but Trumps GOP has just bowled over this with an avalanche of patently false nonsense and they still report on his absurd lies like they are small.

Complete and utter failure of the institution.

[Edited on December 16, 2019 at 9:56 AM. Reason : X]

12/16/2019 9:55:36 AM

While I am all for calling out the MSM when they are not doing their job, which polls are showing >50% support impeach and remove? Most every poll I have seen has been <50%.

12/16/2019 12:45:37 PM

^ This is all I got.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/public_approval_of_the_impeachment_and_removal_of_president_trump-6957.html

12/16/2019 12:57:17 PM

even the fox news poll has impeach and remove at 50%

12/16/2019 1:09:04 PM

The judiciary report is pretty good, start at article I:
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/16/788383947/read-the-house-judiciary-committees-trump-impeachment-report

the report directly accuses trump of federal crimes

12/16/2019 2:28:16 PM

Latest Q poll had 44% supporting impeachment and removal. Slightly more favorable to Trump but still a very high number supporting removal.

Overall Approval at 43% versus 52% disapprove.

12/16/2019 3:13:39 PM

Quote :

"^ This is all I got. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/public_approval_of_the_impeachment_and_removal_of_president_trump-6957.html"

None of those are >50%

12/16/2019 3:19:39 PM

Fox News poll had 54% at impeach and slightly above 50% impeach AND remove.

And it’s gone up since last reading a month ago, which is the point which is obvious in context. I know you’re being pedantic, of course.

12/16/2019 3:51:59 PM

It's weird to be pedantic about 50% not being greater than 50% when the margin of error is a few percent

Gotta protect trump tho

12/16/2019 4:17:55 PM

I mean, maybe holding off on this and letting Rudy tweet through it would be the best course of action. Trump even allowing that insanity near him should be an impeachable offense.

Also, Rudy will be going to jail — and I’m not one to throw that around easily.

12/17/2019 7:36:23 AM

^ I've always thought Giuliani was in a dangerous position. His lack of an official title means he's not an executive branch employee, not a U.S. government employee, so he can't fall back on any kind of federal employee protection scheme for anything he's done.

If Congress held him in contempt, they could arrest him, bring him there to testify, and he would be compelled to do so without even having the question of "separation of powers" to fall back on to protect him.

12/17/2019 9:33:20 AM

Can’t wait to see all this evidence he has collected of this massive coverup.

Also why aren’t Dems trotting out the mile long list of people that are on company boards getting paid well with no experience relevant to that company? It’s not that uncommon.

12/17/2019 9:35:52 AM

Because Hunter Biden is a nonsense distraction not worthy of a defense.

I’m consistently baffled by the media obsession on how “swing district” democrats will vote while the complete ignoring of how any corresponding “swing district” Republican would.

12/17/2019 9:41:42 AM

^ The swing from Republicans to Democrats in the 2018 election meant in a bad year, all the Republicans currently in Congress held on to their seats, while the current Democrats in contrast have a lot of freshmen.

[Edited on December 17, 2019 at 9:52 AM. Reason : /]

12/17/2019 9:52:03 AM

So he's gonna leave like Nixon?

[Edited on December 17, 2019 at 11:50 AM. Reason : Then the Democrat debate doesn't make sense anymore]

12/17/2019 11:44:33 AM

Where are you guys discussing the IG report?

Quote :

"https://twitter.com/merica/status/1205497180397674496?s=21 Lol, Tulsi is so going to be on Fox News in a year decrying Dem partisanship but “from the left.”"

"Obstruction of congress" is literally going to lead every non-establishment president to be impeached if the other party has the house for the rest of US history. Thats the point though. They don't want to ever have a president who isn't aligned with the establishment. The part I wish more people could see is that partisan impeachment isn't just bad for Trump, its bad for every polarizing figure going forward. I wish more people could think beyond Trump.

Quote :

"Overall Approval at 43% versus 52% disapprove."

thats ridiculously high for Trump. he's been steady throughout. Mueller report and then Throwing everything they've got at impeachment hasn't even moved his approval rating.

Quote :

"Also why aren’t Dems trotting out the mile long list of people that are on company boards getting paid well with no experience relevant to that company? It’s not that uncommon."

Because that would just help trump by exposing "the swamp"?

1. Many of them are involved with the people in those jobs (family/friends/coworkers)
2. Many of those jobs were acquired under their watch
3. Many of them directly benefit from the revolving door and will be in one of those jobs soon

"Hey America, I know you think the Hunter Biden thing is bad but rest assured, we all do it! its not just biden! We are all involved in an elaborate scheme to enrich ourselves, our families, and our friends so don't worry about Biden or any of our corruption. You should only worry about Trump's corruption because its outside the type of corruption us DC folks have long agreed to perpetually partake in"

[Edited on December 17, 2019 at 4:09 PM. Reason : change "centrist" to "establishment"]

12/17/2019 4:07:34 PM

The economy is great so why are we even worried

12/17/2019 6:03:45 PM

Quote :

" Obstruction of congress" is literally going to lead every non-establishment president to be impeached if the other party has the house for the rest of US history. Thats the point though. They don't want to ever have a president who isn't aligned with the establishment. The part I wish more people could see is that partisan impeachment isn't just bad for Trump, its bad for every polarizing figure going forward. I wish more people could think beyond Trump. "

This is essentially word for word the Trump main talking points. So I guess congrats. Obama was every bit as polarizing to the right and he wasn’t impeached because he didn’t egregiously and outwardly solicit foreign investigations into his political rivals.

12/17/2019 8:08:50 PM

^ There was still talk and they tried though. Ditto George W. Bush.

The Obstruction of Congress charge is horrible. I'm looking forward to say the year 2031 where a Democrat president stonewalls a Republican-majority Congress on witnesses and documents, and the Republicans will use the Trump case as precedent for grounds of impeachment. It's ridiculous the Democrats have zero foresight.

There should really be an amendment to make the House threshold to impeach and pass on to the Senate either three-fifths or 55%. Removal of a federal individual to clear the Senate has to be bipartisan (except in the case of Andrew Johnson, where somehow it didn't work and it should have), so let's make the House have a higher standard. Otherwise we're going to see attempts at impeachment for every single president going into the future from the partisan assholes in both parties in the House wanting to make a name for themselves and fundraise off it.

12/18/2019 7:59:06 AM

when did they try to impeach obama?

Quote :

"and the Republicans will use the Trump case as precedent for grounds of impeachment."

that's fine, trump did crimes and tried to hide them. a dem doing the same should also be impeached.

[Edited on December 18, 2019 at 8:37 AM. Reason : .]

12/18/2019 8:36:28 AM

Still think there is so much more to investigate and this is rushed. We just found out yesterday that Trumps personal lawyer who he sent to solicit foreign help to investigate his political rivals is literally being bankrolled by an oligarch deeply connection to the Russian mob (Firtash).

12/18/2019 9:13:06 AM

Kind of found an answer to "why isn't Congress holding the subpoena'd individuals in contempt of Congress?" question.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/democrats-punish-trump-obstructing-congress-top-employees

Quote :

"The committees warned witnesses that refusing to testify would be interpreted as an “adverse inference” against them and the president and that they may be held in contempt of Congress. But the House has not gone to court to enforce any subpoenas. “We are considering what next steps to take in our investigation … and we have not made a decision on that yet,” Intelligence Chairman Adam B. Schiff said Thursday when asked whether the committees anticipated taking contempt action. Other Democrats on the investigating committees also didn’t rule out action against the defiant witnesses but acknowledged it’s not been a topic of discussion. “We’re focused on the president right now, honestly,” said California Rep. Eric Swalwell, an Intelligence and Judiciary member. “I think we need to keep our focus there. That’s what matters the most right now.” Most Democrats interviewed for this story in recent weeks had the same answer. Interestingly, it was a former Swalwell intern who called attention during a CNN town hall with Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday night to the fact that witnesses who’ve heeded Trump’s order not to testify are getting away with it. “Why are lawful subpoenas allowed to be ignored without consequence?” University of Maryland sophomore Ethan Tuttle asked. “And what steps will the House be taking to ensure they have the full cooperation of those with critical information related to the impeachment investigation?” “When we have issued the subpoenas, the president has — they have objected, and taken it to court,” Pelosi responded. “Article III of the Nixon impeachment was that he did not respect the subpoenas of Congress,” Pelosi said. “So, the president, in some ways, is self-impeaching, because he is obstructing justice by not honoring the subpoenas.” The speaker’s statement that the president has gone to court to challenge Democrats’ subpoenas is not exactly accurate. Trump’s personal lawyers did initiate lawsuits before Democrats formally launched their impeachment inquiry to block subpoenas to banks and an accounting firm for the president’s financial records — cases now on appeal at the Supreme Court. But when it comes to enforcing subpoenas for witness testimony, the onus is on the House to go to court, and they’ve not done so in the Ukraine probe. Democrats have said they don’t have the time or interest to play “rope-a-dope” with the administration, as Schiff has phrased it. The House did go to court to enforce a subpoena against former White House counsel Don McGahn in connection with the special counsel report on Russian interference and filed an application to get grand jury information from that investigation. The Trump administration has appealed rulings in those cases that favored the House and is seeking to force the Supreme Court to be the ultimate arbiter of the separation of powers disputes. Democrats argue that the positive ruling in McGahn’s case, even though he was subpoenaed months before the impeachment inquiry started, should signal to other witnesses that they need to comply. “This is information they should be making available to Congress," Pelosi said. "This shouldn't be about the courts.” The only witness case that has been brought against the House was filed by Charles Kupperman, a former deputy national security adviser subpoenaed to testify on Ukraine. The White House ordered Kupperman not to appear, but understanding that he shouldn’t ignore a lawful subpoena, he went to the judicial system to resolve the dispute between the other two governmental branches. The House tried to get Kupperman to dismiss the suit by withdrawing its subpoena, arguing in court that he “faces no pending, imminent, or foreseeable injury.” Kupperman has not voluntarily done so. Arguments for whether the case should move forward are scheduled for Tuesday."

Can't say I agree with the strategy if I was pushing for impeachment. If you want to make the strongest case against the president possible, they're leaving all this potential information on the table. Withdrawing the subpoena against Kupperman belies they don't want their power to subpoena executive branch employees challenged in court and are happy to have the appearance of Trump obstructing their work to create a 2nd article, precedent be damned.

[Edited on December 18, 2019 at 9:17 AM. Reason : /]

12/18/2019 9:17:30 AM

the obstruction of congress charge as it relates to those subpoenas depends on the supreme court not overruling the lower courts, the supreme court agreeing with trump's appeal would really hurt the argument of that article of impeachment. most that i've read have said that the lower court decisions were sound, but who knows.

12/18/2019 9:27:39 AM

Also from the Roll Call article:

Quote :

"Democrats have other options to enforce their subpoenas outside of court but have not yet deployed any. One is Congress’ inherent contempt power to fine or jail witnesses who ignore subpoenas. That would’ve been best used immediately after the subpoenas were defied because it’s meant to make witnesses reconsider. But Democrats decided not to pursue inherent contempt, last used by Congress in 1934, because of concerns about optics. “We’ve made a judgment that we want the American people to understand that we are pursuing, not arbitrary action, but considered and thoughtful action,” House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer told reporters on Oct. 16, saying inherent contempt “may be perceived as arbitrary.”"

You are attempting to with legal means overthrow the elected president of the United States which later today will move on to the Senate for the 3rd time in the nation's 243-year history, and you're not going to enforce witnesses to comply with subpoenas you sent out to provide information to support this effect BECAUSE YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT OPTICS!

12/18/2019 9:53:41 AM

Quote :

"overthrow the elected president of the United States"

No.

12/18/2019 10:14:29 AM

I did say "with legal means".

12/18/2019 10:19:37 AM

Which makes that an oxymoron and still not true.

12/18/2019 10:27:02 AM

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/house-democrats-need-better-subpoena-strategy/602782/

Quote :

"Last week marked a low point in Donald Trump’s quest for presidential superpowers. On Monday, a federal judge in the District of Columbia ruled that former White House Counsel Don McGahn does not have absolute immunity from having to testify before the House Judiciary Committee regarding misconduct by Trump and his associates in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. “Presidents are not kings,” Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote. “They do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control.” In practical terms, the court declared that Trump cannot lawfully forbid anyone and everyone he’s ever worked with from heeding legislative requests for information. This isn’t even a close question, as the stark language of Jackson’s 120-page ruling made clear. Notwithstanding White House Counsel Pat Cipollone’s October 8 letter—in which he deemed the impeachment inquiry unconstitutional and announced that the administration would not cooperate in any way—the president cannot prohibit current or former government employees from testifying when called before Congress. Which is why House Democrats’ milquetoast response to widespread defiance of congressional subpoenas is both perplexing and disturbing. When faced with credible evidence of serious misconduct, Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the president accountable on behalf of the people. Yet House leaders have psyched themselves out of fully exercising that duty. House leaders have left a long list of subpoenas for dead: Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney refused to testify about his knowledge of Trump’s decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine. So did Robert Blair, a top Mulvaney aide who listened to the July 25 call in which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for the “favor” of announcing a criminal investigation into a domestic political rival, Joe Biden; John Eisenberg, a National Security Council lawyer who put a summary of the call on a top-secret computer server; Michael Ellis, Eisenberg’s deputy; State Department counselor T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, who was also on the July 25 call; Brian McCormack, former chief of staff to Energy Secretary Rick Perry; Russell T. Vought, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget; and a White House budget official named Michael Duffey. The House also requested the testimony of former Deputy National Security Adviser Charles Kupperman, but withdrew the subpoena on the curious rationale that Kupperman’s lawsuit seeking clarification on his subpoena obligations could slow down the impeachment investigation. Subpoenas for documents also remain unanswered and unenforced. Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Perry, and Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani have all rebuffed requests. Meanwhile, none of these witnesses has been subpoenaed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee—nor has former National Security Adviser John Bolton—despite their deep knowledge of the president’s role in the Ukraine affair. There’s no reason House Democrats could not have pursued lawsuits to compel compliance with all of the subpoenas while at the same time maintaining the brisk pace of the impeachment inquiry thus far. Courts can move quickly—but only if asked. Democrats might be betting that widespread defiance of subpoenas at the president’s behest bolsters the case for an article of impeachment for obstruction of justice. Another concern might be that, even if courts rule swiftly and consistently that former and current employees lack blanket immunity from testifying, some might still show up and refuse to speak on the basis of executive privilege—leaving Congress empty-handed despite protracted litigation. Nevertheless, the House should fight hard for access to the full story about the president’s Ukraine shenanigans, and not let the executive branch win by default. Some current and former executive-branch officials, including Ambassador Gordon Sondland and former National Security Counsel expert Fiona Hill, have testified in spite of White House efforts to stonewall Congress. Others, including former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, have done so despite intimidating tweets from the president of the United States. Aggressive litigation on all subpoenas would persuade more witnesses to do the same, while showing support for the courageous people who have already complied."

12/18/2019 10:33:11 AM

Quote :

"Which makes that an oxymoron and still not true."

Allright, whatever. When CEO's get ousted against their will they're called coups even though the mechanisms are all above board. Ditto internal political party leadership changes: "Remembering the Attempted Coup Against Gingrich"

http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/19/remembering-the-attemptmed-coup-against-gingrich/

Reminds me of a story I read in the paper after Clinton's impeachment. (I have the News & Observer from the day after at home. Will fish it out tonight and put a picture on Facebook.) One reporter was getting the Iraqi viewpoint on it - Iraq at this time was still led by Saddam, under sanctions and no-fly zone, and a soldier I think asked "so what's this mean, he's overthrown?"

[Edited on December 18, 2019 at 11:36 AM. Reason : /]

12/18/2019 11:33:59 AM

They are doing that thing again where they insinuate someone is trying to change the vote tally. 'we can't let a foreign government decide the outcome of our election' (polosi just now) which is very different than what they are actually claiming which would be ' we cannot let a foreign government release information that might make some voters dislike some of our candidates'

Its an easy way to make the whole thing sound a lot more serious than it really is.

12/18/2019 12:25:25 PM

How is Representative James Sensenbrenner not the Big Lebowski again?

12/18/2019 12:33:39 PM

for horosho's next trick he'll tell us that foreign government is actually ukraine, not russia

12/18/2019 12:36:56 PM

It doesn’t even make sense to interpret what Pelosi said in that way. Like even a little bit.

Earl is just DESTROYING strawmen again, though.

12/18/2019 12:40:07 PM

It may not make sense for someone who knows all the details to interpret it that way, but what about someone who doesn't and only hears that quote?

This whole thing is allegedly designed to protect people who don't follow closely right? People who don't know all the details? People who might vote for Joe Biden or might vote for Trump if Ukraine says Hunter Biden did something bad. We're talking about people who are already clueless but democrats have calculated whoever gets them will win the election. Right?

If that quote was the only thing someone heard, they would think Trump was trying to get them to help him rig ballot boxes. It sounds so familiar and worn out because its the same way they tried to phrase Russian interference.

Why not just state what was literally done every time? Why ever use hyperbole or metaphor? "protect democracy" "save the integrity of our election" Its almost like they are trying to mislead people.

They also said they couldn't wait for the courts because then he would have already stolen the election which insinuates the same thing again. In essence, they are doing what they are accusing Trump of doing by not clearly stating what they are accusing him of.

[Edited on December 18, 2019 at 12:54 PM. Reason : in a new world where corporations are more powerful than governments. any hit-piec is "interference"]

12/18/2019 12:50:21 PM

i feel like you just assumed she said "hack the vote" and had already written your normal tirade before reading what she actually said

12/18/2019 12:59:48 PM

Quote :

"Allright, whatever. When CEO's get ousted against their will they're called coups even though the mechanisms are all above board. Ditto internal political party leadership changes: "Remembering the Attempted Coup Against Gingrich" http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/19/remembering-the-attemptmed-coup-against-gingrich/ Reminds me of a story I read in the paper after Clinton's impeachment. (I have the News & Observer from the day after at home. Will fish it out tonight and put a picture on Facebook.) One reporter was getting the Iraqi viewpoint on it - Iraq at this time was still led by Saddam, under sanctions and no-fly zone, and a soldier I think asked "so what's this mean, he's overthrown?""

So the editors that write headlines and Iraqi soldiers under a totalitarian regime create the definitions that we work under? Obviously not. The process is in the constitution and clearly legal. The case may not be great and have no hope of success, but that is not because it is illegal. Overthrowing a president would be illegal however. That is not what congress is doing. To say that it is is simply parroting what Fox and talk radio says.

12/18/2019 2:03:10 PM

Would this be the first completely partisan impeachment vote, e.g. with 100% of the opposing party voting for, and 100% of the incumbent party voting against?

Separate question: why do this now? Why not try to dig up some more dirt and get some more solid criminal content in the articles? If this goes through now and gets shot down by the Senate immediately, voters aren't even going to care one way or the other by next November.

[Edited on December 18, 2019 at 2:14 PM. Reason : ]

12/18/2019 2:12:57 PM

not unless the people who've already said they aren't voting with party change their minds

12/18/2019 2:13:49 PM

Betting markets think Trump is going to win reelection for the first time since August: https://www.oddsshark.com/other/2020-usa-presidential-odds-futures

If the goal here was to hurt Trump's reelection chances, that doesn't seem like it's working. No one's mind has been changed as a result of this process. It looks like impeachment by the House is already baked into the polling numbers.

If the goal here was to get Trump removed from office so he couldn't be reelected, the charges here are far too weak. There would need to be a bombshell of such magnitude that even GOP senators would have to say welp, our hands are tied here and we have to vote to convict.

Overall, I'm unclear on what the Democratic strategy was here.

[Edited on December 18, 2019 at 2:36 PM. Reason : ]

12/18/2019 2:35:34 PM

Concern trolls out in force today.

12/18/2019 2:43:45 PM