Seven purple-district Democrats penned a letter in the Washington Post Monday calling President Donald Trump’s actions with the Ukrainian President an “impeachable offense.”
Because it is. And when even Shep is beginning to question the legitimacy of the action, it’s time to get real here.
Let’s roll.
As of this morning it looks like impeachment is happening, folks. After the op-ed where red to blue district Dems like Spanberger, Luria, Slotkin and Cisneros came out in favor of impeachment, Pelosi will get to 218 by the weekend (she might have it already). There have been a few more (Castor, Delgado, Crist) who have either flipped to yes or declared yes for the first time.
Before yesterday of the 97 who had not committed ‘yes’ to impeachment, 42 are from solid blue districts (D+8 or >), 34 are from red districts, 21 are light blue (D+1 to D+7). So if if folks from red and light blue districts are moving, you can pretty much guarantee that the 42 from solid blue districts will move too as well as those from D+5 to D+7 seats. That would put the Dems at over 200. The Speaker weighing in makes this a done deal.
The Ukraine thing moved a lot of the anti-Trump, but impeachment skeptic, coalition off the fence. Josh is a good example of that from the left. But the real reason red state/red district Dems are moving to impeachment is because of Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. Trump was trying to take out Joe Biden in the primary. Biden is their preferred candidate. Warren is viewed by red district/red state Dems as the worst possible candidate for them. She is viewed as polarizing and too liberal for a GE. If you ask an Elaine Luria or Abigail Spanberger if they’d rather go into a GE with Biden or Warren, the question answers itself.
This also goes to show that Trump always makes these kinds of mistakes. This was utter recklessness on his part, but there are few real heroes in our world. People are more motivated if it affects them personally. In the case of the uncommitted House Dems, the prospect of losing a candidate who was the strongest match up for them and had the best alignment with their agenda and their voters is what’s moving this. The laws of politics are biting Trump in the ass.
FWIW, I do not agree that UKR is worse than the #trumprussia scandal and more deserving of impeachment. The UKR scandal is a brazen, but failed and clownish attempt to smear a political opponent. #trumprussia was a wholesale act of treason, inviting and encouraging a hostile foreign power to break our laws, violate our national security in order to pick a puppet POTUS and damage our country in untold ways. It isn’t close in my view.
The fact is what Trump did to date crossed the threshold of impeachment. The fact that the anti-Trump coalition didn’t get behind impeachment was a weakness that Trump and the GOP exploited. It’s good to finally see the rest of the anti-Trump coalition recognize that you cannot have an unfit, traitorous puppet of foreign powers running our country. If you don’t stop him early, it only gets worse.
The CYA movement is going into high gear:
Marc Caputo, who covers Florida for Politico, says Charlie Crist “is also moving to yes” on impeachment inquiry.
There’s a lot of speculation formally invoking impeachment in the House somehow clears away legal hurdles to demanding documents and testimony from people and institutions that heretofore Trump has successfully blocked or withheld. I read elsewhere this is not true, and Dems will probably have to scratch and claw and litigate every damned scrap they want regardless. I’d like a definitive answer to which it is. If Pelosi declares formal impeachment proceedings, but Dems have no more success in getting what they need to nail Trump to the wall than they’ve experienced to date, what will it accomplish? From where I sit Trump has pretty successfully told various committees to go to hell on eveything, with damned few losses in any court forcing him to do otherwise.
Yup - and any day now, he’ll pivot and become the President that we all hoped he would be.
Not sure what it’s gonna take for the MSM to finally wake up to what they’ve created here through their greed and sloth.
House Dems’ job is to impeach in a way that gives centrist/red state Dem senators and endangered GOP senators the political cover they need to vote to convict, and makes those Repubs who vote to acquit or are strongly leaning towards it very, very nervous about doing so. Dems have to make them look like they’re supporting a traitor who if he weren’t president would be looking at 10-20 in Supermax. Impeachment, done right, is all about the politics of political optics.
No.
The MSM enjoys the easy money retweeting the president while enjoying the tax breaks Republicans give them.
It hasn’t been free for a while. The enable the GOP and with that quite the cost.
Yes, same reason MoscowMitch is free to admit that while he blocked Garland if it were to happen again with a Republican president he would fill the seat quickly… it is not a surprise they are so corrupt and craven, it’s hardly news.
Steady as she goes, Mr. Sulu
PERIOD.
No, not period. They need to impeach in the most politically smart way possible.
Impeach the asshole and DON’T FUCK IT UP!
You know? Right now, I don’t care if Mitch does it or not.
What I do care about is starting the hearings, running them professionally (which will be a stretch with the GOP representation going to make a show out of it) and getting the facts of the case out there.
Then all of the 2020 campaigns from the position of President down the to the HR will have one and only one question on their minds: is he or is he not a treasonous bastard? And every candidate will have to respond, whether they like it or not.
That’s all I want. Whether #ditchMoscowMitch (who by the way is running for re-election in 2020) wants to answer or not, whether he wants the trial or not, is immaterial. We all know where he stands.
If they do it right, they’ll never have to vote on it a la Watergate.
Perhaps not in statute but there’s case law from Watergate where the courts are more likely to disallow executive privilege and grant requests by congress during actual impeachment proceedings.
Either that, or it may merely be John Bolton.
I doubt he’d resign before the senate held a trial, which is unlikely to lead to removal. But that might be a good thing, politically, as it would put Repubs who voted to acquit in a very bad position–assuming that house Dems built a compelling enough case for impeachment that turns the public against Trump and his defenders. If he does resign, it’ll be after the election, so Pence can pardon him.
A fine, fine definition of democracy at its best!
Since it looks like we’re headed towards impeachment and it’ll ultimately be up to the senate, here’s wishing Moscow Mischa a horrible, terrible, awful, no good 2019-2020!
Impeachment is now a foregone conclusion: If the DNI refuses to proffer the whistler-blower complaint, Congress must impeach to fulfill their constitutional duty to protect the separation of powers. If the complaint is released, it’s content will no doubt be worse than has been reported, forcing Congress to impeach in order to fulfill their constitutional duty to uphold the rule of law.
I do agree that they need to do it properly, although given leadership’s track record I don’t have a lot of confidence in that, my problem with your comment is about being obliged to assist Centrist Democrats or going out of their way to provide cover for them. Centrist and the reluctance to do their jobs is what got us here. Had leadership shown some guts to begin with and not stood for the administration’s stonewalling and obstruction maybe we wouldn’t have to impeach him, but…The House’s job is to uphold the Constitution and provide oversight. Its nice if they can protect their members but that is not their JOB per se.