Impeachment, Indictment, 25th Amendment 3

Old news, but ICYMI:

Fox News Judge Says House Impeachment Inquiry 'Consistent With the Rules' That 'Republican Majority' Signed Into Law
Jason Lemon | 10/24/19 at 9:29 AM EDT

Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said Thursday that Republican complaints about the "secrecy" of closed-door impeachment hearings don't hold water because the process is "consistent with the rules" that a "Republican majority" signed into law.

Trump and his Republican supporters have repeatedly argued that the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry has been conducted improperly because the testimony of witnesses has been carried out in close-door hearings. On Wednesday morning, a group of GOP representatives, some of whom did not serve on the investigating committees, stormed one of those secure depositions, chanting "let us in." This delayed the hearing, but it eventually went forward in the afternoon with only the Democrats and Republicans serving on the relevant committees permitted to attend.

"As frustrating as it may be to have these hearings going on behind closed doors...they are consistent with the rules," Napolitano, who previously served as a New Jersey Superior Court judge, explained during a segment of the Fox News morning show Fox & Friends.

"When were the rules written last?" the legal expert asked. "In January of 2015. And who signed them? John Boehner the Republican speaker of the House. And who enacted them? A Republican majority," he asserted...

https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-judge-impeachment-inquiry-consistent-rules-rep...

Thanks, margd. That is very clear, amd coming from a rightwing source too. It well answers fuzzi's assertion in #155 of the previous thread that "the democrats are not following the impeachment process". I wonder if she has any evidence for that assertion? My understanding is that there has also been a vote now in one of your legislative houses which has put the impeachment process on a very formal footing?

>2 John5918: Below is repost of #131 on previous thread. Reynolds & Taylor's Lawfare article links to House resolution H.Res.660, along with a fact sheet.

The resolution on impeachment inquiry is same as that for Nixon and Clinton, plus more rights for Trump to participate--conditioned that he not "unlawfully refuse to make witnesses available for testimony to, or to produce documents requested by...investigative committees".

(George Conway is influential Republican lawyer, biting Trump critic, and spouse of sr. Trump aide Kellyanne. Theirs is, no doubt, one of the most interesting "mixed" marriages. Rich, rich, rich, judging by their beautiful mansion of a home.)

MSNBC @MSNBC | 10/30/2019:
.@TheBeatWithAri outlines how despite President Trump’s criticisms,
Democrats have actually outlined an impeachment process
which gives him more power to participate than Presidents Nixon or Clinton had.
https://on.msnbc.com/2q1Q53H
Image https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1189690206565339136/photo/1

George Conway @gtconway3d | 10/30/2019:
And absolutely none of this is constitutionally or legally required.
__________________________________________________​

What’s in the House Resolution on Impeachment?
Molly E. Reynolds, Margaret Taylor | October 30, 2019

...Should the President unlawfully refuse to make witnesses available for testimony to, or to produce documents requested by, the investigative committees listed in the first section of H.Res.660 in furtherance of the investigations described in the first section of H.Res.660, the chair shall have the discretion to impose appropriate remedies, including by denying specific requests by the President or his counsel under these procedures to call or question witnesses...

https://www.lawfareblog.com/whats-house-resolution-impeachment

Pence aide -- who was concerned about July 25 call -- will testify if subpoenaed
Rene Marsh, Alex Marquardt and Paul LeBlanc | November 6, 2019

(CNN)An aide to Vice President Mike Pence, Jennifer Williams, will show up for testimony on Thursday if she receives a subpoena, according to a source familiar with the matter...was concerned about what she heard on the (the July 25 call between President Donald Trump and Ukraine President Volodymr Zelensky) but there is no indication Williams raised her concerns to her superiors...

..."Jennifer is a longtime dedicated State Department employee," (Justin Shur, Williams' attorney) said..."We expect her testimony will largely reflect what is already in the public record."

...Williams...is detailed to Pence's office as special adviser on European and Russian affairs and was one of two Pence aides on the call. The other was Gen. Keith Kellogg, the vice president's national security adviser, who has not yet been called to testify.

Williams would be the first person on Pence's national security team to appear. She has knowledge of how much the vice president knew about the efforts by Trump and those around him to push Ukraine to launch investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, as well as 2016 election interference...

...Pence did not listen in, but a transcript of the call was put into his daily briefing binder...He has repeatedly insisted that Trump did nothing wrong but Pence has not clarified how much he himself knew...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/06/politics/jennifer-williams-testify/index.html

Trump has done one very good deed during his era. He has
exposed the true hearts, minds and souls of GOPers with very
little or no effort. They happily complied.

@johnthefireman: as per request, here is the article from the last thread, with source included.

Have fun.

@fuzzi: the democrats are not following the impeachment process, that's the problem.

Interesting article I read today:

The left-right divide in America is, unfortunately, unbridgeable.

There are three reasons.

First, we are divided by our vision of what we want America to be.

The right believes the founders’ vision was brilliant and moral, that bourgeois middle-class values are superior to alternative value systems; that rights come from God, not man; and that the state must be as small as possible. The left (not liberals) shares none of those values.

Second, we are divided by the means we use to achieve our vision. Given their different ends, left and right obviously differ on what means to use to achieve their ends.

Third, and perhaps most troubling, there is a reality-perception divide.

Left and right have different perceptions of reality.

I have been aware of this for many years, but it was dramatically brought home last week when I was a guest on “Real Time With Bill Maher.” Given that the other two guests on the panel and more or less the entire studio audience were on the left, their reactions to what I said proved my point.

For example, I said that though there are, of course, racists in the United States, America is the least racist multiethnic and multiracial country in the world.

I was booed.

I said the United States military has brought so much liberty to the world it deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

I was booed.

Clearly, there is an unbridgeable divide in the way we perceive the reality of the American military’s role in the world.

I said that it turned out the Russia-Trump campaign collusion never happened.

I was booed.

There is an unbridgeable divide in the way left and right perceive this reality.

I said the Trump-Ukrainian president phone transcript did not show a quid pro quo.

I was booed, and one of the other panelists said it actually showed “extortion.”

This, too, constitutes an unbridgeable divide between the way left and right view reality.

I said John Brennan, the former CIA director, has voted communist. (He has admitted that he voted for the Communist Party USA presidential candidate Gus Hall in 1976.) I was dismissed as having made something up. Bill Maher sarcastically responded that he didn’t recall Mao having been on any ballot.

And I said that people on the left say men can menstruate.

For that, I was not merely booed; I was laughed at by the panel, Maher and the audience.

Anyone can Google this and learn that I was entirely right. Just type “can men menstruate.” One of the first results will be from the popular left-wing website The Daily Beast: “Yes, Men Can Have Periods and We Need to Talk About Them,” reads one of its headlines. “How is this possible?” you might ask. Well, if a woman declares herself to be a man, then “a man” can have a period. In fact, last month, Procter & Gamble announced that it will remove the female Venus symbol from its Always line of menstrual products. After all, not only women menstruate.

The irony is that as soon as most progressives become aware that LGBTQ groups say that men menstruate, they will say that men menstruate. And that will be another differing perception of reality.

On each of these issues — all the issues for which I was booed — right and left have different perceptions of reality. That — even more so than differing values — makes the left-right divide unbridgeable. When you cannot agree on what is real, there is no possible bridging of the gulf.

The left believes the president colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election. The reality is that there was no collusion. This is the conclusion of the Mueller report, but still, the left doesn’t accept it.

The left is certain President Trump said the neo-Nazis are “very fine people” when referring to the protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia. The right is certain the president didn’t say there are good neo-Nazis any more than he said there are good “antifa” members. When he said there were “very fine people on both sides,” he was referring to those demonstrating on behalf of keeping Confederate statues and those opposed. See “The Charlottesville Lie” by CNN analyst Steve Cortes.

The left believes socialism is economically superior to capitalism. But the reality is that only capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty. This is, therefore, not an opinion divide — “You prefer capitalism. I prefer socialism” — but a reality divide.

The reason this is so frightening is that it means one side has lost its grip on reality. If half of this country cannot distinguish truth from falsehood, that is not a good sign for the nation’s future. On that point, ironically, left and right can agree.

Source: http://www.creators.com/read/dennis-prager/11/19

FYI: Fox (or Newsweek, NYT, etc) is not a right-wing source. I've not watched them since before the 2016 election.

I don't go to a "right" or "left" source for so-called news and information.

I use a variety of sources and compare them to actual videos, transcripts, to ascertain the truth.

It's time consuming, takes a lot more work than doing copy and paste jobs from a DNC approved list of sources.

As I have said before, people don't want the truth, they want to hear what they want to believe.

When Trump became a Presidential candidate, I was not enamored of him or his style.

Whenever I heard/read about his gaffes, racist comments, etc, I looked up the actual source of the claims.

I watched videos of Trump talking, of being interviewed, IN FULL, not in chosen snippets.

And I discovered that the claims made by most of the Media were either totally wrong or taken out of context.

I was still a Ben Carson supporter, but I kept wondering why Trump was being attacked in this manner.

When Carson dropped out, my choice was clear.

And the more people lie about what I can easily verify, the more I see through their charades.

~~
What I liked about Trump, even before I supported his candidacy, was his manner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soVFOYTVaMk&list=FLZc6oTdxNLKcAVBEjgOGFpg&am...

>6 fuzzi:

Thanks for posting the link.

>7 fuzzi:

Any comment on the position presented in >1 margd: and >3 margd: which appears to contradict your view that the impeachment process is not being done according to the rules?

Laurence Tribe @tribelaw | 8:06 AM · Nov 8, 2019:

Drop the Latin! “Quid” & “Quo” are distractions. Trump is guilty of Bribery and Extortion.
Art II Sec 4 says
“The President . . . SHALL be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, BRIBERY, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Opinion | Enough with the Latin. What Trump did was bribery.
Let’s call Trump’s crime what it is.
Eugene Robinson | November 7, 2019

Enough with all the Latin. “Quid pro quo” is a namby-pamby, wishy-washy way to describe the crime President Trump clearly committed in his dealings with Ukraine. The correct term is bribery, and the punishment under federal law is up to 15 years in prison.

One thing Trump understands is the value of simplicity and repetition in getting a message across. Those seeking to hold him accountable through impeachment — an undertaking that requires and deserves public support — must heed that same lesson. Legalese in a long-dead language is the wrong approach. Instead, call the thing by its name...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/call-trumps-crime-what-it-is-bribery/201...

>9 margd:
” “Quid pro quo” is a namby-pamby, wishy-washy way to describe the crime President Trump clearly committed in his dealings with Ukraine. The correct term is bribery, and the punishment under federal law is up to 15 years in prison.”

This statement is, clearly, Robinson’s wishful thinking. If President Trump had so “clearly” committed bribery, or any other high crime or misdemeanor, the Dems wouldn’t have spent weeks squirrelled away in the House SCIF trying to come up with something, anything, to justify their failure of an impeachment inquiry. If there was anything they can “clearly” pin on Trump, they’d be gleefully high-fiving and celebrating in the halls.

Despite daily news coverage on related issues, I haven’t seen anything substantial on the real issue of interest here, and that is the shady dealings of Biden & Son. It appears that wherever Biden & Son went (in Air Force Two, even), the elder Biden came back smiling and waving to the cameras as the younger Biden waddled by with his pockets stuffed. Where is that investigation? Has anything significant been done on corruption in Ukraine since a prosecutor was fired in what was clearly a quid pro quo demand from Joe Biden?

President Trump is the head of the Executive Branch; and therefore the head of the Department of Justice, the State Department, FBI, IRS, and a number of agencies that could have a role in engaging on any corruption involving Biden & Son. President Trump is therefore well within his role if he makes a reasonable request of a foreign leader to look into election meddling or to ensure that U.S. financial aid doesn’t get immediately diverted through corrupt entities (like Burisma, perhaps) and onward to anyone hunting for a bribe or kickback. There are other means to request such a favor, but it’s reasonable that Trump is accustomed to asking for favors from the perspective of CEO to CEO.

During President Trump’s next conversation with Xi Xinping, he should ask for a Biden & Son investigation in China, too…and maybe even use some leverage if Xi Xinping chooses to pooh-pooh such an inquiry.

I hear some Senators want to interview Biden & Son (1b Diversion in Trump end game thread). Seriously, my understanding is that there's no there there. And if there was, Trump would/should have released his hound of DOJ (aka AG Barr), as Biden & Son are civilians, not at the moment impeachable officials?

For Rs to call Biden & Son to House impeachment inquiry, they must have info pertinent to three questions within the inquiry's scope:

(1) Did the President request that a foreign leader and government initiate investigations to benefit the President’s personal political interests in the United States, including an investigation related to the President’s political rival and potential opponent in the 2020 U.S. presidential election?

(2) Did the President – directly or through agents – seek to use the power of the Office of the President and other instruments of the federal government in other ways to apply pressure on the head of state and government of Ukraine to advance the President’s personal political interests, including by leveraging an Oval Office meeting desired by the President of Ukraine or by withholding U.S. military assistance to Ukraine?

(3) Did the President and his Administration seek to obstruct, suppress or cover up information to conceal from the Congress and the American people evidence about the President’s actions and conduct?

https://twitter.com/PoliticusSarah/status/1192488363888201730/photo/2

GOPers seem to believe that the words "defend my cult leader to
the bitter end regardless of the evidence" were present in the
Oath of Office they swore to at the beginning their present terms.
America is broken.

Clint-o-clones and Obam-o-bots deriding Trump's defenders as members of a "cult" must be the most spectacular example of the " 'pot' calling the 'kettle' 'black' since the word "liar" was invented.

Trump's pursuers are, down to the tiniest detail and in every conceivable manner, the very epitome of a cult.

#13--saying something doesn't make it so...something that your boy Donald has yet to figure out too. Your post is another bit of derangement.

>8 John5918: any comment about the article I posted?

Nope.

None.

Guess I was just casting pearls...

I used to read the copy/pastes posted here. Now I generally just skim. Why?

There's no factual basis included.

And I generally don't visit this group as there's almost no discussion, just ad hominem and repeated copy/pastes of previously debunked accusations and assertions. It should be subtitled "Echo Chamber".

>15 fuzzi:

Well, yes. My comment would be that your post doesn't appear to address the evidence provided, and that you do not present any counter-evidence that the impeachment process is illegitimate.

Impeachment, ultimately, is a decision by Congress. It's not done very often, but as long as Congress follows the rules (as laid down by the Constitution and their own procedures), it's legitimate. cf the 15 or impeachments against Federal Judges (who also can only be removed through this process).

>17 BruceCoulson:

... " but as long as Congress follows the rules (as laid down by the Constitution and their own procedures), it's legitimate." ...

Most self-described liberals have as an article of faith the idea that, as a matter of principle, it is unfair, unjust and not respectable to do anything which fairly qualifies as "making up the rules as one goes along" or departing from established and commonly-known and accepted practices without prior agreement among the contending and interested parties on the new terms to be used. Thus, if these new terms are imposed by some of the interested parties on others over those others' objections-- any others, that is, who are obviously understood to have a legitimate interest in the fair operation of established procedures--then it constitues an unjust case of "making up the rules as one goes along."

So, tell us:

What, specifically, are these "legitimate" " rules (as laid down by the Constitution and their own procedures)"?

Hmmm?

#18--you'd have to look into the rules committee of the House for the rules but generally speaking the party not in power complains about the party in power from congress to congress on this and I would think anyone who's ever taken a passing interest in congress would know that. You would also probably know there are some changes made every time one party turns over to the other and nobody in the minority ever thinks things are fair. This has been going on for as long as I can remember so in that strict sense what you're insinuating is BS here.

As far as the impeachment process. Again and again we've been telling Prox and his allies that the democrats are following the same procedures set up by a republican controlled house in 2015 when John Boehner was speaker of the house. Wah, wah, wah though--I guess they never figured they'd be used against one of their own.

You know that they're going to complain and obfuscate. Either party actually would in defending their party leaders. All of that though does not change the fact that Trump illegally set up a shadow State Dept. so as to build a bullshit case against a political opponent so he could win the 2020 election and in doing so he held up aid--particularly military aid earmarked by our congress (both republicans and democrats were very much into Ukraine getting this aid by the way) to Ukraine trying to use that as leverage against the Ukraine president--which is illegal in numerous different ways and that in the aftermath of being found out he and his aides and advisors have made up all kinds of silly stories and even made admissions. I mean what the fuck man!---it's black and fucking white. You don't get an out for being a buffoon.

H.Res.660 - Directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes.116th Congress (2019-2020)...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/660/text?q=%7B%22s...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Key Provisions in the Resolution

Reaffirms the ongoing impeachment inquiry.
•The resolution makes clear that the investigating committees have been engaged in an impeachment inquiry and directs them to continue their vital work.

Ensures transparency.
•The resolution authorizes HPSCI to make transcripts of their recent depositions publicwith appropriate redactions be made for classified or other sensitive information.
•The resolution establishes procedures for all investigating committees to transmit their evidence to the Committee on the Judiciary for use in their proceedings.Enables effective public hearings.
•The resolution permits staff counsels to follow their lines of inquiry to their ends by allowing for periods of up to 45 minutes per side in the questioning of witnesses.
o This approach builds on the precedent of having staff counsels conduct initial questioning, followed by Member questions,
that Republicans set for the questioning of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr in 1998.
•The resolution also continues the precedent of giving the minority the same rights to question witnesses that the majority has, as has been true at every step of the inquiry.

Provides the President opportunities to participate. (Per >3 margd:, an opportunity not afforded by House to presidents Nixon and Clinton.)
•The resolution establishes opportunities for the President or his counsel to participate in impeachment proceedings held by the Committee on the Judiciary, including to:
o Present their case and respond to evidence;
o Submit written requests for additional testimony or other evidence;
o Attend hearings, including those held in executive session;
o Raise an objection to testimony given; and
o Cross-examine witnesses.
•If the President unlawfully refuses to cooperate with Congressional requests, the Chair shall have the discretion to impose appropriate remedies, including by denying specific requests by the President or his counsel.

Directs the Committee on the Judiciary to review the evidence and, if necessary, to report Articles of Impeachment to the House.
•Following the precedent of every modern impeachment inquiry, the Committee on the Judiciary will decide whether Articles shall be reported to the House.

https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/InquiryResolutionF...

Impeachment: how Trump's hardball tactics put the constitution in peril (Guardian)

The White House refuses to send witnesses to the House inquiry. Talk of obstruction grows. Experts say a crisis is at hand...

The story of the Trump presidency is one of repeated power struggles between branches of government and within the executive branch. But the standoff that has developed between the White House and the legislature during the impeachment inquiry, constitutional experts say, is loaded with dangerous potential to upset the balance of power and wreck the ability of Congress to check the president.“This is about as intense a conflict as we could imagine between the branches. It is unusual, though not unprecedented. This may be a great example of what we call constitutional hardball, where everybody’s kind of pushing their powers at least to their boundaries, if not beyond”...

The refusal of executive branch officials to comply with lawful congressional subpoenas has been compared to Richard Nixon’s refusal to turn over recordings of Oval Office conversations to investigators in the Watergate affair. In that standoff, Congress ultimately prevailed.

But the third article of impeachment against Nixon, for obstruction of the House impeachment inquiry, “rested on far more limited withholding of information from the House” than that which is being pursued by Trump...

“It’s completely abnormal... Inasmuch as the no-shows are in response to presidential orders or strong admonitions, they amount to obstruction of the House’s constitutional impeachment function and are therefore a free-standing ground for impeachment.”

The Trump administration has withheld more than just witnesses. Top officials... have defied subpoenas for documents. So have agencies including the defense department and budget office...

https://newrepublic.com/article/155629/deep-state-political-party

“Are you at all concerned,” I asked, “about the agency’s growing profile in domestic politics?”

Brennan put a friendly finger on my chest. “The CIA is not involved in domestic politics,” he said. “Period. That’s on the record.”

This he asserted confidently, at an event where he had just spoken about about influence campaigns on swing voters and implied that Hillary Clinton might be right in calling U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset. Even seasoned analysts, it seems, have their blind spots.

Giuliani Associate Says He Gave Demand for Biden Inquiry to Ukrainians
The claim by the associate, Lev Parnas, is being vigorously disputed.
Ben Protess, Andrew E. Kramer, Michael Rothfeld and William K. Rashbaum | Nov. 10, 2019

Not long before the Ukrainian president was inaugurated in May, an associate of Rudolph W. Giuliani’s journeyed to Kiev to deliver a warning to the country’s new leadership...the incoming government...had to announce an investigation into Mr. Trump’s political rival, Joseph R. Biden Jr., and his son, or else Vice President Mike Pence would not attend the swearing-in of the new president, and the United States would freeze aid...

The claim by (Lev) Parnas, who is preparing to share his account with impeachment investigators, challenges the narrative of events from Mr. Trump and Ukrainian officials that is at the core of the congressional inquiry. It also directly links Mr. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, to threats of repercussions made to the Ukrainians, something he has strenuously denied.

But Mr. Parnas’s account, while potentially significant, is being contradicted on several fronts. None of the people involved dispute that the meeting occurred, but Mr. Parnas stands alone in saying the intention was to present an ultimatum to the Ukrainian leadership...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/nyregion/trump-ukraine-parnas-fruman.html

David Leonhardt writes about military veterans speaking up to Republicans:

'We Kept Our Oath'

In an advertising campaign that began last week and is running in 14 House districts, veterans read the oath on camera and ask congressional Republicans to hold President Trump accountable for violating his own (very similar) oath. The campaign is part of the Defend American Democracy project, run by a coalition of groups alarmed by Trump’s behavior, including Republicans for the Rule of Law.

>24 2wonderY:

The clue is in the first sentence:

"In an advertising campaign that began last week"...

"We kept our Oath"

More like, "We kept the check! Thanks!"

This just reeked of slick, moneyed advertising and media-"Insiders"-at-work and that is exactly what it is. William "Bill" Kristol. That's who you're sharing company with here, "2wonderY" and, quite frankly, I wonder why.

This is moneyed public-relations at a high level and very heavily funded; tells us all we need to know.

edited to strike through previous text : There's no "Wikipedia" page as there would be if this were not the stuff of people who have tons of operating money and want to and need to remain in the shadows because of that. It would not do to have their identities clearly presented.

So, notice--it's virtually impossible to locate an "About"-page on this group. Who are they? Where'd they come from? What's their real purpose and why?

" 'Defend American Democracy' projet" is about as bland and non-descript as it can get--unless it's "Republicans for the Rule of Law" LOL!

... "a coalition of groups alarmed by Trump’s behavior, including Republicans for the Rule of Law."...


Ha! Ha!



Found ya!

This "figures"!

Au contraire, Mr. Barr, TRUMP was attempting to subvert the will of voters by putting his teeny thumb on the 2020 scale.

Barr Suggests Impeachment Inquiry Undermines Voters’ Intent
Katie Benner | Nov. 15, 2019

WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr on Friday vigorously defended President Trump’s use of executive authority and suggested that House Democrats were subverting the will of voters by exploring whether to remove the president from office for abusing his power...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/politics/barr-impeachment.html

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers the 19th Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture at the Federalist Society's 2019 National Lawyers Convention, Washington, DC. ~ Friday, November 15, 2019

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery

...While the President has certainly thrown out the traditional Beltway playbook, he was upfront about that beforehand, and the people voted for him. What I am talking about today are fundamental constitutional precepts. The fact is that this Administration’s policy initiatives and proposed rules, including the Travel Ban, have transgressed neither constitutional, nor traditional, norms, and have been amply supported by the law and patiently litigated through the Court system to vindication.

Indeed, measures undertaken by this Administration seem a bit tame when compared to some of the unprecedented steps taken by the Obama Administration’s aggressive exercises of Executive power – such as, under its DACA program, refusing to enforce broad swathes of immigration law.

The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of “Resistance” against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law. This highlights a basic disadvantage that conservatives have always had in contesting the political issues of the day. It was adverted to by the old, curmudgeonly Federalist, Fisher Ames, in an essay during the early years of the Republic.

In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursing a deific end. They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications. They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides.

Conservatives, on the other hand, do not seek an earthly paradise. We are interested in preserving over the long run the proper balance of freedom and order necessary for healthy development of natural civil society and individual human flourishing. This means that we naturally test the propriety and wisdom of action under a “rule of law” standard. The essence of this standard is to ask what the overall impact on society over the long run if the action we are taking, or principle we are applying, in a given circumstance was universalized – that is, would it be good for society over the long haul if this was done in all like circumstances?

For these reasons, conservatives tend to have more scruple over their political tactics and rarely feel that the ends justify the means. And this is as it should be, but there is no getting around the fact that this puts conservatives at a disadvantage when facing progressive holy far, especially when doing so under the weight of a hyper-partisan media...

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-19th...

The Electoral College setup has unwittingly created two monsters
in this century. Trump is the first.
The Corruption on Parade party (Cult 45) is the other.

What's left of William Barr's law career is dependent on what's left of Donald Trump's presidency. As soon as Trump is done Barr is done. I would think he's heading for disbarrment. There's also some chance he gets swept into Trump's criminal issues and Barr spends time behind bars.

Top Pentagon Official: White House Asked Mysterious Questions About Ukraine Aid

(revised and extended / same day of post)
(revised, extended and updated Tuesday, 19 November, 2019)

Bill Barr and Bill Maher both have something important to say to us:

it's about things we should devoutly wish were better and widely understood but, alas, are not :

1.) Attorney General William Barr delivers the 19th Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture at a meeing of the Federalist Society's 2019 National Lawyers Convention, Friday, 15 November.

______________________

2.) Bill Maher, "In his final 'New Rule' (segment of Real Time) of the (current) season", speaks eloquently about living in times of rarely-so-deeply-divided politics and passionately-held partisan differences of opinion—up to and including a now common incapacity to agree on the simplest of facts.

These two speeches are very much complementary political commentaries.

The time afforded the nation's people to come to a good grasp of these insights is not open-ended. The clock is ticking down.

Note, too, that neither man's points should be misconstrued to mean that, in political affairs, to "get along together" requires dispensing altogether with holding public officials, appointed or elected, accountable before the law for their real— not imagined—provable in open, fairly-administered court—not assumed from partisan wishful-thinking—criminal acts, rightly and impartially-judged. No, not at all. "Let it go" must not be the first or the only means to settle matters of fundamental political importance. For, in its appearance as a quick and easy solution to all of the hardest problems we face, it is illusory. Americans want the "quick-and-easy" solution for every problem. In these matters, there isn't one.

It is because these are problems which we must face, no matter their difficulty, that, on the contrary, the wisdom in each above-linked speaker's reasoning is needed.

The matters that now plague us admit of no escape save by a just resolution of the sort which many would do anything to avoid or prevent; and that just resolution demands what, again, can no longer be put off: the holding of the political class to account in proper and due place and manner.

It is, then, in order that such an accounting may be done in its due and proper manner that we need these speakers' wisdom. It is in just this challenge that, to a stupendous extent, the national political class and so large a part of the press-corps are so badly failing us as a nation of people and in which we are failing each other.

Where we prefer to "let it go" is practically anywhere and everywhere our circumstances require us to face, above all, ourselves and our partisan faults and, next, each other honestly across a widening and deepening divide.

But there has been some "movement." Unfortunately, the movement was via concession made grudgingly, not willingly. It was won by force of reason and now-revealed facts. Where, once, all talk of a "deep state" was scoffed at by the powerful insiders who knew the truth about that much-ridiculed term better than anyone else and who urged that we all dismiss it as the exclusive domain of demented "conspiracy-nuts," now, we can actually see and hear some of these insiders say, "well, you know, thank God for the Deep State"....

God, of course, has nothing to do with the deep state. It was never excusable to simply laugh it off. Now, it is no longer possible to do so and get away with it as before.(1)

Many and disparate things have at last burst again onto the political stage where it had been supposed they could not and should not return. But they're back and have come to something of a head now because they concern matters which cannot be adequately addressed by ingoring them and sweeping them under the rug. The rug remains on the national political stage.

Where we must take "let it go" to heart is just where it concerns our self-imposed political delusions on which dishonestly-won psychic comforts depend.

The people who voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election were, up to that point, largely considered politically irrelevant by those very people most at home with a deep state they knew and refused to admit existed.

A reckoning which was bound to come has arrived and President Trump is not its arch-villain—though he certainly is a key factor in this drama and that fact is definitely not something for which he ought to be ashamed. "Lifting the rug" is a thankless task and it is to his credit that Trump has shown himself capable of it where many others before him, others no less challenged to this task, no less responsible for doing it, were cowards, content to speak in complacent platitudes. A good half of the American public are political ingrates determined not to "let go" of their comfortable political self-delusions where President Trump is concerned, determined to deny the debt of gratitude they owe Trump—and their fellow-citizens who voted for him!— for his—and their!—readiness to take on issues others—practically all the others before him—refused to take on. Pass your table-mates the marshmallow-topped sweet-potatoes when they ask for them!, please!

Bill Maher has spoken a truth which the powerful and privileged don't want to face: these people they've thought so thoroughly dismissable and dismissed are not going away because they're part of our people and we are stuck with each other.

Bill Barr has outlined the ways in which these things have been mishandled and what must be recognized and put right before they can be addressed correctly.

"Happy Thanksgiving."

______________________

(1) A second example, in the same vein but, if anything, even more revealing of the real assumptions going on in these creepy people's minds:

(Ideas) | Trump’s Bureaucratic Arson | The real threat to democracy comes not from an imagined deep state, but from a weak state of hollowed-out institutions and battered and belittled public servants. | November 17, 2019 | William J. Burns (President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)

… …
“If we’ve learned one thing during the impeachment inquiry, it is that we ought not to fear the revenge of the deep state. The only thing to fear is the prolonged atrophy of a weak state, precisely when we depend on its strength, purpose, and resilience to carry us through this moment of testing for our country and the world. Those are the qualities we have seen in such full measure from my former colleagues in recent days. They are a reminder of what real patriotism is all about, and of the costs of demeaning it.

“The day will come when Trump exits, but the damage created by his disdain for diplomacy and public service will remain. The question will be whether we can take on the task of diplomacy’s renewal with the same zeal that this administration has applied to its destruction.”

(emphasis in underlining and italics added)

So, here we have it: another admission that there is, indeed, a "deep state." No more pretending that it doesn't exist. But this example is far worse. To see why, imagine instead that we substitute the words, "Big Brother" for "deep state" and you may begin to see what I mean. Suppose that we'd been repeatedy hearing claims from some of the public's more marginalized quarters of the existence of a shadowy entity they called "Big Brother" had and used extraordinary powers of surveillance and was using these to keep everyone everywhere under an inescapable control. Now imagine that, after long and repeated denials—dismissals as wild lunatics' fantasies—knowledgable insiders began (of necessity) to openly admit that, Yes, there is, after all, "Big Brother" and he is, as has been alleged, both extremely powerful and using that power to keep everyone under constant surveillance.

What would be the next step? Simple. Read Orwell's text and see for yourself: good citizens are indoctrinated to believe (and to repeat) that "Big Brother," who "is watching you", is there for our, for everyone's, protection and (of course) safety, and, what's more, good citizens are expected to appreciate this favor, be grateful for it and, if they know what's good for them, should "love" "BB" rather than fear him and his power.

We're there now: our author, William Burns, goes so far as to argue that we'd all best “ not ... fear the revenge of the deep state.” Not only are we admonished not to fear the deep state, we're told explicitly that we're not to fear its “revenge.” Again, in Dr. Burns' own words:

“The only thing to fear is the prolonged atrophy of a weak state, precisely when we depend on its” (i.e. the “deep state's”) “strength, purpose, and resilience to carry us through this moment of testing for our country and the world.” (emphasis added)

How's that for channeling what ought to be a chilling Orwellian 1984 night-mare?

Now, wait—it gets “better”, if that word can be employed facetiously here without outraging the Gods, “Big Brother” or “the deep state.” This ass-hole, our author, Mr.— excuse me— Ambassador Dr. Burns (Ph.D.), is not only a thirty-year veteran of U.S. diplomacy’s professional foreign service corps, he's also held these posts:

( (from Wikipedia ) )

“William Joseph Burns (born April 11, 1956) is a former career Foreign Service Officer,(1) and President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace since February 2015.(2) Previously, he was Ambassador of the United States to the Russian Federation from 2005 until 2008, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs from 2008 to 2011, and United States Deputy Secretary of State from 2011 to 2014.”

Such is the profile of a man who'd presume to reassure us that we needn't and oughtn't fear either the deep state or the revenge it may, as necessary (of course!), mete out.

Recall, in this context, the occasion (Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017) of the esteemed senior U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D.-N.Y.), the Senate's Minority Leader and chairman of the Democratic caucus in the Senate, who sat before a live camera and microphone in an interview and put then-president-elect Trump on guard this way, to Rachel Maddow (quote) “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” ( (videotape excerpt (Rachel Maddow, MS-NBC))

According to Dr. Burns, we ought to fear a “weak state”, which, by definition and implication, is and must be whatever threatens to hinder the deep-state, of course, because the deep-state is also, by implication and definition, the antithesis of the “weak state.” And according to Burns, we recognize “what real patriotism is all about” because, he tells us, these appointed men and women “remind us of it”—apparently that is especially when they, first confidentially, privately, and, later, openly, publicly— criticized and opposed the policies of the president. Never mind, then, that according to the U.S. Constitution these foreign service officers, sworn to uphold and defend that Constitution, are, as employees of the State Department (an executive branch department under the authority of the president as the head of the executive branch), appointed (or retained) by the elected and serving president of the United States, at whose pleasure they hold their positions. Burns goes on to inform us that their resistance to and open criticisms of the president's policies—that's our “reminder” of what real patriotism is all about.” By this calculation, “real patriots,” faced with a conflict of interest between the policies of the elected president, on one hand, and on the other, the interests and imperatives of the deep-state, would choose and prefer to respect the deep-state, not the president—whose policies they criticize.

Well, "Big Brother", of course, would demand nothing less of his professional domestic (or, as the case may be, foreign) service corps of state employees, wouldn't he?

What do you suppose would happen if, by some fluke, some outlier and free-thinker were to come to hold the chief-executive post in the Owellian 1984 state “Oceania”? one who somehow came to question, doubt and, finally, to challenge the behind-the-scenes power of Big Brother's corps of professional technicians? What would happen to such an executive? Are we to expect Big Brother (and his minions) to have anything less than what some might describe as “ 'six ways from Sunday' of getting back at” such a maverick leader?

I would propose that we re-write Dr. Burns' warnings this way,

… …
“If we’ve learned one thing during the impeachment inquiry, it is that we ought to prick up our ears when a Ph.D.-lettered career foreign service diplomat tries to tell us that 'we ought not to fear the revenge of the deep state.' Rather, than fearing ' the prolonged atrophy of a weak state,' the thing more to be feared is the prolonged atrophy of a democratic state, one in which the citizen-electorate regularly determines by open and free elections those government officers by whom (and by whose orders and authority) their national politics and their government's domestic and foreign policies are to be decided and supervised.

If we’ve learned one thing during the impeachment inquiry, it's that we ought to be on our guard when a career officer and member of this now-acknowledged deep-state tries to tell us that “... we depend on its” (that is, the deep-state's) “strength , purpose, and resilience to carry us through this moment of testing for our country and the world” rather than the other way around. Our safety depends not on the power of the deep-state's apparatus but on our own citizen-made vigilance over our rights and on our own judgments about where our interests lie. The qualities we have seen in such full measure from Dr. Burns' former colleagues in recent days are the qualities of a cadre of men and women who have, over their long careers, fatefully forgotten that their Constitutional duties bind them to be loyal to the voters' choices in the officials they, the voters, have determined by the general electorate's decisions at the ballot-box to send to Washington each two and four years. Those voters, with their commonly-held and vigilantly-guarded rights, rather than the voters' appointed civil service corps, are the reminder of what real patriotism is all about, and of the costs entailed in becoming confused on this point.

The day will come when Trump exits, but the damage created by his opposition's disdain for democratic govenance and Constitutional order will remain. The question will be whether we can take on the task of that Constitutional order's renewal with the same zeal that President Trump's pursuers have applied to its destruction.

Two interviews on FOX News this morning ~ the pardoned war
criminal and Nixon's son-in-law ~ indicate that the moral fiber of
the country's citizens may be in shreds. Thanks to FOX News, five
more years of Trump's stomach-turning reign may be a given at
this point in our history.

Impeachment Investigators Exploring Whether Trump Lied to Mueller
Charlie Savage | Nov. 18, 2019

...In his (written) responses, which were appended to the Mueller report, Mr. Trump denied that he was aware of any communications between his campaign and WikiLeaks. House lawyers had suggested in a Sept. 30 filing that some of the materials they were seeking bore on whether Mr. Trump was honest about that.

On Monday, Douglas Letter, the general counsel for the House told a federal appeals court panel that impeachment investigators have an “immense” need to swiftly see the grand jury evidence — redacted portions of the Mueller report, as well as the underlying testimony transcripts they came from.

...Mr. Mueller’s congressional testimony in July. Near the end of the hearing, a lawmaker brought up Mr. Trump’s written responses and asked whether “his answers showed that he wasn’t always being truthful.” Rather than demurring as he had to similar questions, Mr. Mueller instead appeared to confirm her assessment, responding, “I would say generally.”

...Mr. Trump wrote that he was “not aware during the campaign of any communications” between “any one I understood to be a representative of WikiLeaks” and people associated with his campaign, including his political adviser Roger J. Stone Jr., who was convicted at trial last week for lying to congressional investigators about his efforts to reach out to WikiLeaks and his discussions with the campaign.

“I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with him,” Mr. Trump also wrote of Mr. Stone, “nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign.”

But the publicly available portions of the Mueller report suggest that evidence exists to the contrary. Several Trump aides, including Michael D. Cohen and Rick Gates, testified that they heard Mr. Trump discussing coming WikiLeaks releases over the phone. And in October 2016 Stephen K. Bannon, the campaign chairman, wrote in an email that Mr. Stone had told the campaign “about potential future releases of damaging material” by WikiLeaks shortly before it began publishing more hacked emails...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/us/politics/trump-mueller-impeachment.html

70% of Americans say Trump’s actions tied to Ukraine were wrong: POLL ABC News/Ipsos poll

A slim majority of Americans, 51%, believe Trump’s actions were both wrong and he should be impeached and removed from office. But only 21% of Americans say they are following the hearings very closely.

In addition to the 51%, another 19% think that Trump's actions were wrong, but that he should either be impeached by the House but not removed from office, or be neither impeached by the House nor convicted by the Senate. The survey also finds that 1 in 4 Americans, 25%, think that Trump did nothing wrong.

Still, nearly 1 in 3, 32%, say they made up their minds about impeaching the president before the news broke about Trump’s July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in which Trump urged his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

Donald Trump Is America's Anti-President | Opinion
Laurence H. Tribe | 11/18/19

...Alexander Hamilton darkly envisioned...a demagogue might one day assume the presidency and require removal through the awesome power of impeachment.

Such a demagogue, Hamilton prophesied, would be "a man unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper...despotic in his ordinary demeanour."

Such a man, Hamilton wrote, would one day "mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day"

with the object of "throwing things into confusion that he may 'ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.'"...

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-americas-anti-president-opinion-1472384

Note: My post, above, at >30 proximity1: has been revised and extended.

#34--Hamilton certainly was prescient.

#35--lIke it already wasn't long and goofy enough.

>35 proximity1: thank you. Your own pearls, er, words?

Addendum: Yep, pearls.

Looks like more shoes will drop before Senate tries Trump:

Trump impeachment inquiry: Released records reveal Pompeo-Giuliani contacts
BBC | 11/23/2019

The US State Department has released records relating to the Trump administration's dealings with Ukraine...to the ethics watchdog American Oversight after a freedom of information request.

The records show repeated contacts between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Mr Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

...Mr Giuliani has been accused of trying to discredit former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch while running a shadow US foreign policy on Ukraine. There have been questions over what Secretary of State Mike Pompeo knew.

The records show Mr Pompeo and Mr Giuliani repeatedly spoke to one another - although the topics of those conversations remain unknown.

Emails among the documents suggest the pair spoke on the phone on 27 and 29 March.

The second call came after Mr Giuliani's staff emailed a personal assistant to President Trump, Madeleine Westerhout, to ask if she had a phone number for Mr Pompeo.

Ms Yovanovitch was dismissed as ambassador to Ukraine in May.

"We can see why Mike Pompeo has refused to release this information to Congress. It reveals a clear paper trail from Rudy Giuliani to the Oval Office to Secretary Pompeo to facilitate Giuliani's smear campaign against a US ambassador," said American Oversight Executive Director Austin Evers in a statement.

"This is just the first round of disclosures. The evidence is only going to get worse for the administration as its stonewall strategy collapses in the face of court orders."...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50527849

_______________________________________________________________

Giuliani associate willing to testify Nunes met with ex-Ukrainian official, attorney says
Kristen Welker | Nov. 23, 2019

...(then-state prosecutor Victor Shokin) claims he was fired at the behest of the former vice president (Biden) to ease pressure on Burisma and Hunter Biden.

...Lev Parnas, the indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, confirmed that his client was willing to testify before Congress that...(Rep. Devin Nunes, R-California, Trump's chief defender as a ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, met with Ukraine's former top prosecutor about investigating the activities of Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.)

"I can confirm that Victor Shokin told Lev Parnas that he had met with Nunes in Vienna in late 2018, and that Derek Harvey (Nunes' investigator) informed that they were investigating the activities of Joe and Hunter Biden related to Burisma," (attorney for Lev Parnas) told NBC News.

...Parnas himself helped to arrange meetings in Europe last year for Nunes.

...Parnas was indicted last month for allegedly making illegal campaign contributions. He pleaded not guilty while expressing willingness to cooperate with impeachment investigators...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/giuliani-associate-wi...

_________________________________________________________________

Trump essentially admitted on live TV to doing the thing he's accused of in the impeachment inquiry
Sonam Sheth and Grace Panetta | 11/22/2018

In a Friday interview on "Fox & Friends," President Donald Trump..."I mean, I asked it very point-blank, because we're looking for corruption. There's tremendous corruption. Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there's this kind of corruption?"...

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-admits-to-ukraine-military-aid-quid-pro-qu...

ETA__________________________________________________________________________

Will John Bolton fill in the gaps on Ukraine as an impeachment witness?
Del Quentin Wilber, Eli Stokols, Jennifer Haberkorn | Nov. 22, 2019

...“Bolton understands that the impeachment process is only in the seventh-inning stretch of a one-run ballgame — there is much more that is going to happen...He now has a lucrative book deal, and he will do everything in his power to maximize public anticipation and revenues from the book.” (anonymous)

Although the Intelligence Committee has no additional hearings scheduled, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), the chairman, has not ruled out the possibility of additional sessions.

Moreover, (Senate) might be able to call Bolton as a witness in a Senate impeachment trial even if he hasn’t testified earlier.

...Earlier this month, his lawyer, Charles Cooper, wrote...that Bolton “was personally involved in many of the events, meetings, and conversations about which you have already received testimony, as well as many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far.”

Friday, (Bolton tweeted) “Glad to be back on Twitter after more than two months. For the backstory, stay tuned...Re: speaking up -- since resigning as National Security Advisor, the @WhiteHouse refused to return access to my personal Twitter account. Out of fear of what I may say? To those who speculated I went into hiding, I’m sorry to disappoint!”

...Democrats remain deeply skeptical of Bolton, who has long been known as a fierce partisan.

...(Bolton was invited, but not subpoenaed to testify)...“we’re not going to wait till the courts decide,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said...“it’s a technique. It’s obstruction of justice. Obstruction of Congress.”

Calling Bolton to testify in a Senate trial might avoid a court fight. The Constitution specifies that impeachment trials of a president are presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. And if Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. rules that Bolton should testify, that might resolve the legal issues.

...Bolton...is a larger-than-life figure in Republican foreign policy circles whose testimony could have considerable impact with Republican voters.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-11-22/bolton-dangling-testimony

https://therealnews.com/stories/are-dems-barking-up-wrong-tree-impeachment

David Swanson: Well, if I were impeaching Trump and removing him from office, I would be impeaching him for perhaps the few worst impeachable offenses. If I were going to do a complete list, I would get through hundreds before I got to Ukrainegate.

Marc Steiner: Where would you start?

David Swanson: Well, for one thing, look how ludicrous it is for there to be any doubt, any question, whether Trump is guilty of an offense when this is someone who, from day one, has been guilty of violating both of the emoluments clauses, with levels of corruption and types of corruption never seen before in the White House. Literally, thousands of conflicts of interest in violation of the US Constitution. And there’s not any question whether those facts exist or not. This is a president who has pardoned a racist, murderous sheriff in Arizona, has told border guards, “Commit crimes, I’ll pardon you,” who has pardoned horrible war crimes. There’s not a question, “Did he issue these pardons, or didn’t he?” He did.

You take a president who has engaged in numerous illegal wars, escalated several of them, escalated drone murders, threatened nuclear war against two countries, supported coups in Venezuela, Bolivia, etc, and then you impeach him exclusively for failing to escalate a war in Ukraine with Russia. That’s a sort of insanity that our system is dealing with. I mean, a president who takes children away from families, who publicly incites racist violence, who declares official emergencies explicitly in violation of congressional policies, to spend funds he’s not allowed to spend. This is a president openly engaged in intentionally exacerbating climate collapse. And none of this is brought in.
...
I mean, you can impeach Donald Trump for what you choose to impeach him for. And if you and I and the most people can agree on the emoluments clauses, why is it that the Democratic leadership can’t? And why not impeach him a couple of years back? Why wait until now? Because, very clearly, the purpose is not to halt his outrages, it’s not to stop his destruction of the climate or anything else, by getting him on his income taxes. It’s to make him look bad slowly, keep him in office, not risk removing him, and run in an election against damaged goods. This is the thinking from people who are 24/7, 365 a year obsessed with elections, not with protecting us from a criminal president.
...
Partisanship is also a choice. Past impeachments have not been strictly partisan. There is no reason you can’t move an impeachment from the minority or in a split Congress. But the Democrats have had the majority since the beginning of this year. And here we are, many months later, and they’re dealing with something that they haven’t quite proved to everyone’s satisfaction, instead of quintessentially indisputable. And I mean, when Congress says, “You cannot have this money for this wall,” and Trump says, “I’ll declare a phony emergency in order to take it anyway,” what is Congress supposed to do? There is not an option for Congress, other than impeachment.

And they choose not to impeach over all of these offenses that are just beyond dispute public acts, and they go after something that’s secret. Look how annoyed they were when, the next day after they raised this issue, Trump publicly asked China to dig up dirt on Joe Biden, and that just about ruined everything for them because it was public. They want something secret. They want something they can dig after. It takes longer. It leaves doubt. And it avoids a conviction in the Senate.

Apart from the suggestion that any President would be impeached for U.S. foreign-policy-as-usual, worth a ponder.

>38 margd: more shoes dropping

White House review turns up emails showing extensive effort to justify Trump’s decision to block Ukraine military aid
Josh Dawsey, Carol D. Leonnig and Tom Hamburger | November 24, 2019

A confidential White House review of President Trump’s decision to place a hold on military aid to Ukraine has turned up hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate an after-the-fact justification for the decision and a debate over whether the delay was legal...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-review-turns-up-emails-showi...

_________________________________________________________________________________

Giuliani Associate Lev Parnas Submits Audio, Videos and Photos Related to Ukraine Allegations to Schiff: Report
Christina Zhao | 11/24/19.

...some of the content submitted includes Trump and Giuliani...

https://www.newsweek.com/giuliani-associate-lev-parnas-submits-audio-videos-phot...

>38 margd: shoes and shoes and shoes...

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson | 5:16 PM · Nov 25, 2019

WSJ: CHARGES BEING CONSIDERED FOR RUDY GIULIANI*
1. Obstruction
2. Money Laundering
3. Conspiracy to Defraud U.S.
4. False Statements
5. Acting As Unregistered Foreign Agent
6. Illegal Solicitation of Foreign Donations
7. Mail Fraud
8. Wire Fraud
9. Fraudulent Campaign Donations

* the President's personal lawyer, who has "insurance" against being thrown under the bus...

>38 margd: more shoes, er--make that army boots

Laurence Tribe @tribelaw | 6:36 PM · Nov 25, 2019
Here is Judge Jackson’s 118-page decision rejecting the outlandish Trump DOJ claim that close presidential advisors enjoy absolute immunity vis-a-vis legitimate congressional subpoenas. Her ruling will likely be stayed but will surely be upheld on appeal.

Case1:19-cv-02379-KBJ Document 46 Filed11/25
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHEDISTRICTOFCOLUMBIA
COMMITTEEONTHEJUDICIARY,UNITEDSTATESHOUSEOFREPRESENTATIVES,Plaintiff v. DONALDF.MCGAHNII,Defendant

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6516-jackson-ruling-in-mcgahn-subpo/92d4...

________________________________________

"When DOJ insists that Presidents can lawfully prevent their senior-level aides from responding to compelled congressional process and that neither the federal courts nor Congress has the power to do anything about it, DOJ promotes a conception of separation-of-powers principles that gets these constitutional commands exactly backwards."

"DOJ’s claim to absolute testimonial immunity—essentially, that the Constitution’s scheme countenances unassailable Executive branch authority—is baseless"

"the Court cannot abide DOJ’s less-than-subtle suggestion that the Legislature and the Judiciary are both hopelessly stymied when it comes to addressing alleged abuses by the Executive branch, such that, ultimately, the President wields virtually unchecked power."

>42 margd: Favoriting!

Not just the facts: Republicans' top six impeachment falsehoods (Guardian)

Despite damning evidence from dramatic hearings, the GOP seems determined to reject the evidence of its eyes and ears...

Here is a list of major falsehoods in the air – or in the recycled air of the bunker, at least:

1 Trump is an anti-corruption champion...

2 The witnesses are a cabal...

3 The Ukraine scheme was a foreign policy...

4 Trump saying ‘no quid pro quo’ is exculpatory...

5 No evidence of a Ukraine scheme...

6 The whistleblower is missing...

The Dems are giving the GOPers in DC an opportunity to put
country over party. It appears, however, that the kegs of the
Trump kool-aid those GOPers have been chugging have done
major, irreversible damage to their hearts, minds and souls. The
down elevator of America's demise is speeding up.

"It appears, however, that the kegs of the
Trump kool-aid those GOPers have been chugging have done
major, irreversible damage to their hearts, minds and souls."

So, according to you, literally millions of Americans--including former Obama-supporters or Clinton-supporters--have been the victims of a process of irredeemable remote-control 'brain-washing' ?

Seriously?

Think about it. No other more plausible explanation comes to your mind?

The possibility that the majority of these people are, like you, working on and drawing conclusions from reasonable interpretations of facts and events as they applied to their own lived experiences? That either didn't occur to you as a possible explanation or it did occur to you and you considered it and dismissed it?!

Do you have any idea how insulting that is?!

>46 proximity1: wrote "Do you have any idea how insulting that is?!"

I suspect if they do, they don't care.

#47--from someone who works at insulting others all the time--so what.

>48 lriley: Ad hominem? How mature of you. Meet block. Bye.

#49--LOL. Yes poor poor Proximity--always being abused. Always being insulted and picked on. He could use a shoulder to cry on.

Trump invited to attend impeachment hearing or 'stop complaining' (BBC)

Congress has invited US President Donald Trump to its first impeachment hearing on 4 December. Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said Mr Trump could either attend or "stop complaining about the process". If he does attend, the president would be able to question witnesses...

>38 margd: a new pair of shoes from Mark Sandy, the only OMB official to testify in the impeachment inquiry:

New York Times: Trump knew about whistleblower complaint when he released Ukraine aid
Paul LeBlanc | November 26, 2019
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/politics/trump-ukraine-aid-whistleblower-complain...

Two OMB officials resigned in part over concerns about Ukraine aid hold
Erica Werner and Felicia Sonmez | November 26, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/11/26/two-omb-officials-resigned-v...

Witness testimony and records raise questions about account of Trump’s ‘no quid pro quo’ call
Aaron C. Davis, Elise Viebeck and Josh Dawsey | November 27, 2019

...(EU Ambassador Gordon) Sondland’s recollection of a phone conversation that he said took place on Sept. 9 has emerged as a centerpiece of Trump’s defense as House Democrats argue in an impeachment inquiry that he abused his office to pressure Ukraine to investigate Democrats.

However, no other witness testimony or documents have emerged that corroborate Sondland’s description of a call that day.

Trump himself, in describing the conversation, has referred only to the ambassador’s account of the call, which — based on Sondland’s activities — would have occurred before dawn in Washington. And the White House has not located a record in its switchboard logs of a call between Trump and Sondland on Sept. 9...

But there is evidence of another call between Trump and Sondland that occurred a few days earlier — one with a very different thrust, in which the president made clear that he wanted his Ukrainian counterpart to personally announce investigations into Trump’s political opponents...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/witness-testimony-and-records-raise-ques...

Trump news: Impeachment poll reveals soaring public support for president’s removal during TV hearings, as damning Ukraine scandal details emerge (Independent)

The House Intelligence Committee’s televised hearings this month inspired a steady increase in public support for the impeachment of Donald Trump over the Ukraine scandal, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll suggests...

Trump's whistleblower briefing is a knock on his impeachment defense (CNN)

News that President Donald Trump had been briefed in late August on a whistleblower complaint alleging he pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rival, while withholding security aid to Kiev, raises new questions about conversations he had before the aid was released in September...

Here's one big difference between the Trump and Nixon impeachment proceedings (CNN)

a big difference between those 1974 hearings and the ones held in 2019. And that difference has nothing to do with what happened on Capitol Hill or that the Senate is unlikely to convict Trump, should he be impeached by the House. Instead, it has everything to do with the public itself: Americans no longer trust their government...

The loss of trust in government is just an excuse people use to
cover for their resentment-filled minds. Rush Limbaugh and his
ilk on A.M. radio have been pushing this build-up of resentment
for decades. The Internet and FOX News have helped to increase
the reach and spread of resentment.

Trump inherited the cult followers of Rush and his ilk. Reasoning
with cult leaders and cult followers is a lost cause and a complete
waste of time. We are living in a modern-day Twilight Zone.

Another offering from the UK media:

Trump won't lose his job – but the impeachment inquiry is still essential (Guardian)

Not even overwhelming evidence that Trump sought to bribe a foreign power to dig up dirt on his leading political opponent in 202o – and did so with American taxpayer dollars, while compromising American foreign policy – will cause Trump to be removed from office.

That’s because there’s zero chance that 2o Republican senators – the number needed to convict Trump, if every Democratic senator votes to do so – have enough integrity to do what the constitution requires them to do.

These Republican senators will put their jobs and their political party ahead of the constitution and the country. They will tell themselves that 88% of Republican voters still support Trump, and that their duty is to them.

It does not matter that these voters inhabit a parallel political universe consisting of Trump tweets, Fox News, rightwing radio, and Trump-Russian social media, all propounding the absurd counter-narrative that Democrats, the “deep state”, coastal elites, and mainstream media are conspiring to remove the Chosen One from office.

So if there’s no chance of getting the 20 Republican votes needed to send Trump packing, is there any reason for this impeachment proceeding to continue?

Yes. There are three reasons.

The first is the constitution itself. Donald Trump has openly abused his power... A failure by Congress to respond to these abuses would effectively render the constitution meaningless. Congress has no alternative but to respond.

The second reason is political. While the impeachment hearings don’t appear to have moved Republican voters, only 29% of Americans still identify as Republican. The hearings do seem to have affected Democrats and independents, as well as many people who sat out the 2016 election...

The third reason for the House to impeach Trump even if the Senate won’t convict him concerns the pardoning power of the president... Article II, section 2 of the constitution gives a president the power to pardon anyone who has been convicted of offenses against the United States, with one exception: “in Cases of Impeachment.” If Trump is impeached by the House, he can never be pardoned for these crimes... Even if a subsequent president wanted to pardon Trump in the interest of, say, domestic tranquility, she could not...

Sunday morning

GOP Rep. Defends Trump on Ukraine: He Has ‘The Blunt Talk of a
Manhattan Businessman,’ Not ‘The Delicate Language of
Diplomacy’

Tom McClintock is admitting that Trump is a NYC Mob Boss and/or
a shakedown artist!!!!!!!!!!

Sunday evening

The short attention spans of Americans and a cult-personality era
probably make a Watergate-type investigation in the 21st Century
a doomed process. America's Founders and the documents they
forged cannot save us from our inadequacies.

>59 Molly3028: That's funny. I've worked with any number of Manhattan businessmen - and some of them were indeed blunt. Unfortunately for Tom and Don "blunt" is not a synonym for "shakedown."

White House: Trump 'will not participate in impeachment hearing' (BBC)

The White House has said US President Donald Trump and his lawyers will not attend an impeachment hearing in the House of Representatives on Wednesday...

Will John Roberts Constrain Trump?
Ronald Brownstein | 12/2/2019

Few questions may shape the president’s remaining tenure more than how often the chief justice steps in to limit executive powers.

...“If (Trump) gets reelected, all bets are off,” (Bill) Kristol says. “Everything he’s done is legitimized. Pardoning war criminals, flouting congressional oversight—why would he just not assume he can get away with all of that, especially if Republicans continue to hold the Senate, which they would if he won. The second term is all this on steroids, and I think it’s a genuine crisis at that point.”...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/12/why-john-roberts-might-not-...

Judge denies DOJ request for stay on Don McGahn testimony
DARREN SAMUELSOHN and JOSH GERSTEIN | 12/02/2019

House Democrats on Monday notched another legal victory in their pursuit of critical testimony tied to their impeachment efforts, though the ruling may be short-lived because the case is already on temporary hold while it works its way toward an appeal.

U.S. District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a 17-page opinion, rejected the Justice Department’s request to put a long-term stay on her earlier opinion requiring Don McGahn, the former Trump White House counsel, to appear before the House Judiciary Committee...

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/02/judge-denies-doj-request-don-mcgahn-074...

________________________________________________________________________

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES v DONALD F. MCGAHN II
Case 1:19-cv-02379-KBJ Filed 12/02/19 17 pages
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.210013/gov.uscourts.dcd.210...

Imagining a Senate Trial: Reading the Senate Rules of Impeachment Litigation
Hilary Hurd, Benjamin Wittes | December 2, 2019

...the ultimate rule is that there are relatively few rules, all of them malleable.

...Short of a quick dismissal, we’re going to see fights over evidence.

...One interesting question here is whether the Democrats need to flip four Republicans to reach the magical threshold of 51 to prevail on motions or only three, leaving the Senate perfectly divided...Normally...Democrats need 51 votes to prevent Mike Pence from breaking a tie in the Republicans’ favor. But in the situation of an impeachment trial of the president, the vice president is not the presiding officer because of his obvious conflict of interest. (Chief Justice John Roberts could break a tie?)...Democrats would need four Republicans to flip to overturn a Roberts ruling, but only three to sustain one...

https://www.lawfareblog.com/imagining-senate-trial-reading-senate-rules-impeachm...

What an echo chamber...let's see if there's anything out there that contradicts the pundits, that gives a view that has not been clouded by hatred of President Trump:

On the same day that the House Intelligence Committee began circulating “Chairman Adam Schiff’s impeachment report” on President Donald Trump, top congressional Republicans released their own report disputing everything in Schiff’s report.

“The evidence presented does not prove any of these Democrat allegations, and none of the Democrats’ witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor,” their 123-page report reads.

Numerous witnesses admitted point-blank last month that “no quid pro quo,” “no bribery” and “no extortion” occurred during the president’s controversial July 25th phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

And while the Democrats’ star witness, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, did state during his own testimony that “yes,” the president’s interactions with Zelensky did involve quid pro quo, he later admitted under Republican questioning that this assertion was a presumption, not a fact. ...

If you're interested in something beyond the Left's hysterical screeching points, try checking out this:

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/12/03/house-minority-submits-110-page-report-u...

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump | 5:30 PM · Dec 2, 2019:

Just landed in the United Kingdom, heading to London for NATO meetings tomorrow.
Prior to landing I read the Republicans Report on the Impeachment Hoax. Great job!
Radical Left has NO CASE. Read the Transcripts.
Shouldn’t even be allowed. Can we go to Supreme Court to stop?

:D

______________________________________________________

The Return of the Mueller Report
Benjamin Wittes and Quinta Jurecic | December 2, 2019

As the Judiciary Committee drafts its articles of impeachment, it will have to decide how much of the special counsel’s findings it wants to include.

...the role that the Mueller material should play is a question of the goals of Nadler, Nancy Pelosi, and the Democratic caucus at large in passing impeachment articles. Do they want to make Trump answer in a Senate trial for a broad range of his misconduct, or do they prefer to make him focus on a discrete episode that is particularly egregious? Do they seek to make a case that his conduct is pervasively inconsistent with the office, or instead to narrowly tell a single story of the man’s unfitness for the presidency? The more they want to set the Ukraine scandal in the larger context of Trump’s presidency, the more they will need the help of the long-forgotten Robert Mueller.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/long-forgotten-robert-mueller-...

>66 fuzzi: What an echo chamber...

Hm. As that website says at the bottom of the page, "Conservative news you can trust!"

Trump impeachment evidence overwhelming - House report (BBC)

Evidence for impeaching US President Donald Trump for misconduct in office is "overwhelming", according to the panel leading the impeachment inquiry.

The president placed personal political interests "above the national interests of the United States", it states in a key report to House lawmakers.

He did so by trying to "solicit foreign interference" from Ukraine to help his 2020 re-election bid, it says...

This is the tone found in much of the independent international media, albeit probably not in fuzzi's BizPac Review, "Conservative news you can trust!"

McCarthy says he has no problem with Nunes’ calls with Giuliani, Parnas
‘There’s nothing wrong that Devin has done,’ House Republican leader says
Lindsey McPherson | Dec 3, 2019 7:53 PM

...Republicans’ calls for Schiff to be transparent put them in an uncomfortable position, now that there’s evidence Nunes could have been forthcoming about but did not disclose.

Still, McCarthy turned the focus on Schiff when asked if Nunes should have disclosed his calls with Giuliani and Parnas upfront.

“Should Adam Schiff disclose who he’s talked to and when?” he said. “If Adam Schiff is worried about people putting phone call logs out, why doesn’t he put his own? Why doesn’t he sit down and tell us what he said to the whistleblower?”

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/mccarthy-said-he-has-no-problem-with-nune...

Great quote: "a credible report of shocking misconduct immediately sinks without a trace into the vast ooze of other Trumpian outrages"

Trump Extorted Ukraine in 2017 and 2018 Before Getting Caught This Year
Jonathan Chait

...effort...grew directly out of the ties developed between Trump’s campaign (Paul Manafort)and Russian intelligence (Konstantin Kilimnik) during the 2016 campaign.

..Giuliani undertook what appear to be two previous episodes of trading diplomatic favors to Ukrainians in return for steps to protect Trump from the Mueller investigation. The first apparent trade involved a meeting between Trump and Ukraine’s then-president Petro Poroshenko in return for a Ukrainian investigation that would exonerate Manafort, then a prime target of Mueller’s...June 20, 2017: Poroshenko gets a brief “drop-in” visit with Trump...This is either a direct trade, or an exchange of mutually-beneficial actions that coincidentally occurred in very rapid succession.

The next apparent quid pro quo took place the next year. The U.S. sold desperately needed Javelin missiles to Ukraine that year, and the New York Times reported at the time that Ukraine suspended cooperation with the Mueller investigation...

The benefit of this move to Trump was immense. Manafort and Kilimnik were key figures in the Mueller probe. Mueller found that Manafort had slipped Kilimnik 75 pages of polling data during a meeting in the summer of 2016. Here you have proof that Trump’s campaign manager gave valuable, detailed information to a known Russian spy, at a time when the Russians were running a pro-Trump media operation. But Mueller never determined what the polling was for. And Kilimnik was able to leave Ukraine and escape to Russia, where Mueller could not interview him. A State Department document concluded that Lutsenko, who had met with Giuliani, allowed Kilimnik to leave the country.

...In 2017 and 2018, Trump was consumed by the Mueller investigation, and seems to have pushed Ukraine to take steps to stymie it. By 2019, Giuliani had taken an interest in claims of wrongdoing by Joe Biden, and added demands for a Biden probe to his push for investigations that would exonerate Russia’s (and therefore Trump’s) behavior in 2016.

By 2019, Trump and Giuliani were barely hiding their actions...

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/_pages/ck3qf0y5d004fauyej3sv763m.html

House Intelligence Committee Releases Impeachment Report
Gordon Ahl | December 3, 2019

On Dec. 3, the House Intelligence Committee released the impeachment inquiry report that details President Trump's conduct regarding Ukraine. The (300 p) report is available here ( https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6566072/HPSCI-Trump-Ukraine-Impeachme... ) and below...

https://www.lawfareblog.com/house-intelligence-committee-releases-impeachment-re...

____________________________________________________________

House Republicans Release Report on Impeachment Evidence
Jacob Schulz | December 2, 2019

On Dec. 2, the ranking members for the three House committees tasked with managing the impeachment inquiry released a Republican staff report on the available evidence in the ongoing inquiry. The report decries the inquiry as "an orchestrated campagin to upend our political system" and argues that "none of the Democrats' witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor." The (123 p) report can be found here ( https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6564807/House-Republican-Report-on-Im... ) and below...

https://www.lawfareblog.com/house-republicans-release-report-impeachment-evidenc...

Who Are the Legal Experts Testifying in House Judiciary Impeachment Hearings?

Noah Feldman

A Harvard Law Professor specializing in constitutional studies, Feldman advised the Iraqi Governing Council on its interim constitution in 2003. A columnist at Bloomberg Opinion, he has argued that Democrats should avoid legalism in their impeachment arguments — which would “consist of the idea that Trump’s conduct can best be condemned by identifying a specific legal rule and showing that he violated it” — and he wrote a piece called “Trump’s Quid Pro Quo Is Unconstitutional.”

Pamela Karlan

A law professor at Stanford who served as the deputy attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ, Karlan specializes in constitutional law and was considered a potential Obama appointee for the Supreme Court seat of Justice David Souter. (The seat eventually went to Justice Sonia Sotomayor.) To date, she has not written about or publicly commented on the Trump impeachment inquiry.

Michael Gerhardt

A University of North Carolina professor and the author of The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis and Impeachment: What Everyone Needs to Know, Gerhardt told Slate that the president has “dismissed the rule of law as being relevant to his life.” He has argued that “those articles of impeachment that had been approved against Richard Nixon turn out to be relevant, as well, to the misconduct of President Trump. First, he has obstructed justice a variety of different ways. Second, he has asked the president of a foreign country — actually asked the presidents of a few different countries — to intervene in the next election on his behalf. And then third, he has refused to comply with more subpoenas than most people can count.”

Gerhardt has testified before Congress over a dozen times, including as the only joint witness in the Clinton impeachment proceedings in the House.

Jonathan Turley

While the previous witnesses were called by the Democratic leadership of the House Judiciary, Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University, is the only constitutional scholar to be called by the Republican minority on the committee. Turley also testified in the Clinton impeachment, claiming that the allegations of perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of office were “clear and compelling grounds” for impeachment if the House could prove them.

Earlier this year, he claimed that Trump’s interference in the Russia investigation could not be considered obstruction of justice. In an opinion piece in The Hill, Turley called Trump’s pressure in Ukraine “highly inappropriate,” but also criticized Democrats for pursuing “an impeachment that seems designed to fail with an incomplete and conflicted record.”

"More speed! More speed!"

_________________________

If Congressional committees such as Nadler's hearings here are going to ape Soviet-style show-trial "hearings", then, of course, they ought to speak exclusively in Russian.

It offends me to hear this kind of BULLSHIT uttered in the English tongue. It's perfectly fine in Russian. After all, Russians brought this art to its highest form we have in models. But, in English, from a Capitol Hill hearing room, it grates; for those who know it, it smacks of the ugly and disgraceful work done by Wisconsin U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy's Communist witch-hunt hearings.

Trump's acts in office have been contrary to "the national interests of the United States" in the sole opinions of his (Trump's) partisan foes?

This spectacle is going to leave a lot of Americans full of disgust and revulsion at what Democrats are doing; when election-day next comes, there's going to be no place for these Democrats to hide.

Then we'll be hearing from the only people whose opinions on the fitness for office of President Trump count--the voters, rather than Trump's bilious partisan foes.


Blow! Winds! Blow!

I think Feldman, Karlan and Gerhardt have been making quite the case for impeachment from a law and a constitutional perspective. This is about nobody---not even the president being above the law. Trump has been abusing his office pretty much since the moment he took it. If he isn't held to account then nobody who follows him will be either.

The Chicago Tribune today:

Democrats’ impeachment report is TOTALLY UNFAIR to Trump!

An adult in the room speaks:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkv417RXkus

(revised and corrected)


Toddlers playing mindlessly with sticks of dynamite
_________________________

--but toddlers can't be mindful, they're toddlers, after all. Here we're concerned with U.S. legislators behaving with no more sense of responsibility that toddlers toying with dynamite.

One of the things which struck me about the hearings of the Judiciary committee was Nadler, the chairman, (unaware of the fact that, as he spoke, his microphone was active) joking with one of his fellow Democrats in the minute just prior to calling the committee to order. "Yes, this (referring to the committee room) is the 'big one'. " He meant that the hearing room had long been the regular meeting-place of the famed and immensely powerful House Ways and Means Committee for many years. These were the words of a man who was looking for and taking evident pleasure in the work before him. All appearances on his part of regret at having to discharge this task were strained and insincere.

During the Watergate hearings, while there were, it is true, a few rare instances of openly expressed humor, these were very rare. The witnesses who sat in the hearings and responded to the committee's questions rarely spoke jokingly about anything. The matters before them were—and were taken to be—of the deepest gravity.

It wasn't only the Republican party committee members who hated having to do what they were doing on the House and Senate Watergate inquiries, it was just as distasteful to their Democrat party colleagues. These men and women were anything but "happy" to be there doing what they were doing. Rather, they hated it. What came to light in the course of the hearings was saddening and depressing to watch. No one, Democrat or Republican, relished the process of the hearings. They devoutly wished that the facts would, before long, show their suspicions to have been mistaken. And when it was proved otherwise, it was cause not for celebration but for solemn disappointment and shock.

Contrast that with the spectacle now three years into its unfolding. In the constellation of human emotions, vengeance is closely related to sadistic impulses. Both vengeance and sadism are rooted in the gratification of passionate desire which, when it comes after much anticipation, is experienced with a sense of pleasure which is unseemly—and it is this very fact which gives sadistic impulses, and, to a lesser extent, vengeance, their repulsive and disgusting character for those who are not participating in the process of finding and taking gratification from the skewering of a designated scape-goat figure.

When a president of the United States is impeached, it ought not be an occasion which his accusers actually openly relish.

But Nadler and, especially, Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi are positively relishing a process which they must know shall conclude in a failure to produce in the Senate the outcome which is their fondest wish: the removal of President Trump from office.

Never mind, they'd say, that in the end the impeachment we shepherd through the House shall fail to produce a guilty verdict in the Senate. Our purposes are served even without a such a verdict. What they want is some sense of gratification for their desires for revenge. They'll take that any way they can get it. If not fairly gained, then foully gained. These are sadists out for revenge.

If that doesn't fill you with disgust, your moral sense is in very serious disorder. And that is the very character of the great majority of the Democrats in the current Congress of the United States.

The law-professor-witnesses who testified yesterday did a very poor job of feigning a sense of displeasure about their aims and motives in testifying. They also had to strain to seem not to be taking pleasure in what they were doing there.

Morally, this is one of the blackest marks in the annals of the United States congress. And that is really saying something.

_______________________________

ETA:

from the 'The truth hurts' Dept." :

Asked,

"Do you hate the president?"

____________________________

Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi bridles, palpably defensive, at the question, "Do you hate the president, Madam Speaker?", from a reporter as she was making her way off of a stage from which she had just finished an address.

turned and advancing toward the seated reporter, James Rosen, Speaker Pelosi, her index-finger pointing at him as her extended right arm shakes in agitation at the question, says, "I don't hate anybody! I don't hate anybody in the world" ...

then, defensively, misrepresents the reporter's question,

..."So don't you ever accuse me of hating —"

Rosen: "I did not accuse you—"

Pelosi: "Yes, you did, you did—"

Rosen: "I asked a question—"

Pelosi: "Yes, you did—"

Rosen: "Representative Collins suggested yesterday that the Democrats were doin' this simply because they don't like the guy—"

Pelosi: "I had (/ have) nothing to do with that."

Rosen (replies): "I think it's (i.e. Representative Collins' point) an important point."

Pelosi (gesticulating wildly and distractedly, clearly quite annoyed and agitated): "I think this president is a coward when it comes to helping—uh—our, our—kids, who are afraid, uh, of gun violence; I think he is cruel when he doesn't deal with—the, uh—our dreamers, tha—of which we're very proud; I think he's in denial about the Constitu—the uhm—about the, uh, climate crisis—however, that's about the election; this is about the election—take it up in the election—this is about the Constitution of the United States and the facts that leads (sic) to the president's violation of his oath of office—and, as a Catholic, I resent your using the word 'hate' in a sentence that addresses me—I don't hate anyone; I was raised in a way that is full—a heart full of love—and always prayed for the president—and I still pray for the president. I pray for the president all the time—so don't mess with me when it comes to words like that."
______________________________

"I'll get you, my pretty!— and your little dog, too!"

The chances of a Trump Impeachment succeeding is very low
because of at least four factors:

1) the cult-personality era we are living in
2) the short attention spans of many Americans
3) fringe conspiracy theories moving into the mainstream thanks
to social media and FOX News personalities and their guests
4) The GOP and the guy in the WH who has benefitted from the
Electoral College time bomb have rendered the Checks and
Balances system America's Founders devised null and void

The Watergate era was the zenith. This era is the nadir. The
Founders must be spinning in their graves.

>78 proximity1: thoughtful words, did you compose it?

If so, it's nice to see something besides copy & paste in this thread.

It didn't occur to me before that the unseemly mirth abounding in some areas of those pursuing an Impeachment of the President could be related to sadism.

>79 Molly3028:

"The chances of a Trump Impeachment succeeding is very low
because of at least four factors:" ...

You meant to write, of course, the chance, the likelihood, of Trump's conviction, not his impeachment, is very low.

That's a wild understatement since, in fact, while the chance of Trump not being impeached is virtually nil (since it appears to be a completely foregone conclusion that Trump shall be impeached by a full House-vote) what is essentially just as unlikely is Trump's subsequent conviction by the Senate if and when a trial on the impeachment charges is held. That is, it's a virtual certainty that Trump shall not be convicted.

But your careless confusion of the two steps in the process is typical of your approach to these issues. You don't take care to think things through and get your facts straight. In this you are so very like millions of others who are simply and strictly only out to see this president's election reversed no matter the costs or the worthiness of that effort.

>80 fuzzi: "thoughtful words,"

Thank you.

"did you compose it?"

Yes, of course. Everything I post is my own composition unless it is a citation, in which case the cited parts are within quotation marks.

>Prox

I make it a point to dismiss the arguments of Trump's cult
followers/apologists because kegs of the Trump Kool-Aid have
melted their hearts, minds and souls.

"Succeeding" means getting him the h*ll out of the WH!!!!!

>82 proximity1: refreshing. Seriously. So many people just haven't learned how to write clearly and concisely.

A sad consequence of advanced technology is the overuse by some of shortcuts such as copy and paste instead of using intellect and logic to compose a reply or hold an adult discussion/conversation.

Carry on.

Trudeau, Macron and Trump's buddy Boris having a joke at the Donald's expense. Most people have figured out that Trump is a clown--worse than that though he's also prone to criminal behavior. This is why we're at where we're at--his shithead behavior.

>77 fuzzi:

Angry president cuts short Nato summit trip and rages at Trudeau, as Congress launches next stage of impeachment after damning report (The Independent)

A trio of scholars agreed that Donald Trump’s alleged abuses of power in his dealings with Ukraine amounted to "high crimes and misdemeanours" as grounds for impeachment, according to the rules outlined in the US Constitution.

Four constitutional scholars testified to the House Judiciary Committee on its first day of public impeachment hearings, which provided expert analysis to determine Constitutional grounds for removing the president from office, a process that will be determined formally by a majority vote of Congress.

Michael Gerhardt, Pamela Karlan and Noah Feldman vehemently agreed that the president had committed impeachable offences, including abuses of power, bribery, the hampering of Congress, and the obstruction of justice...

Jonathan Turley — who was summoned by Republicans — said the inquiry is "one of the thinnest records ever to go forward on impeachment"...

So three other "adults in the room" disagreed with your one "adult in the room".

“The facts are uncontested.”

—Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.), 5 Dec, 2019

Democrats declared against impeachment:
_______________________________

Rep. Jefferson "Jeff" Van Drew (D-N.J. (2nd Dist.)) said he intends "to vote against all the articles of impeachment 'unless there's something I haven't seen, haven't heard before.'" (CNN.com) (6 December 2019)

>86 John5918: the headline alone speaks volumes of biased reporting.

Who are these adults?

Karlan is a former Obama administration Justice Department official who chooses to makes jokes about the President by invoking the name of his minor child.

Feldman is a Bloomberg opinion columnist.

Gerhardt has worked for Al Gore's campaign, the Clinton Whitehouse, and Senator Patrick Leahey.

Turley is a registered Democrat, who did not vote for Trump, but sees major issues with the impeachment process. He's now receiving death threats for not supporting the Democrats' impeachment show.

(((Rep. Nadler))) @RepJerryNadler | 12:26 PM · Dec 7, 2019:

Today, @HouseJudiciary released our majority staff report entitled “Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment.”

You can read the full report (55 p) here:
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts
(p 29):...impeachable offenses involve wrongdoing that reveal the President as a continuing threat to the constitutional system if he is allowed to remain in a position of political power. As Iredell remarked, impeachment does not exist for a mistake.”...That is why the Framers rejected “maladministration” as a basis for impeachment, and it is why “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” are not simply unwise, unpopular, or unconsidered acts. Like “Treason” and “Bribery,” they reflect decisions by the President to embark on a course of conduct—or to act with motives—inconsistent with our plan of government. Where the President makes such a decision, Congress may remove him to protect the Constitution, especially if there is reason to think that he will commit additional offenses if left in office (e.g., statements by the President that he did nothing wrong and would do it all again). This forward-looking perspective follows from the limited consequences of impeachment. The question is not whether to punish the President; that decision is left to the criminal justice system. Instead, the ultimate question is whether to bring an early end to his four-year electoral term. In his analysis of the Constitution, Alexis de Tocqueville thus saw impeachment as “a preventive measure” which exists “to deprive the ill-disposed citizen of an authority which he has used amiss, and to prevent him from ever acquiring it again.”...That is particularly true when the President injures the Nation’s interests as part of a scheme to obtain personal benefits; someone so corrupt will again act corruptly.

(p 51) Impeachment is part of democratic constitutional governance, not an exception to it. It results in the President’s removal from office only when a majority of the House, and then a super-majority of the Senate, conclude that he has engaged in sufficiently grave misconduct that his term in office must be brought to an early end. This process does not “nullify” the last election. No President is entitled to persist in office after committing “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” and no voter is entitled to expect that their preferred candidate will do so.

More than 500 law professors say Trump committed ‘impeachable conduct’
Matt Zapotosky | Dec. 6, 2019

More than 500 legal scholars have signed on to an open letter* asserting that President Trump committed “impeachable conduct” and that lawmakers would be acting well within their rights if they ultimately voted to remove him from office.

The signers are law professors and other academics from universities across the country, including Harvard, Yale, Columbia, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Michigan and many others...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/more-than-500-law-professors-sa...

*https://medium.com/@legalscholarsonimpeachment/letter-to-congress-from-legal-scholars-6c18b5b6d116
Excerpt: ... if the House of Representatives impeached the President for the conduct described here and the Senate voted to remove him, they would be acting well within their constitutional powers. Whether President Trump’s conduct is classified as bribery, as a high crime or misdemeanor, or as both, it is clearly impeachable under our Constitution.

From American Greatness :

( Elections )

Our Elites Have Learned Nothing |

More and more, the 2020 election is shaping up to be a referendum on who will rule. The people who cast their votes from all around the country? Or the self-appointed demigods who are nothing if not appalled by anything resembling the popular will.
| By Rachel Bovard | 7 December 2019

“Donald Trump’s presidency has done a lot of things, but perhaps one of its most striking effects has been unmasking the contempt with which the elites view the rest of us.

“By 'elites,' I mean the group of people who, for decades, have rested comfortably in their Hollywood mansions, New York brownstones, and D.C. row-houses, confident in their ability to control the media and cultural discourse, groom and anoint the 'right' politicians, and occasionally tut-tut about the rubes in middle America, but who otherwise give little thought to the vast swaths of land and people outside of the wealth and privilege in their upper-class urban bubbles.

“That is, as Barack Obama accidentally said aloud in 2008, the 'others.' The ones that 'cling' to their guns and religion.

“But Trump’s election has upended the system, fracturing and to some extent, toppling, the idea of a ruling class. He was swept into office by a populist coalition of working-class Republicans and blue-collar Democrats who, in large part, felt demeaned, taken advantage of, or just completely forgotten by the ruling class in their political parties.

“Aghast that their plans have gone so awry, the elites have spent the better part of the last four years either completely melting down or trying desperately to force the country back into the mold of their choosing.

Dripping With Contempt

“The Democrats’ impeachment efforts have become a case study in the latter, as bureaucrat after mid-level bureaucrat traipses before Congress to puff, preen, and demand that a popularly elected president be removed from office for the high crime and misdemeanor of failing to heed their policy advice.

“Occasionally the mask of righteous indignation slips and their utter contempt, kept at a simmer, boils over. You can see it as they roll their eyes at having their assertions questioned, engage in petulant sniping over titles, and angrily dismiss the inquiries of elected members of Congress as 'Fox News questions.'

“These impeachment efforts have brought into focus how sincerely the unelected bureaucracy believes that they run this country—and worse, that they are entitled to do so. And how dare you, or your elected representative think otherwise.”
… …

Laurence Tribe @tribelaw | 10:01 AM · Dec 10, 2019:
By charging a constitutional crime even more serious and sweeping than garden-variety bribery,
the House isn’t just avoiding a distracting legalistic fight over labels.
It’s making the gravest accusation possible short of treason: total betrayal of the Constitution and his Oath.

My point is that the constitutional “high Crime” being charged is broader and deeper than bribery alone,
although of course the abuse of power article will describe a course of conduct that encompasses bribery and indeed extortion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Democrats Unveil Articles of Impeachment Against Trump
Nicholas Fandos | Dec. 10, 2019

Democratic leaders announced they would move to charge President Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress when the Judiciary Committee meets to consider articles of impeachment

...Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, explained the two charges against President Trump.

Today, in service to our duty to the Constitution and to our country, the House Committee on the Judiciary is introducing two articles of impeachment charging the president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, with committing high crimes and misdemeanors. The first article is for abuse of power. It is an impeachable offense for the president to exercise the powers of his public office to obtain an improper personal benefit while ignoring or injuring the national interest. That is exactly what President Trump did when he solicited and pressured Ukraine to interfere in our 2020 presidential election, thus damaging our national security, undermining the integrity of the next election, and violating his oath to the American people. These actions moreover are consistent with President Trump’s previous invitations of foreign interference in our 2016 presidential election. And when he was caught, when the House investigated and opened an impeachment inquiry, President Trump engaged in unprecedented, categorical and indiscriminate defiance of the impeachment inquiry. This gives rise to the second article of impeachment, for obstruction of Congress. Here too, we see a familiar pattern in President Trump’s misconduct. A president who declares himself above accountability, above the American people and above Congress’s power of impeachment, which is meant to protect against threats to our democratic institutions, is a president who sees himself as above the law...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/us/politics/trump-impeachment-articles.html

Growing divide between Trump and McConnell over impeachment trial
Kaitlan Collins and Phil Mattingly | December 10, 2019

...In conversations with the White House, the Kentucky Republican has made clear he hopes to end the trial as soon as he can, an effort to both get impeachment off his lap and protect his conference from potentially damaging votes should the process break out into partisan warfare. That will include a continuous whip count until McConnell feels he has the votes to acquit the President and end the show. He has even floated a 10-day minimum during these talks...

But the show is exactly what Trump wants. He's made clear to advisers privately that rather than end the trial as quickly as possible, he is hoping for a dramatic event, according to two people familiar with his thinking. He wants Hunter Biden, Rep. Adam Schiff and the whistleblower to testify. He wants the witnesses to be live, not clips of taped depositions. And he's hoping to turn it into a spectacle, which he thinks is his best chance to hurt Democrats in the election...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/10/politics/donald-trump-mitch-mcconnell-senate-tria...

The Dems are doing what The Founders expected elected officials
to do. GOPers have decided to render our Founding Documents
grand plan null and void.

>93 margd:

(Cited)

"But the show is exactly what Trump wants. ... And he's hoping to turn it into a spectacle, which he thinks is his best chance to hurt Democrats in the election"...

_________________________

Why not?— since that view is entirely based in sound judgment about how it shall be a deplorable spectacle, one which, clearly—clear to everyone except morons like Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi and their fans—shall turn out to the detriment of the stupidly vile and vindictive Democratic party?

Since the Democrats are very obviously motivated in this impeachment by expectations of purely-partisan pay-offs to their benefit, who dares decry Trump for doing likewise?

Once upon a time, Democrats had enough plain common sense to know and pratice the folk-political-wisdom, "Don't interrupt your adversary when he's in the middle of committing a blunder."

McConnell, naturally, as Senate Majority Leader, has other interests, other priorities than does President Trump. Each of these two, from his own perspective, is figuring things adroitly.

But, it happens that there is in fact a very, very strong moral argument in favor of Trump's view, and, as ironic as it shall be to point this out, this moral argument is one which is specifically grounded in what are easily recognized by anyone honest enough to look at things fairly as "being in the best interests of the nation at large".

Not that Trump is working from this view, but he could, if he so chose

THINK ABOUT IT:

The Democrats have maliciously squandered a fortune, a vast sum of public money, vast amounts of public governmental time and resources on a selfishly conceived vanity-project of the most tawdry kind, designed in reality to serve as a smoke-screen for their own criminal behavior over (at the least) the eight years prior to Trump's election.

Such conduct ought not be dismissed lightly and expeditiously from the consciousness of the American public, as Senate Majority Leader McConnell would have it. Instead, these malice-driven Democrats ought to be made to pay the highest political costs it is possible to impose on them. They ought to be steeped, slowly and tortuously, in their own partisan selfish bile. Trump ought to exact every possible ounce of retribution in a drawn out Senate trial which puts the Democrats on trial for their vendetta. Why? So that the Democrats shall rue this episode for generations to come!

This ought to cost the Democrats so dearly, ought to pain and wound them so severely that, no matter what criminal indictments eventually ensue from the responsible work of A.G. William Barr and U.S. Attorney Durham, Democrats shall never, while living-memory endures to remind them, never again dream of repeating this kind of nonsense.

Damn them for uselessly and needlessly putting the country through this idiotic farce!

One person here has WWWAAAYYYY too much time on his hands.
He seems to believe the word-counts of his pro-Trump, non-defense
posts make his arguments more saleable.

>96 Molly3028:

This political shit-storm your posts here have made of you such a cheer-leader—that shit-storm paints your portrait.

And when this mess is over and the Democrats complicit in it have been stained with the shame they, for their roles, deserve, I'm going to put a big frame on that ugly, stinking, portrait.

FBI lawyer, Lisa Page :

"(Trump’s) not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"

FBI agent and, later, Mueller-investigative-team-member Peter Strzok(1) :

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it."

Senator Diane Feinstein (D.-CA.):

((referring to) the F.B.I.'s investigation code-named, 'Cross-fire Hurricane',)... "was not a politically-motivated investigation. There is no deep-state."

—remarks given as a member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee at a hearing, Wednesday, 11 December, 2019

________________________

(1)
WASHINGTON POST – "The former top FBI official assigned to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election was taken off that job this past summer after his bosses discovered he and another member of Mueller’s team had exchanged politically charged texts disparaging President Trump and supportive of Hillary Clinton , according to multiple people familiar with the matter."

I prefer thoughtfully-written posts, whether from a supportive or opposing position, to numerous copy and paste submissions that do nothing to edify anyone here.

Carry on.

The Impeachment process taking place in DC marks the beginning
of the end of Our Founders' America. A cult leader and his
violence-threatening cult followers are holding a nation of over
329 million people hostage. Trump, with the help of Putin, pulled
off the con of the century.

>98 fuzzi:

Indeed. But I think there is a value in posting articles from a variety of sources which some of us may not have seen, in order to broaden our view of what is being said around the world.

Giuliani Ally Parnas Got $1 Million From Russia, U.S. Says
Christian Berthelsen | December 11, 2019

Prosecutors ask judge to revoke Parnas’ bail, send him to jail
Russia payment raises questions about nature of Parnas’ work

Rudy Giuliani’s associate Lev Parnas got $1 million from an account in Russia in September, a month before he was charged with conspiring to funnel foreign money into U.S. political campaigns, according to U.S. prosecutors who asked a judge to jail him for understating his income and assets.*

“The majority of that money appears to have been used on personal expenses and to purchase a home,” prosecutors said in a court filing Wednesday. Parnas failed to disclose the payment to the government, prosecutors said.

The payment raises provocative new questions about the nature of the work Parnas and his associate Igor Fruman were doing and who they were doing it for. Much about what they did remains unclear...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-11/giuliani-associate-parnas-got...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* "...seemingly limitless access to foreign funds...Parnas is a significant flight risk..."
https://twitter.com/maddow/status/1204910567519072257/photo/1
https://twitter.com/maddow/status/1204910580370415616/photo/1

ETA_________________________________________________

Chris Murphy @ChrisMurphyCT | 11:21 PM · Dec 11, 2019
Let me decode this for you:

The guy Trump was relying on to help him get Ukraine to destroy the Clintons and Bidens
was being paid - handsomely - by RUSSIA.

Quote Tweet
The Wall Street Journal @WSJ · 9h
Before Giuliani associate Lev Parnas’s arrest, a bank account in his wife’s name received $1 million from a Russian account https://on.wsj.com/2YE7k8s

Trump Litigation Round Up
Samantha Fry | December 11, 2019

...a series of lawsuits in which President Trump and his administration assert broad claims of executive privilege have continued to progress through the court system. Some of these cases could have immediate consequences for the records and witnesses available to Congress for impeachment, while others could reveal financial information on Trump in the lead-up to the 2020 election...essential procedural facts...on cases in which government officials seek information regarding Trump and divided them into three categories: Trump’s financial records and tax returns, witness testimony, and the Mueller report grand jury material...

I. Financial Records and Tax Returns

Donald J. Trump, et al. v. Mazars USA, LLP & Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives

Donald J. Trump v. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. & Mazars USA, LLP

Donald J. Trump et al v. Deutsche Bank AG, Capital One Financial Corp.; Committee on Financial Services of the U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives

Donald J. Trump v. Committee on Ways and Means, et al

Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Steven T. Mnuchin, Charles P. Rettig

II. Witness Testimony

Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. Donald F. McGahn II

Charles M. Kupperman v. U.S. House of Representatives; Donald J. Trump; Nancy Pelosi; Adam Schiff; Eliot L. Engel; Carolyn B. Maloney

III. The Mueller Report Grand Jury Material

In re Application of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, for an Order Authorizing the Release of Certain Grand Jury Materials

https://www.lawfareblog.com/trump-litigation-round

Pompeo is being sued for records of Trump’s meetings with Putin. A judge will hear the case.
Michael Wilner | December 11, 2019

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is being sued over allegedly failing to preserve official notes about President Donald Trump’s meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and a court ruled on Wednesday that the case could move forward.

That means Pompeo must either provide evidence he complied with the Federal Records Act, which requires the State Department to collect and preserve interpreter notes, or else argue that he is not obligated to do so.

Democracy Forward and American Oversight, two progressive watchdog organizations, filed the lawsuit in June after public reporting emerged claiming that Trump had collected notes from interpreters and directed them not to discuss the contents of the meetings. The court filing called it “unusual, and in some cases extreme, measures to conceal the details of these meetings.”

Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump-appointed judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, rejected the government’s efforts to dismiss the case on Wednesday.

Pompeo has until January 10 to file a response to the lawsuit and until March 13 to file a substantial brief to the court...

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article23828100...

>100 John5918: agreed, variety of sources labeled liberal (NYT, WaPo) as well as conservative.

Looks like even Rolling Stone is backing off on rush to impeach.

Acyn Torabi @Acyn | 9:21 PM · Dec 12, 2019:
Mitch McConnell: Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with White House Counsel. There will be no difference between the President’s position and our position as to how to handle this
0:31 (see 0:38 Fox News clip of McConnell https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1205311801212190727 )

Joyce Alene @JoyceWhiteVance | 10:08 PM · Dec 12, 2019
...McConnell’s commitment to align with Trump...violates the special oath Senators take for impeachment trials.
... “I solemnly swear ... that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.”

Joyce Alene @JoyceWhiteVance | 11:32 PM · Dec 12, 2019
If/when the Senate votes against removing the President, everyone must understand that when you fix a jury & it votes for you, you haven't been exonerated.

>105 margd:

this points up a genuinely political aspect of the impeachment process in general. When it suits them, Democrats are quite happy to remind their critics that "impeachment is political" because they see this as their excuse to dispense with the essential elements in fair judicial proceedings at a civil or criminal trial court. And dispense with these essentials they have.

So now they come to us complaining that the Senate's majority leader, McConnell, a man of the accused president's own party—though many in that party first bitterly opposed Trump before, during and after his election—betrays his duty "in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump," ... to "do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God."

There is something about all that which strikes me as the Democrats' seeking and expecting to have things both (and contradictory) ways at one and the same time.

So how can these positions be reconciled?

Well, in any thoroughly and strictly judicial proceeding, they cannot be reconciled. Neither a prosecutor nor a defense attorney would for even a moment stand for a court judge's stating, whether publicly or privately, that,

... "Everything I do during this (trial), I’m coördinating with (the) Counsel (for the defendant or the office of the State's attorney (i.e. the prosecutor)). There will be no difference between (that counsel's) position and our position as to how to handle this (trial)."

But, unlike a court of law, the impeachment process as it was designed does not provide for a separate "judge" and "jury".

Instead, just as is something like a criminal trial before a judge without a jury (which is countenanced within the U.S. trial court system) the Senate combines the roles of judge and jury—though the formal impeachment process has, in the Senate chamber, a presiding officer, the judge and the jury are the Senate's members themselves. There is perhaps no way to completely avoid this sort of potential conflict of interest.

But who or what, after all, can possibly fulfill the part of a judging role or a jury role with both an informed and competent capacity for it as well as an entirely impartial and disinterested standing in the matter—which, again, is inherently political in nature?

The U.S. courts have already ruled in test-cases that, except in certain extremely narrow and special circumstances, it is not their proper place to meddle in the operation of the legislative branch's impeachment proceedings. The courts treat these as outside their prerogative to judge or review, again, except in the most particular of matters ancillary issues.

McConnell's position, however, can be made sound sense of in this way:

the Senate is charged with the constitutional duty to act as judge and jury in a trial on articles of impeachment referred from the House of Representatives. Since the Senate has nothing to do with the process of drafting and voting out the articles of impeachment, it's entirely possible that it finds itself in the position of a criminal court judge who is asked to preside over a trial for which, in his opinion, the prosecution has failed to show some valid basis for the charges being brought.

At criminal trial, the defense can enter a motion that the charges be dismissed for lack of evidentiary basis. A judge who agrees can issue a summary judgment and dismiss the case for lack of evidence.

That, in effect, is what McConnell could have in mind to do and actually do, if he and the majority of the chamber's members see fit to do it. And in doing this, it is possible, in this special set of circumstances, for McConnell to do both :

"coördinat(e) with White House Counsel" and "do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.”

if, in his, and in their, honest judgments, McConnell and the majority of the members regard the charges they're being asked to try in their court are bought and placed before them without either due process or due cause having been respected and shown convincingly.

Indeed, if, as has been reported, McConnell foresees hearing from no witnesses at all on behalf of the president's defense, and he is also coördinating with the White House counsel, it is very hard to see how he can be thinking of anything else than that the party bringing these articles before the Senate, that is, the House of Representatives, has not discharged even the minimum in its duty to show cause why the president ought to be impeached.

In this case, calling no witnesses for the defense presupposes no sound case against the accused and, thus, once the prosecution's case is rested, the Senate can proceed directly to a vote on the verdict of the charges brought: guilty or not guilty.

Unlike Trump's lynch-mob pursuers, the Senate may consider Trump innocent until proven "guilty".

105 contd.

McConnell’s plan for sham trial reveals depths of Trump’s corruption
Greg Sargent | Dec. 12, 2019

...it’s telling that McConnell does not yet have 51 votes in hand for (a quick impeachment trial that would call no witnesses and result in a quick acquittal vote). This shows it may be difficult for a few GOP senators to associate themselves with a trial that’s rigged to acquit Trump while avoiding hearing anything new about his corruption (Trump's preference to call Biden but not Mulvaney et al as witnesses).

...senators such as Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski want to maintain the appearance of principled independence from Trump. Meanwhile, Susan Collins, Cory Gardner, Martha McSally and Joni Ernst will feel pressure to appear to take evidence seriously to survive reelection.

...a Democratic aide points out...if McConnell doesn’t have 51 votes for procedural gimmickry allowing Trump to skate, that will allow Democrats to try to assemble a majority in the Senate for sounder procedures...“It’s very hard for any senator to vote against seeking the truth"...

At bottom, though, all this reveals how fraudulent Trump’s posture on the trial really is. Trump’s aides insist he wants to mount a full defense of himself in the Senate while prosecuting the case against Biden. But Trump emphatically does not want this to result in testimony from all the witnesses Trump has blocked.

So it would not be surprising if Trump accedes to McConnell’s wishes...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/12/mcconnells-plan-sham-trial-re...

Trump tears up the Clinton impeachment playbook (Politico)

The House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment against both presidents. They reacted very differently.

After the House Judiciary Committee voted to approve articles of impeachment, the president strode to a White House microphone, declared “profound remorse” for his actions and begged forgiveness.

“What I want the American people to know, what I want the Congress to know, is that I am profoundly sorry for all I have done wrong in words and deeds,” he said.

The year was 1998. The president was Bill Clinton. A banner headline in The New York Times the next day read “Panel, on party lines, votes impeachment; Clinton voices remorse, invites censure.”

Twenty one years and one day after that print edition, the same committee again voted along party lines to impeach a president. But this time, the man in the Oval Office sent a different message.

"It's a scam," President Donald Trump told reporters. "It's something that shouldn't be allowed and it's a very bad thing for our country. ... I watched the Democrats and the committee make fools out of themselves"...

"We are in uncharted waters. I don't know what happens now," said a Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee. "If impeachment is no longer an effective deterrent... it fundamentally reorders the constitutional order"...

Republicans have sought to throw Democrats’ opposition to Clinton’s impeachment back at them, but Democrats say the allegations confronting Trump are far graver than the ones that faced Clinton — lying and trying to cover up an affair with Monica Lewinsky.

And unlike Clinton, Trump has no interest in contrition or even countenancing the notion he's done anything wrong. To Democrats, that's the reason they had to impeach him.

"If we didn't move forward with articles of impeachment the message would be to President Trump and to any future president, if you're facing a tough reelection, reach out to a foreign power — Iran, China, Russia — and seek assistance," said Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.)...

>107 margd:

There's no "rigging" possible in the Senate's trial. The senators, in this respect, are exactly like jury-trial jurors in a criminal case: they get to vote on the verdict. They are legally entitled to vote in strict accordance with their conscience. No one, not even the trial judge, can question or challenge their verdict when they choose to acquit a defendant. Not so when they vote to convict. In extremely bizarre circumstances, a verdict of "guilty", unlike "not guilty", may be set aside when, in the trial judge's opinion, that verdict flies in the face of the evidence presented at trial.

A jury vote to acquit is final. --barring, of course, a mistrial. If bribery or other jury-tampering were discovered, the verdict would not, in the proper sense, be "overturned"; rather, it would be deemed invalid. But jurors are not obliged to accept the prosecution's case at face-value. Senators, like criminal case jurors, can form their own opinions as to the evidence and its proper application to the charges. Senators are free--to the extent that their party leadership leaves them free of deal-making offers or threats, (which, in the final analysis they can reject or yield to)--to vote as they see fit. No one, ultimately, has the right or the power to compel their cooperation.

Not even the Democrats can corrupt this aspect.
Too fucking bad for them. That's the law, goddamn it.

and, for once in their shitty bad-faith partisan lives, they're going to have to live with it.

As usual, margd's claims are laughably stupid and simply false.

Two are FL papers!

The list grows:

The Washington Post: Impeach
Los Angeles Times: Impeach
Boston Globe: Impeach
Orlando Sentinel: Impeach
Philadelphia Inquirer: Impeach
USA Today: Impeach
Tampa Bay Times: Impeach

-Mark Elliott @markmobility | 4:50 PM · Dec 13, 2019

>110 margd:

What's FL papers?

>110 margd:

Sorry. Orlando Sentinel and Tampa Bay Times are the two Florida (FL) papers in favor of impeachment.
Florida is important for Trump in 2020 election--he moved official residence there, is courting Jewish votes, supports R candidates there, etc. In 2016, Trump won Florida in 2016 with just 112,911 more votes than Hillary Clinton.
https://www.wlrn.org/post/eyeing-2020-will-florida-go-trump-again

Moreover, Pennsylvania's Philadelphia Inquirer also favors impeachment. Trump won won Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes out of more than six million cast in 2016, a difference of 0.72% and the narrowest margin in a presidential election for the state in 176 years. Pennsylvania's vote for Donald Trump marked the fall of the Democratic Blue Wall, a block of over 240 electoral votes that voted solidly Democratic from 1992 to 2012. (wikipedia)

>112 margd:

This just in: "Much, perhaps most of the mainstream press simply despises Trump, hates his guts. Film at Eleven p.m."

LOL!

Of course, like the hypocrite bitch, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the mainstream press's editors who hate Trump are far too "Catholic" to own up to their hatred of him.

#113--so the pro-Trump media are Fox News, Breitbart and the National Enquirer all of which survive on racism, sexism, bigotry, conspiracy theories, hearsay, and gossip. If you want a conversation about hate--speaking of those entities is a good place to start.

>114 lriley:

I was just watching an old sketch from Mock the Week where comedians deliver one-liners on a topic given to them. This one was supposed commercials/advertisements. "The Daily Mail: we are publicly racist so you don't have to be!"

Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump's case regarding subpoenas.

Alan Dershowitz explains why this is very important:

...the Harvard law professor explained the Supreme Court — by agreeing to hear a trio of cases involving subpoenas for the president's financial records — just "pulled the rug out of part two of impeachment."

"Look, the most important development happened today," Dershowitz said. "The Supreme Court of the United States absolutely pulled the rug out of part two of the impeachment referral by granting certiorari, by granting review in a case where Trump challenged a congressional subpoena. And the Supreme Court said we're going to hear this case."

"Think of what that message is: It's Trump was right," he continued. "You don't have to comply with a subpoena of Congress unless a court tells you you have to comply."

"Now, we don't know how the court is going to come out. But they made it clear that's a viable issue," Dershowitz went on to say. "So, that charge, that ground of impeachment, should be immediately removed by the House and not sent to the Senate. There's nothing to it anymore after the Supreme Court today said you're entitled to a review on an issue when the president challenges the subpoena power of Congress."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LYBebVohDBs&feature=emb_title

>116 fuzzi: Supreme Court justices can choose to make a broader statement, and Lord knows too many R senators and reps are willing to accept any hare-brained guidance from the orange criminal & allies, but as CNN said

"...None of the three cases involve Trump's official actions as President."

"They trace to his business dealings before taking office, such as possibly directing "hush money" to women who have claimed they had affairs with him."

"In all three cases the justices are scheduled to hear in March, lower court judges grounded their decisions against Trump in decades-old Supreme Court precedent that would allow a President to be subpoenaed or sued. So, any reversal would be startling..."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/13/politics/supreme-court-trump-impeachment-taxes-se...

>116 fuzzi:

I believe there are some problems in Dershowitz's assumptions about the significance of this grant of certiorari.

Not the least of these is that, no matter which way the SCotUS may rule, it shall have "intruded" on the political interplay inherent in the legislative branch's impeachment of the titular head of the executive branch.

The terms setting out grounds for impeachment weren't just an accident of nature. If they're rather vague that is because it was deemed best not to specify them narrowly. But had the Framers thought it best to have done that, they'd have done it. Indeed, "We"—the People—(or our legislative branch of the national government, in concert with ratifying states) could today decide that this was a serious error on the Framers' part and we're now going to "correct" that error by setting out specifically which offenses qualify and stating them and limiting the authority to impeach (the president, in this case) to those and only those offenses. Just as the Framers defined what constitutes "Treason" in the text of the Constitution, we could set out specifically the kinds of "bribery", "treason" and "Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" which, when charged, tried and proven, make an elected officer liable to be impeached and removed from office.

Do we want to do that? Well, then, damn it, do that.

As things now stand, however, it is for the House of Representatives, not the Supreme Court of the United States, to determine what comes within the compass of these above-stated terms by voting out articles of impeachment. Then, matters move to the Senate, not the Supreme Court, and the Senate holds a trial on the facts and the evidence concerning the charges in the articles of impeachment. By voting out articles of impechment them, the House of Representatives implicitly says two things: First, that these, in the opinion of a majority of that body, are to be rightly deemed grounds for impeachment and trial and, second, that if proven at the Senate's hearings, and, upon a vote of "guilty", these grounds suffice for the impeached party's removal from office. The Senate, for its part, then has the right to convict or acquit the accused and I see no reason why that determination cannot be based on any ground or chain of reasoning which the Senate's members see fit to employ. For example, if the majority of the Senate so chooses, it can reject either the House's theory of the impeachable offense or, despite accepting it as valid, decide that, in this particular case, the charges, though properly made and valid, haven't been proven at trial. In either case, the Senate can reject the impeachment and acquit the accused. It may do that by making it clear that, in the opinion of the Senate, the charges as voted in the articles are not, contrary to the the majority opinion of the House, ever a sufficient ground for impeachment. The House may heed that judgment or ignore it and at some point in the future, try again in similar circumstances to impeach a president for similarly grounded charges. It then becomes the Senate's place to decide the case anew. End of story.

These responsibilities are located in the House and the Senate by the Constitution's plain and clear terms. To arbitrarily bring the Supreme Court into the process makes that branch a party to impeachment by fiat, without prior deliberation and approval by the legislature. That's an extra-constitutional grant of power by one branch to another branch.

Shall the Supreme Court now be given the entry to pass judgment in review of the Senate's (or the House's, for that matter) role in impeaching and then either acquitting or convicting the accused? Seriously? We're to wait on "appeals" to the Supreme Court?—for, surely, no matter which way a Senate trial is concluded, if there is an avenue open to appeal the Senate vote's correctness in law, then there shall always be an appeal made to the Court. In that way, then, sooner or later, the Supreme Court shall decide every case of presidential impeachment.

Do we really want that?

I wouldn't like the Supreme Court to go into the business of reviewing House impeachment procedures or the articles, if any, which ensue from them any more than I'd like the Court to get into second-guessing the Senate's trials and verdicts, whichever way they may go.

I should say that House Democrats, in their spectacular irresponsible use of impeachment authority, have practically invited the imposition of strictly and specifically defined acts for future impeachment since an authority used irresposibly invites the restriction on the future use of that authority.

If I were the Republicans and it was up to me, I'd be about the businesss of introducing amendments to the Constitution which precisely state the limits for grounds of impeachment in advance and the standards of proof to be required. And no other business would move forward until that matter had been attended to.

Thus, for example, neither engaging in nor later lying about having a clandestine sexual affair should , in my judgment, be valid grounds for impeachment. Nor would involuntary manslaughter, driving while intoxicated, using one's own golf-course hotel resorts to host international meetings on official business, or being found to have said, years ago, that rich and famous men can, because women let them, get away with "grabbing women" (who come within their reach) "by the pussy."

Nor should it be sufficient that a bunch of big-city newspaper editors find the accused to be insufferably vain, conceited, childish, a boor, or to exhibit poor taste in dress or speech, etc. or just hate his guts or don't particularly like him.

In other words, certain serious, specific "grown-up's" crimes constitute valid grounds for impeachment, and, if fairly proven, conviction—-and no others.

In short, the Republicans ought to put the Democrats on notice:

So, you mean to use impeachment cheaply, on a whim? Well, then, know this: we're going to put its future use under very strictly limited terms.

U.S. Senate Memo to the House of Representatives:

"Coming attractions!" Specific and Severely-limited grounds for impeachment written into law,”You 'asked for it,' you got it."

The lies have it: Republicans abandon truth in Trump impeachment defence (Guardian)

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four,” George Orwell wrote in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. “If that is granted, all else follows.”

The pro-Donald Trump industrial complex has not yet denied basic arithmetic. But as impeachment looms, his allies appear to be waging an increasingly frantic political and media counter-offensive that puts truth itself in the dock.

A bewildering array of fake news, warped facts and conspiracy theories have been propagated in the past week by conservative media, Republican politicians, White House officials and the president in his own defence. It is, commentators say, a concerted disinformation war, intended to crowd out damaging revelations as the House of Representatives prepares its ultimate sanction.

“The more facts come out, the more desperate they get,” said Kurt Bardella, a former spokesman and senior adviser on the House oversight committee. “They know in a debate centred on facts, truth and reality, they lose. Their only mechanism to survive is to muddy the waters, distort, distract and hope if they repeat lies often enough, they become real”...

The entire US intelligence community has found no evidence to support the claim of Ukrainian interference in 2016. Fiona Hill, formerly top Russia expert at the White House, has warned that to spread “the fictional narrative” is to spread Russian propaganda and do the bidding of Vladimir Putin. Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI, said this week there was “no indication” that Ukraine interfered.

Yet several Republican senators continue to peddle this counter-narrative...

Richard W. Painter (former WH ethics lawyer) @RWPUSA | 1:39 PM · Dec 15, 2019:

What kind of an impeachment trial is it where
the officer being impeached has his representatives meet behind closed doors with
leaders representing the majority of the senators who are supposed to be the jurors,
all while showering them with campaign cash?

FOX NEWS ANCHOR CONFRONTS TRUMP ADVISER WITH SENATE OATH TO BE 'IMPARTIAL,' ASKING HOW MCCONNELL CAN TAKE 'CUES' FROM WH (Newsweek)

Fox News anchor Chris Wallace confronted White House adviser Pam Bondi over GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's assertion that he and fellow Republicans in the Senate plan to coordinate with President Donald Trump's lawyers in an increasingly inevitable Senate trial following a planned vote of impeachment by the House of Representatives. Wallace noted that this appeared to go against the oath senators will take prior to the trial.

"Now, Democrats note that before an impeachment trial, all senators have to raise their right hand and take an oath to do impartial justice," the journalist said during an interview with Bondi on Fox News Sunday. "How impartial can it be when McConnell says, quote, he is taking his 'cues' from the White House."

Bondi attempted to evade the direct question, accusing Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives of carrying out an unfair impeachment inquiry... Wallace cut Bondi off, pressing his original question. "But wait, I'm just asking you about McConnell saying he'd be taking his cues from the White House. Please answer the question"...

New Fox News poll on impeachment contradicts its most loyal viewer — President Trump (Yahoo)

A new Fox News poll on voter support for impeachment contradicted President Trump, who recently boasted major support in favor of “No Impeachment”... But a fresh Fox News poll conducted last week and released on Sunday found that a majority of the American electorate wants Trump impeached. Fifty percent are in favor of impeaching and removing the president, while four percent say he should be impeached but not removed, and 41 percent oppose impeachment altogether...

Is Fox news finally beginning to rediscover the role of journalism to seek and report the truth, regardless of one's political stance?

Edited to add: Harvard Law Professor Warns Mitch McConnell’s Impeachment Strategy Could Backfire (Huffington Post)

Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe explained Friday why he believes Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) plan to coordinate with President Donald Trump’s defense team in a Senate impeachment trial may backfire...

Tribe told MSNBC’s Ari Melber the next day on “The Beat” that it was “disgusting” that McConnell looked like he “is going to conduct this trial as though he’s a member of the defense team.”

“You know, it’s an ancient principle — centuries-old, actually over a millennium old — that you can’t be a judge on your own case, and effectively, to allow Donald Trump to call the shots violates that principle”...

Tribe continued:

"The reason it may backfire is that an exoneration, if that’s what emerges by a Senate that is essentially rigged and fixed so that it’s coordinated in this way with the defense, really doesn’t clear the name of the accused so that the president will go down in history as having been essentially found guilty by the House in a proceeding where he had a chance to defend himself but didn’t take advantage of it, and then in a kind of rubber-stamp sort of toss-off, not really given a meaningful trial so that he will have been adjudicated fundamentally by the House of Representatives to have abused his office, abused his oath, and endangered the national security and then blockaded in the inquiry as though he were a dictator"...

Sen Schumer's 3p letter to Majority Leader on how Trump's Senate trial should be organized, witnesses (Blair, Bolton, Duffy, Mulvaney and documents that should be subpoenaed, etc.

https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Impeachment%20Letter%20To%20Leade...

Bill Clinton: Congress is doing what they believe is right (CNN)

Former President Bill Clinton reacts to Democrats bringing articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump (video)

Judiciary Committee's impeachment report (658 p)
together with dissenting views (begin at page 181--p 195 when scrolling)
https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191216/CRPT-116hrpt346.pdf

Here’s One Surprising Way Congress Could Avoid an Impeachment Disaster (Politico)

With a little creativity, the House could impeach Donald Trump, while allowing the Senate to avoid a trial. This is how it would work.

If the process plays out as everyone believes it will, impeachment will end with an acquittal in the Senate, and the House’s efforts to protect the integrity of the 2020 election will have proved counterproductive: President Donald Trump, claiming a “ full exoneration,” could be emboldened to engage in misconduct similar to or even worse than his interactions with Ukraine.

But there is a way out of this mess that would let the House impeach him—while allowing the Senate only to censure Trump, rather than having to vote to convict or acquit him. The House could express its disapproval of Trump through an impeachment vote, and the Senate, through censure rather than a trial, could embrace, even enhance, the House’s message. Yes, Trump would stay in office. But because both chambers of Congress would be on the record in officially condemning his conduct, there is a decent chance this approach might deter Trump from similar elections abuse.

Is there really a way to accomplish this, when Senate acquittal seems such a foregone conclusion? Yes, with a little bit of procedural creativity on the part of the House.

We can call this strategy “conditional impeachment.” Here’s how it would work: The House adopts its articles of impeachment, as it is planning to do. But it also adopts a separate resolution saying that the House will deliver the impeachment articles to the Senate only if the Senate fails to censure the president for his Ukraine-related misconduct by a specified date. If the Senate does censure Trump, the House could refrain from delivering the articles of impeachment to the Senate at all.

This scheme might seem ambitious. But, as the House prepares for its floor vote on Wednesday, the plans relating to the handoff of impeachment to the Senate seem to be fluid, and there is growing sentiment that Speaker Nancy Pelosi should avoid sending articles to a quick Senate demise.

This concept of “conditional impeachment” is predicated on historical precedents in both the Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton impeachments...

Giuliani Provides Details of What Trump Knew About Ambassador’s Removal
Kenneth P. Vogel | Dec. 16, 2019

...In conversations in the first months of the year with the president, Mr. Giuliani, by his account, cast Ms. Yovanovitch as impeding not only investigations in Ukraine that could benefit Mr. Trump, but also Mr. Giuliani’s efforts to gather evidence to defend him — and target his rivals — in the United States.

“There’s a lot of reasons to move her,” Mr. Giuliani said, asserting that his briefings of Mr. Trump and Mr. Pompeo most likely played a role in their decision to recall Ms. Yovanovitch.

...“I think I had pointed out to the president a couple of times, I reported to the president, what I had learned about the visa denials (as well as the claims that she ordered one Ukrainian prosecutor to drop cases)...I may or may not have passed along the general gossip that the embassy was considered to be a kind of out-of-control politically partisan embassy, but that was, like, general gossip, I didn’t report that as fact.”

...Mr. Giuliani told The Times that after he briefed Mr. Trump on the claims, the president said “either ‘discuss it with Mike’ or ‘turn it over to Mike.’” Mr. Giuliani said he could not recall “if he had me call him, or him call me — but he put us together so that Pompeo could evaluate it.”

...Mr. Giuliani sent (Pompeo) a timeline listing events related to some of the claims about Ms. Yovanovitch, the Bidens’ work in Ukraine and other matters...a series of memos detailing claims made by a pair of Ukrainian prosecutors in interviews conducted by Mr. Giuliani and his associates in January...

...“What I thought was, a really smart guy and he’s going to see what else is involved,” Mr. Giuliani said, referring to Mr. Pompeo. “And then he’ll be the one referring it to the F.B.I. And maybe they’ll take it from him and also it won’t look like I’m pushing the F.B.I. to do it.”

One of the interviews detailed in a memo sent to Mr. Pompeo was conducted by phone with Viktor Shokin, a former Ukrainian prosecutor who was denied a visa by the State Department. He was denied the visa because he was seen as having wasted American assistance money that had been allocated to his office for anti-corruption programs, according to testimony in the impeachment inquiry...(margd: Shokin is the guy that Biden had fired.) “wanted to come to the United States to share information suggesting that there was corruption at the U.S. Embassy...revenge because he’d lost his job"...

...information (another Ukrainian prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko (another shady character -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuriy_Lutsenko)) relayed (to Giuliani) was included in memos sent to Mr. Pompeo.

...Mr. Giuliani traveled to Europe this month... to meet with some of those same Ukrainian prosecutors to continue gathering information to try to undercut the impeachment case, including through a series of programs on a conservative cable network.

Mr. Trump has said that Mr. Giuliani will submit a report of his findings to Attorney General William P. Barr and Congress....

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/us/politics/giuliani-yovanovitch-ukraine.html

(more than 700) HISTORIANS’ STATEMENT ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP
Dec 16 | 2019

...President Trump’s actions committed both before and during the House investigations fit Hamilton’s description and manifest utter and deliberate scorn for the rule of law and “repeated injuries” to constitutional democracy. That disregard continues and it constitutes a clear and present danger to the Constitution. We therefore strongly urge the House of Representatives to impeach the President.

https://medium.com/@historiansonimpeachment/historians-statement-on-the-impeachm...

________________________________________________

More than 700 historians sign letter calling for House to impeach Trump
Justin Wise - 12/16/19
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/474838-more-than-700-historians-sign-letter-c...

>125 John5918: Holding off transmitting articles of impeachment could also be tactic to prompt fair trial--or at least to avoid kangaroo court à la The Apprentice.

Don’t let Mitch McConnell conduct a Potemkin impeachment trial
Laurence H. Tribe | Dec. 16, 2019

For some time now, I have been emphasizing the duty to impeach this president for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress regardless of what the Senate might end up doing. Now that President Trump’s impeachment is inevitable, and now that failing to formally impeach him would invite foreign intervention in the 2020 election and set a dangerous precedent, another option seems vital to consider: voting for articles of impeachment but holding off for the time being on transmitting them to the Senate.

This option needs to be taken seriously now that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has announced his intention to conduct not a real trial but a whitewash, letting the president and his legal team call the shots.

...As a tactical matter, it could strengthen Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) hand in bargaining over trial rules with McConnell because of McConnell’s and Trump’s urgent desire to get this whole business behind them. On a substantive level, it would be justified to withhold going forward with a Senate trial. Under the current circumstances, such a proceeding would fail to render a meaningful verdict of acquittal. It would also fail to inform the public, which has the right to know the truth about the conduct of its president...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-let-mitch-mcconnell-conduct-a-potem...

More than 700 historians call for Trump to be impeached as key vote looms (Guardian)

More than 700 American historians have called for the impeachment and removal of Donald Trump.

“We are American historians devoted to studying our nation’s past,” began an open letter posted to Medium, “who have concluded that Donald J Trump has violated his oath to ‘faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States’ and to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States’”...

Trump presents his own impeachment defense (Politico)

On the eve of his likely impeachment, President Donald Trump has opted to act as his own defense lawyer.

In a six-page, stream-of-consciousness diatribe sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and released by the White House on Tuesday afternoon, Trump denounced the Democrats’ two articles of impeachment — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — as “not recognizable under any standard of Constitutional theory,” engaging with a process the White House had until now spurned in protest.

Crafted more like one of his signature tweetstorms than a legal document, the letter was written “for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record,” according to the president. Replete with grammatical errors, odd capitalizations and language rarely seen in official White House documents, it castigates Pelosi for “declaring open war on American democracy” and “offending Americans of faith” in what Trump called an “election-nullification scheme"...

A sincere question for the US posters here. Do you think the framers of your Constitution, those who gave Congress the responsibility to hold a president accountable, had imagined the level of polarisation between political parties and the loyalty to one's party which seems to be the case today, or do you think they envisaged free-thinking legislators who, while belonging to a political party, would put the Constitution and the good of the nation above party loyalties?

Biography of John Adams suggested great rivalry with Thomas Jefferson, but they reconciled at the end. Both died on July 4th. Let's hope.

>122 margd: Schumer call for witnesses, contd.

Schumer says he'll ask for votes on calling Mulvaney, Bolton to testify
Jordain Carney - 12/17/19

..."I am allowed to ask for votes. I will ask during the impeachment proceeding for a vote on whether Mulvaney should testify, and whether Bolton should testify," Schumer said during an interview with MSNBC.

Schumer predicted that Republicans would be "in a real dilemma" over the efforts by Democrats to get witnesses to testify. A motion to call a witness as part of the Senate trial would only take a simple majority, meaning Democrats need to win over four GOP senators to get to 51 votes.

"Asking for witnesses, something so reasonable ... I expect we'll get a bunch of Republicans to vote with us on these requests," Schumer added...

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/475026-schumer-says-hell-ask-for-votes-on-ca...

>131 John5918: The founders hated factions, i.e. parties, and didn't envisage them being part of the their Republic, which is why the original plan for presidential elections was to have the President and Vice-President be the first and second place winners instead of running as a ticket as they do now.

The fact that the current Republican legislators are willing to roll over and not defend the power of their own branch of government, putting loyalty to their party leader ahead of their loyalty to the Consitution, against encroachments by the executive branch completely breaks the checks and balances that the founders had written into the Constitution.

In about 70 years, America has gone from winning WWII to the
Electoral College electing a cult-personality con man who has
become a lawless president that GOPers refuse to impeach. Like
Dickens' Marley, the American Century is dead as a doornail.

122, 133 contd.

Who’s Really in Charge of the Senate Impeachment Trial?
Mitch McConnell thinks he’s calling the shots. He’s wrong.

Bruce Ackerman | Dec 17, 2019

...he Senate’s “Rules of Procedure and Practice” currently in force for the conduct of impeachments. These rules explicitly provide that the chief justice “shall” preside over the trial, that it is the “Presiding Officer” who “shall direct all forms of the proceedings,” and that he may “rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence.”

Roberts’ powers are not unlimited. The rules explicitly grant “any member of the Senate” the right to object to Roberts’ evidentiary decisions, and if the chief justice stands firm in his opinion, a senator may demand “a vote of the Members of the Senate” on “any such question”—with a simple majority sufficient to overturn Roberts’ ruling. Nevertheless, the Senate’s authority is strictly constrained by the rules it has itself established. While it can reverse particular evidentiary rulings, it can’t bar anybody from appearing as a witness. Instead, it is up to the lawyers representing the House and the president to make these critical decisions, with the proviso that “witnesses shall be examined by one person on behalf of the party producing them, and then cross-examined by one person on the other side.”...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/12/senate-impeachment-trial-john-robert...

From this day forward, Impeachment will be connected to the
Trump name throughout history ~ three families and many, many
descendants. Running for president to enlarge his empire was a
whopper of a mistake. Fate works in wondrous ways.

Trump’s response to impeachment: attacking the late husband of a pro-impeachment Democrat (Vox)

President Donald Trump’s response to the House of Representatives approving two articles of impeachment against him was in some respects even uglier than could’ve reasonably been anticipated. And given Trump’s track record, that’s saying something.

At the exact moment that the House approved the first article of impeachment, Trump was 600 miles away at a rally in Battle Creek, Michigan, telling a relatively innocuous, absurd tale he’s repeatedly told about how the military’s stealth planes are literally invisible.

Things took a darker turn from there, however. Instead of backing away from the conspiracy theories about the Bidens that are at the heart of the impeachment inquiry, Trump leaned into them, at one point claiming that if he did what the Bidens has done, “they’d bring the electric chair back.” Though that said more about his sense of victimization by House Democrats, its underlying assumption is that Joe Biden and his son Hunter did something criminal. But the bad optics of Hunter Biden serving in a lucrative position on the board of a Ukrainian gas company at the same time as his father was involved in Ukraine policy aside, there’s not a shred of evidence supporting Trump’s claims...

But the lowest moment of the night came when Trump attacked Debbie Dingell, a Democratic congresswoman from the state he was speaking in, for voting in favor of impeachment. He even went as far as to suggest her husband, the late World War 2 veteran and former congressman John Dingell, whose seat she now holds, is in hell...

Josh Gerstein @joshgerstein (Politico) | 9:40 PM · Dec 18, 2019:

BREAKING: DC Circuit jumps on impeachment votes,
orders new briefs addressing whether House subpoena to Don McGahn is moot &
whether there's still a rush. More TK

Image ( https://twitter.com/joshgerstein/status/1207490829218205701/photo/1 )

A real sweetheart that Pompeo--removes Maria Yovanovitch, never protesting Giuliani smearing her reputation. Invites Bill Taylor to take over Ukraine diplomacy. (Unpaid, I think?) Taylor testifies to Congress. Now Pompeo is seeking to avoid being photographed with the career diplomat upon his retirement. Taylor's another one who deserves honors from a future president. Pompeo? The dustbin!

Bianna Golodryga @biannagolodryga (CNN) | 10:06 PM · Dec 18, 2019
I’m pretty sure avoiding being photographed with a war veteran, fellow West Point grad, and respected diplomat (who @SecPompeo himself asked to step in to fill a position), wasn’t what West Point hoped to instill in its graduates.

Quote Tweet
Paul Beckett @paulwsj · 9h

Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor is planning to leave the country on Jan. 2 and understood that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wanted to avoid being photographed with him, a person familiar with the situation said.
https://wsj.com/articles/u-s-envoy-to-ukraine-was-asked-to-step-aside-ahead-of-p...

Jonathan Allen @jonallendc (NBC) | 9:34 PM · Dec 18, 2019·
Unprecedented:
Trump now holds the record for most votes ever acquired on an article of impeachment at 230.
He's also No. 2 at 229.

125, 128 delay in sending articles of impeachment to Senate, contd.

Pelosi on Senate Hearing: ‘This Is What I Don’t Consider a Fair Trial’
Nicholas Fandos | Dec. 18, 2019. Updated Dec. 19, 2019, 9:44 a.m. ET

...(Speaker Nancy) Pelosi told reporters that she would hold the articles back until it was clearer that the upper chamber would give the case a fair hearing. The strategy suggested she was keeping the charges as leverage in a coming negotiation over the terms of a Senate trial.

...Mr. Trump and his allies said to be interested in a speedy trial and acquittal...

...An adviser to Mr. McConnell, Josh Holmes, signaled the majority leader was in no rush to try the president for impeachable offenses

...Democrats in the Senate had already complained that Mr. McConnell was trying to ram through the president’s acquittal by refusing to call witnesses or obtain new evidence. They also took issue with Mr. McConnell’s assertions that it was not his role to act as an “impartial juror” during a trial and that he would closely coordinate any trial with the White House Counsel’s Office.

...The speaker indicated she would also wait to appoint impeachment managers, the House members responsible for prosecuting the case in the Senate, until the matter was resolved.

...Under the rules adopted to consider the articles on Wednesday, the House must hold a separate vote allowing Ms. Pelosi to appoint the impeachment managers and transmit the articles to the Senate. The House is scheduled to leave Washington at the end of the week for the Christmas and New Year’s holidays, meaning if she does not take the action by then, the fate of the articles could be left unresolved until early January, when Congress reconvenes in the capital.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/18/us/politics/impeachment-trial.html

George Conway is a calm clear explainer.
His opinion piece today lays a lot out that I'd been wondering.

George Conway: Republican senators run the risk of being shamed by Trump himself

In his unhinged letter Tuesday, President Trump accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of having “cheapened the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!” A few days earlier, he accused Democrats of “trivializing impeachment.”

If anything has cheapened or trivialized the process by which Trump was impeached, it was House Republicans’ refusal to treat the proceedings with the seriousness the Constitution demands. Unable to defend the president’s conduct on the merits, GOP members of the House resorted to deception, distortion and deflection: pretending that Trump didn’t ask President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to investigate Trump’s political rival; claiming that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 election; and throwing up all manner of silly assertions of procedural unfairness.

Now, as the process moves to the Senate, Republican senators threaten the ultimate cheapening and trivialization of Congress’s constitutional obligations: holding a “trial” that would be nothing but a sham.

Specifically, they threaten to conduct a trial without witnesses, which wouldn’t be a trial at all. In civil or criminal litigation in a jury case, the only way for a defendant to avoid a trial is for a judge to rule that there was no evidence from which the jury could find for the other side. However much the Republicans may pretend otherwise, that isn’t the case here — the president isn’t entitled to summary judgment. The evidence against him is far too strong. No doubt that is the real reason they wish to avoid a full-blown trial.

In addition, judicial trials traditionally give parties the right to subpoena all relevant witnesses, even witnesses who haven’t given evidence before. Indeed, the Senate’s standing impeachment rules provide for the issuance of subpoenas at the request of either side. Even at the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, which involved much simpler facts, and where a complete evidentiary record had been developed by an independent counsel before a federal grand jury that heard the testimony of all witnesses, including Clinton, the Senate allowed videotaped deposition testimony to be taken and introduced into evidence.

In any event, the fact that senators swear an oath to “bear true faith” to the Constitution, and the fact that the Constitution requires the Senate to “try all Impeachments,” should require them to hold a real trial with live witnesses. But if that isn’t enough to persuade them, Republican senators should consider at least two significant practicalities.

The first is that the Ukraine investigation is only three months old. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has cited this as evidence that the impeachment was rushed and unsupported. Actually, the opposite is true: A remarkably strong case was assembled in an unusually short time, even in the face of extraordinary obstructionism from the administration, which directed numerous witnesses not to testify. The Watergate investigation, by contrast, spanned roughly two years; the Starr investigation and Clinton impeachment proceedings, 11 months.

What that tells us is that plenty more evidence remains to be unearthed. We know already of the witnesses whom Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) proposes should testify, but whose testimony was blocked by Trump: acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney; Robert Blair, a senior adviser to Mulvaney; former national security adviser John Bolton; and Michael Duffey, a top official at the Office of Management and Budget. No doubt there are volumes of electronic and physical documents that remain to be produced.

One way or another, the gist of that evidence will seep out, as truth inevitably does. The president’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, will continue to make admissions, and, if he were to be criminally prosecuted, evidence would come out in his prosecution. Others — most notably Bolton — will write books. There will be more leaks to intrepid journalists. Perhaps more whistleblowers will step forward.

Meanwhile, the House can still investigate, if it so chooses. In fact, it should. After all, not only does the House have a continuing obligation of oversight, but also there is no double-jeopardy prohibition on impeachment: If more damning evidence surfaces, there is no constitutional reason Trump couldn’t be impeached again.

So common sense should tell senators that, even if Trump is acquitted in a short-circuited trial, that won’t prevent the evidence from revealing whether an acquittal was a just one. If Republican senators cut the trial short, they run the risk of being refuted and shamed on the pages of history by the very evidence they sought to suppress.

But that’s not the only practical reason they shouldn’t cut the trial short. A second reason — perhaps the ultimate reason — is President Trump.

For the extraordinary evidence of the Ukraine scandal isn’t a one-off. Putting his interests above the nation’s is what Trump instinctively does.

Trump’s written tirade to Pelosi confirms the point: It shows that, even as he is being impeached, he still has no idea why — and thus no idea what his presidential duties require. He hasn’t learned his lesson, and never will.

And that is the ultimate point Republican senators who care about their legacies should consider: They run the risk of being refuted and shamed on the pages of history not just by the evidence — but by Trump himself.

Yes. The seriousness of the House Democrats on display:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URCiLYaRZfc

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/lets-do-this-rashida-tlaib-criticized-fo...

Yep, somber and serious.

Giddy as schoolgirls.

Oh, and in case you missed it, one example of the media celebrating:



This shampeachment can be traced back at least to President Trump's inauguration, when the "whistleblower" lawyer Mark Zaid tweeted that the “coup has started” and that “impeachment will follow.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/whistleblower-lawyer-in-january-2017-coup-has-sta...

And it has evolved.

First it was all about Russia, until 2 years and millions of tax dollars' later it wasn't according to Bob Muller.

Then suddenly it's all about a phone call, the transcript which was released but ignored. The people on the phone call have confirmed the transcript, in which no quid pro quo was demonstrated. The so-called "witnesses" who testified never heard what was said.

So, when are any of you celebrating today actually going to go beyond the sound bites of your favorite opinion writer or talking heads?

Note about the US government:

Impeachment does not remove the President from office.

And an interesting bit that many are overlooking:

Because the full House did not originally vote to authorize articles of impeachment the House Judiciary Committee never gained ‘judicial enforcement authority‘. The absence of judicial enforcement authority was evident in the lack of enforcement authority in House subpoenas.

The House could not hold anyone in contempt of congress for not appearing because they did not carry recognized judicial enforcement authority.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/19/impeachment-as-a-means-to-an-end...

The President could not be held in contempt of Congress for ignoring subpoenas because the House Judiciary Committee didn't have authority.

Not to be outdone by Dems, Repubs acting inappropriately:

NowThis @nowthisnews | 8:03 AM · Dec 19, 2019
This Republican just compared Trump to Jesus

Republican Rep. Loudermilk Compares Trump to Jesus
This Republican just compared Trump to Jesus
https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1207647519792078850
_______________________________________________________

Bill Kristol @BillKristol | 4:27 PM · Dec 18, 2019:

Sure, while we’re at it, why not degrade and dishonor the idea of a moment of silence?

Quote Tweet
Arthur Delaney @ArthurDelaneyHP · 23h
Republicans just stood in a solemn moment of silence to honor the 63 million Americans who voted for Trump.
Show this thread ( https://twitter.com/ArthurDelaneyHP/status/1207408754075062273 )

(Not to honor the 65 million who voted for Hillary?)

It's official: God has abandoned Trump

"The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.

The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused." https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-remo...

>147 theoria:

Another article on the same story, with a couple of other quotes:

Evangelical magazine Christianity Today calls for Trump's removal after impeachment (Guardian)

Publication founded by televangelist Billy Graham splits with Trump’s base, calling president’s actions ‘immoral’...

Trump won the 2016 election with 81% of the white Christian evangelical vote, and support of evangelicals like Jerry Falwell Jr, president of Liberty University. Evangelical supporters made peace with Trump’s history of marital infidelity and “grab them by the pussy” comments, lauding Trump’s conservative court appointments and supreme court nominees. Galli raised questions about that moral compromise, writing: “This president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration”...

Galli noted that Christianity Today typically does not weigh in on politics, but that the magazine wrote a similar editorial in 1998, when Bill Clinton was impeached. “Unfortunately, the words that we applied to Mr Clinton 20 years ago apply almost perfectly to our current president,” he wrote.

“To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: remember who you are and whom you serve,” Galli wrote. “Consider how your justification of Mr Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come?”

Although not of the evangelical persuasion myself, I always had a soft spot for old Billy Graham, compared to many of the other televangelists.

Next steps---

there has been some typically stupid nonsense from Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe about the House of Representatives' capacity to take its own sweet time getting around to transmitting to the senate the two articles of impeachment voted out yesterday by a full-house vote.

It seems to me that there isn't and cannot be any such thing as a "Schrödinger's cat"-impeachment.

Once voted, the president stands impeached---indeed, the Democrats are crowing about this.

Well, then, whether the House of Representatives likes it, approves of it, transmits them, or not, the Senate is now free to take up the text of the articles and, within the very hour in which they were passed by the House of Representatives, move a vote on them on their merits, as they stand, with no witnesses called, no further testimony taken.

The Senate may now at any moment move a vote and rule on the question, "guilty" or "not guilty." They are the sole judges in the matter of trial and verdict.

The House cannot delay or impede their voting on these articles the moment the senate sees fit to do so. It could have voted "Guilty" or "Not guilty" as soon as the House vote had been recorded as final and put into the record.

If Trump was removed from office, very little would change in DC.
The GOP would still control the Executive Branch of our present-
day government. The cult leader/con man voters are infatuated
with would be living in Florida (he could golf with OJ!) His cult
followers could return to their bat caves.

Fortunately for the rest of us, not only is Trump not going to be removed from office by conviction on the impeachment articles, he's very likely to be re-elected in 2020. There's a chance, and, I think, a decent one, that Tulsi Gabbard could beat Trump if no other parties took any significant share of the votes.

But that would depend on the Democratic party having the sense to nominate her. There is simply no evidence that it possesses that. Voters could demonstrate her appeal in primaries and the press would do its best to talk her down.

"What are we to make of it when two senior senators ... have publicly pre-committed themselves to violating the oath they are both constitutionally obliged to take?" ask @qjurecic and @benjaminwittes.*

#MoscowMitch & #LeningradLindsay are trying to get out of voting.
That way, they can claim they stand for America & the Constitution AND support Donald Trump (verbally).
Other GOP better wake the F up & follow suit. The more who don't vote, the lower the 2/3 vote req for removal
-@RandyInLA | 6:08 PM · Dec 16, 2019

* The Remedy for Mitch McConnell
The Senate majority leader seems uninterested in fulfilling his constitutional duties.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/theres-nothing-impartial-about...

_______________________________________________________________________________

ETA

The latest Russia bombshell bolsters Democrats’ demand for evidence
If witnesses have firsthand knowledge, they must come forward.
Jennifer Rubin | Dec. 20, 2019

...the thought processes of those former senior officials — who would anonymously say that Trump was a Putin puppet but refuse to come forward to provide testimony well before we even got to an impeachment proceeding, in part about Trump’s alleged betrayal of national security* — boggles the mind. They have either given cover to a president who is practically a foreign asset, or they are creating unwarranted fear that he is.

...It is time...to point...directly at Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and others. Do they want to be part of a sham that risks leaving in place Putin’s pawn?

...The holidays are a good time to reflect on things that matter — family, friends and country. Maybe these Republicans will find it within their own consciences and heed the words of House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). “All of us feel a sense of loyalty to party. It’s what makes our two-party system function. . . . But party loyalty must have its limits,” he said. “And as evidence of the President’s impeachable offenses has mounted, it has become increasingly clear that the limits of partisanship have been reached and passed. . . . Democrats and Republicans together face a test before our constituents, our countrymen, and our Creator.” Hoyer ended:

"I urge my colleagues in the House and in the Senate: look into your soul. Summon the courage to vote for our Constitution and our democracy. To do less betrays our oath and that of our Founders, who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Let us neither turn away from the evidence, which is so clear, nor from our good conscience, which compels us to do what in our hearts we know to be right. Let us not allow the rule of law to end or for tyranny to find its toehold."

The key Republican senators can do this by ending the logjam, vowing to vote for key witnesses, including current and past national security advisers, and demanding relevant documents. If they cannot do this bare minimum, you really have to question why they bother running and serving in the Senate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/20/latest-russia-bombshell-bolst...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Former White House officials say they feared Putin influenced the president’s views on Ukraine and 2016 campaign
Shane Harris, Josh Dawsey and Carol D. Leonnig | Dec. 19, 2019

...Trump (said) he knew Ukraine was the real culprit because “Putin told me.”...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/former-white-house-officials-sa...

Mitch, the GOP and the wing-nut radio and TV personalities
wanted the Impeachment process fast-tracked through the
Senate. Pelosi has very wisely s-l-o-w-e-d the process down.
That slowdown is allowing thought-provoking discussions to
percolate throughout the government and the country. The
stretching out of the timetable is the GOP's worst nightmare.

>153 Molly3028: That slowdown is allowing thought-provoking discussions to percolate throughout the government and the country.

Indeed, and that is very important. And just a few weeks ago, weren't the Republicans compaining that the process was too rushed?

>147 theoria:, >148 John5918:

Trump slams US evangelical magazine that called for his removal (Al Jazeera)

US President Donald Trump on Friday blasted the magazine founded by the late Reverend Billy Graham after the influential publication for conservative evangelical US Christians called for him to be removed from office...

Trump... questioned Christianity Today's success and dismissed its call that he be removed from office. "No President has done more for the evangelical community, and it's not even close," Trump tweeted, without providing evidence...