I’ll be interested to see where my Rep (NY-19, Delgado) falls on this spectrum. He handily beat GOP-Koch-Mercer shill John Faso, mainly by hammering him in Blue-trending Ulster County and keeping it close everywhere else. It’s a big district with plenty of Red, having elected Gibson and Faso since 2012. I expect him to follow rather than lead.
Sean Patrick Maloney (next door NY-18) will also probably need to be pushed as he’s a former Clinton Staffer who takes Corporate money. He’s also just started investigating Elaine Chao’s corruption.
Lewandowski and Christie are important witnesses on the obstruction issue, so Dems are doing the right thing by trying to bring them in.
However, the way this article is written tells you another story. The Dems appear to be implicitly conceding the Trump has a shred of an executive privilege claim with respect to aides who served in the WH, the most important of which is Don McGahn.
This goes back to the ‘impeachment inquiry’ decision. If Dems open an impeachment inquiry, Dems will be in an optimal place to defeat executive privilege more easily. Absent an impeachment inquiry, executive privilege has more standing with respect to regular oversight.
The reason, simply put, is the following: Impeachment is akin to a criminal investigation. In criminal investigations, prosecuting/investigating entities can get the info to prove or disprove the crimes alleged. In a standard oversight situation (as we are now in), Dems have to demonstrate legislative purpose and a single key conversation isn’t going to be held by a court to be so key to override executive privilege. This is the reason the Senate Watergate Committee actually lost a case to get the missing portions of the Nixon-Dean tapes. (prosecutors got them later in a different case under a criminal investigation theory approach).
The Dem lawyers appear to have told the committee that it will be harder to overcome the exec privilege claims in a timely manner. This is in spite of the fact that a lot of the information is already public through the Mueller Report.
Keep in mind that the decision to impose a threshold of public support before even opening an inquiry is an arbitrary one made by the Speaker. It has never happened in the prior impeachment situations of Clinton, Nixon or even Johnson.
That position impacts the legal case. In this article, it would appear that Pelosi is weakening the Dems position in court in a relative sense.
So when my TPM friends who are impeachment skeptics or go slow types suggest that ‘inquiry’ is theatre that is not needed, this article tells you that’s not really the case.
The Founders understood the average person had little upstairs… hence the Electoral College. Theoretically the Electors are supposed to use good judgement and vote accordingly. They failed us in 2016.
Anyone over the age of 35 experienced the Bill Clinton situation and knows he stayed in office. This is more Pelosi coming up with reasons not to do something that she doesn’t want to do but that the majority of the party wants. These are all delaying tactics by her and too many Dems fall for it.
As a thought experiment, imagine how much better the Dems messaging would be if Pelosi stopped trying to diminish impeachment fever and instead focused on demanding Trump resign and comply with subpoenas? What if the response to blatant criminality wasn’t ‘HR 1’, but an impeachment inquiry to get subpoena compliance and more effectively investigate? That would be much better than what she’s doing now.
They’re smart enough to know Trump didn’t instigate that. Hell, he confessed to his ignorance in the media. They also know our IC and DoD are not entirely within Trump’s control. I don’t see them doling our punishment specifically targeting Trump for this matter. The big picture requires they keep him in power versus an incoming Democrat.
Not that the damned Democrats have the spine to frustrate Putin. They couldn’t move a Queen to check mate position on the board if you drew them a picture.
The more they stonewall even those who haven;t been in the WH, the more our case looks good to judges who will demand that Trump answer to these same oversight committees. And yes, even the right-leaning SC must enforce the Constitutionally granted powers of Congress over Trump’s objections.
Not to quibble, but Clinton was impeached almost 21 years ago. I’d massage the age group that was possibly paying close attention to how that worked out to those older than 40, and the % of that group with lasting memories probably isn’t that large.
Face it, apathy and ignorance defines most of the populace. That’s a large measure of what Pelosi and Dems are up against.
What I recall is that most parents at the time had to talk to their kids about the Clinton impeachment because everyone knew about the blue dress, Lewinsky etc. The tawdriness of the whole thing reached the younger folks at that time. I’d say 35 was being a little generous.
Like most of your analysis but disagree on your criticisms of Pelosi’s slow-go approach.
I have no doubt that she, her staff and other senior ranking Democrats, House and Senate, have engaged, behind the scenes, some of the wisest constitutional scholars and lawyers on a how to proceed approach. Heck, even some Reoublican experts in this arena, having voiced strong opposition to Trump. have thrown in their two cents to Pelosi and McTurtle’s minions, not that they would do anything about our Turd-In-Chief.
I keep in mind that due to the makeup of the SC, Pelosi is guardedly dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s, knowing full well even a small mistake or error in the march towards impeachment could result in the Supreme’s killing for all time our efforts to take Trump to task.
That’s the thing. Her political decision has made the Dems position in the courts not optimal. Pelosi’s move is a political decision, not a legal one. Folks need to understand that.
Khyber, I am as hot about this is you are about this, but there is NO evidence that the majority of Pelosi’s caucus or even a majority of Democrats in general are in favor of impeachment. Of the 230-something Democratic Rep.s in the House, only 60 are publicly in favor of impeachment. The is not enough for Pelosi to budge.
The REAL problem, IMHO is with the Constitution itself. After 250 years of presidential misbehavior and the half dozen scoundrels the American Electorate has voted into the office, not ONE has been Impeached and Convicted - NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE. Nixon was NOT Impeached and Removed, he resigned when his party told him they would not support him, and then his idiot successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned the Son-of-a-Bitch. It was clear to me Nixon should have been drawn and quartered like the did it in the olden days to William Wallace, Guy Fawkes Everard Digby and among other treasonists, but Nixon got to live out a nice retirement.
Two more examples - Andrew Johnson was as bad as Trump, single-handedly mortally wounded Reconstruction, was impeached and yet was acquitted in the Senate. Bill Clinton was impeached, acquitted for obvious perjury, and went on to become a celebrated statesmen. My point is the Constitutional Process is too hard to execute, and so does not deter the POTUS AT ALL. It simply gives fodder for the “victim act” that would follow by the current incumbent. It is a POINTLESS exercise, particular with an election in coming in less than 18 months in which Trump will likely lose in a landslide.
If you really want to curb these abuses - give the office much less power. Change the Constitution through Amendment to kill this asinine “Unitary Executive” bullshit the GOP keeps pushing as a minority party, and make the POTUS a “City Manager” who can be removed by a no-confidence vote of simple majorities in both Houses of Congress, after which he indicted for “Dereliction of Duty” in a Federal Court, and if convicted, must serve 10 years in Federal prison. THAT will prevent any future occupant on the WH from ever mis-behaving again, and any scoundrel like Trump from even considering running for the job in the first place.
I love the idea, but we all know that if it weren’t for double standards and projection, republicans wouldn’t have anything left. FTFNYT and NPR would love to lambast dems for any action that they ignore by repubs every day.
This is what I find so frustrating about WH stonewalling and Congressional dithering. My understanding is that EP must be invoked by the president and on a question-by-question basis. It is not a blanket excuse from testifying.
The only difference is access to grand jury proceedings, and I’m not sure that very many people will change their minds based on that. I think the financial and tax records will make more of a difference.
