ETA: After the Republicans wasted our time all day, Rep. Nadler after 11PM pushed the actual vote (much to the Republicans' ire -- no complaints about "midnight impeachments") to the morning. A quick session made it official and it was by a partisan vote (Rep. Ted Lieu is out sick) voted out.
Meanwhile, litigation continues, including for emoluments and this article to me hits a basic point, including this bit: "He called them phony emoluments clauses,” [Judge] King shouted. “Two clauses of the Constitution written in 1787.” The Trump lawyer (who I engaged with online and he was an asshole, not just using the typical conservative talking points but in a snotty/sarcastic way) wanted to handwave this as an off the cuff statement. No, it's not. It's typical stuff for him. And, why he should be impeached. And, if the conservative thinks this should not be in the courts, fine. Impeachment is not. Limit him SOMEHOW.
One more thing. We now have Sen. McConnell openly saying on Fox News that he will follow the lead of the Administration during the trial. This is not surprising but we cannot simply sigh about it. He's breaking his oath, the Senate not just a subsidiary of the executive department. Every f-ing Republican senator that goes along are as bad. Enough with this shit!
There are the counts (I'd toss in something about the media) that he "deserves" and the two that the House Judiciary actually crafted. The articles (a short nine pages) are abuse of power related to Ukraine (key criteria: involvement of candidate in U.S. election, holding up of funds authorized by Congress, personal over needs of nation and enlisting of foreign power against our own country) and obstruction of Congress (blanket obstruction on said investigation). The House Intelligence Committee provided fact witnesses to cover the first while the second was addressed in to me somewhat redundant (at least the second day, covering the first count mostly) House Judiciary portion (law professors).
[Word of the day: contumacy, which is a stubborn refusal to obey or comply with authority, especially a court order or summons. As to complaints some Democrats were for impeachment early -- damn Trump for being a criminal since the early 1970s -- there's this bit of Republican history regarding Hillary Clinton. And, for this general aside, RIP to a great character actor, generally a blessing, who I first saw as "Clayton" on Benson.]
Reports are that people like Rep. Nadler (he and members of his committee were ahead of the curve here from the Mueller days) wanted an obstruction of justice count related to the Mueller investigation. The compromise, which is important to note, is that both cases reference previous actions consistent to these two. I would have specifically spelled that out (maybe as a whereas or in its own count). Three counts for one thing might lead some members a way to "compromise" more themselves by splitting the baby. Still, that important final kicker provides a means to bring up the Mueller Report and anything so related. It also to me is a very important flag (as Rep. Schiff et. al. noted) on why it was necessary. It is not a stand alone thing. The whole thing is sort of synecdoche, a symbol of a wider whole.
The committee is now debating them (so to speak), starting last night with statements from each member. The general trend (including one who is a gun control activist whose son was murdered) was to provide personal accounts (some quite touching) about why they decided to run for public office and argue they weren't there to impeach Trump. Fine with the basic strategy more or less, but do think 2018 was about checking Trump. This was in response to the general Republican tendency to make it some sort of partisan witch hunt about not liking Trump when not whining (that is the general tone) about alleged process problems.
It's hard not to be depressed, cynical and angry about the overall process here. First, Trump is so clearly unfit and guilty of a range of things that should fit the constitutional grounds for removal. I think Democrats after the Mueller Report was dropped should have set up a sort of overall impeachment inquiry, delegating things to the relevant committees, with Judiciary serving as the overall clearinghouse. As necessary, things could be accelerated, just as many (including Never Trump types like Orin Kerr) thought that the Ukraine Extortion Racket matter warranted. Still think that would have been a good approach and more would have been accomplished if that was done in appropriate fashion.
So, the whole thing has a feel of not enough. But, you take what you can get there (so, e.g., Democrats are challenging the Trump obstruction in the courts, even if people raise the fantasy of arresting people and putting them in some sort of fictional House jail). The ultimate step here, after Trump was caught again interfering with an election, is impeachment. And, it is felt to be time sensitive since an election is coming up, particularly a primary/caucus that starts in February. So, waiting months or just as likely the rest of his term (one wants to rest with the word "single"), and just to continue to investigate to me is a dubious idea. The investigations should still continue and maybe another impeachment vote if something turns up so blatant to warrant it (though we should act now as if this is it).
Then, there is the reality that Trump will be acquitted in the trial. I find no need to repeatedly say this as a stated fact in part since it helps to make everyone cynical and take it ("one rather it not be ..") as a given and feel resigned about Trump blithely doing bad things without limitations. It also seems worthwhile to continue to say that you actually expect Republicans to have some shame here as you do not simply assume as a given that a child will just continue to be bad. You expect it, but you at least in a token fashion assume facially that the child will be good.
Still, yes, the likely result is an acquittal and the best we can hope for (and this shouldn't be taken for granted) that every Democrat (except maybe the guy from West Virginia) will the right way and maybe one or more Republicans (Romney?) might actually for to convict. Even not voting there might be something. Also, we hope the whole trial will not simply be a sham, maybe not even being a trial at all but simply a vote. The reality here is that Mitch McConnell heads the Senate and Republicans are not showing any sign of a spine even to the degree of admitting Trump did anything wrong. And, hopefully this will cause some pain.
Impeachment is necessary as an answer by the people's House, Trump so much of a repeat offender that even Democrats wary of impeachment feel a need to vote for it. One party is acting like it is okay and this is depressing as a matter of public well being. But, you need to keep on fighting and support those who are fighting the good fight. Like some of the great members of the Judiciary and Intelligence committees that balance some of the clowns on the other side. It's a long haul process. No Biden!
Meanwhile, litigation continues, including for emoluments and this article to me hits a basic point, including this bit: "He called them phony emoluments clauses,” [Judge] King shouted. “Two clauses of the Constitution written in 1787.” The Trump lawyer (who I engaged with online and he was an asshole, not just using the typical conservative talking points but in a snotty/sarcastic way) wanted to handwave this as an off the cuff statement. No, it's not. It's typical stuff for him. And, why he should be impeached. And, if the conservative thinks this should not be in the courts, fine. Impeachment is not. Limit him SOMEHOW.
One more thing. We now have Sen. McConnell openly saying on Fox News that he will follow the lead of the Administration during the trial. This is not surprising but we cannot simply sigh about it. He's breaking his oath, the Senate not just a subsidiary of the executive department. Every f-ing Republican senator that goes along are as bad. Enough with this shit!
There are the counts (I'd toss in something about the media) that he "deserves" and the two that the House Judiciary actually crafted. The articles (a short nine pages) are abuse of power related to Ukraine (key criteria: involvement of candidate in U.S. election, holding up of funds authorized by Congress, personal over needs of nation and enlisting of foreign power against our own country) and obstruction of Congress (blanket obstruction on said investigation). The House Intelligence Committee provided fact witnesses to cover the first while the second was addressed in to me somewhat redundant (at least the second day, covering the first count mostly) House Judiciary portion (law professors).
[Word of the day: contumacy, which is a stubborn refusal to obey or comply with authority, especially a court order or summons. As to complaints some Democrats were for impeachment early -- damn Trump for being a criminal since the early 1970s -- there's this bit of Republican history regarding Hillary Clinton. And, for this general aside, RIP to a great character actor, generally a blessing, who I first saw as "Clayton" on Benson.]
Reports are that people like Rep. Nadler (he and members of his committee were ahead of the curve here from the Mueller days) wanted an obstruction of justice count related to the Mueller investigation. The compromise, which is important to note, is that both cases reference previous actions consistent to these two. I would have specifically spelled that out (maybe as a whereas or in its own count). Three counts for one thing might lead some members a way to "compromise" more themselves by splitting the baby. Still, that important final kicker provides a means to bring up the Mueller Report and anything so related. It also to me is a very important flag (as Rep. Schiff et. al. noted) on why it was necessary. It is not a stand alone thing. The whole thing is sort of synecdoche, a symbol of a wider whole.
The committee is now debating them (so to speak), starting last night with statements from each member. The general trend (including one who is a gun control activist whose son was murdered) was to provide personal accounts (some quite touching) about why they decided to run for public office and argue they weren't there to impeach Trump. Fine with the basic strategy more or less, but do think 2018 was about checking Trump. This was in response to the general Republican tendency to make it some sort of partisan witch hunt about not liking Trump when not whining (that is the general tone) about alleged process problems.
It's hard not to be depressed, cynical and angry about the overall process here. First, Trump is so clearly unfit and guilty of a range of things that should fit the constitutional grounds for removal. I think Democrats after the Mueller Report was dropped should have set up a sort of overall impeachment inquiry, delegating things to the relevant committees, with Judiciary serving as the overall clearinghouse. As necessary, things could be accelerated, just as many (including Never Trump types like Orin Kerr) thought that the Ukraine Extortion Racket matter warranted. Still think that would have been a good approach and more would have been accomplished if that was done in appropriate fashion.
So, the whole thing has a feel of not enough. But, you take what you can get there (so, e.g., Democrats are challenging the Trump obstruction in the courts, even if people raise the fantasy of arresting people and putting them in some sort of fictional House jail). The ultimate step here, after Trump was caught again interfering with an election, is impeachment. And, it is felt to be time sensitive since an election is coming up, particularly a primary/caucus that starts in February. So, waiting months or just as likely the rest of his term (one wants to rest with the word "single"), and just to continue to investigate to me is a dubious idea. The investigations should still continue and maybe another impeachment vote if something turns up so blatant to warrant it (though we should act now as if this is it).
Then, there is the reality that Trump will be acquitted in the trial. I find no need to repeatedly say this as a stated fact in part since it helps to make everyone cynical and take it ("one rather it not be ..") as a given and feel resigned about Trump blithely doing bad things without limitations. It also seems worthwhile to continue to say that you actually expect Republicans to have some shame here as you do not simply assume as a given that a child will just continue to be bad. You expect it, but you at least in a token fashion assume facially that the child will be good.
Still, yes, the likely result is an acquittal and the best we can hope for (and this shouldn't be taken for granted) that every Democrat (except maybe the guy from West Virginia) will the right way and maybe one or more Republicans (Romney?) might actually for to convict. Even not voting there might be something. Also, we hope the whole trial will not simply be a sham, maybe not even being a trial at all but simply a vote. The reality here is that Mitch McConnell heads the Senate and Republicans are not showing any sign of a spine even to the degree of admitting Trump did anything wrong. And, hopefully this will cause some pain.
Impeachment is necessary as an answer by the people's House, Trump so much of a repeat offender that even Democrats wary of impeachment feel a need to vote for it. One party is acting like it is okay and this is depressing as a matter of public well being. But, you need to keep on fighting and support those who are fighting the good fight. Like some of the great members of the Judiciary and Intelligence committees that balance some of the clowns on the other side. It's a long haul process. No Biden!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!