President Trump

[JimHow]

This Martha MacCallum in the 7pm Fox News hour seems very solid.

[JimHow]

So I just watched Fox News from 5-8pm on one of the most politically charged days in recent American history.
I have to say in all honesty.
What is all the fuss?
I thought the coverage was EXTREMELY fair.
A touch more to the right than CNN? Eh, maybe, but well between the 40 yard lines.
Particularly impressed with this Martha MacCallum in the 7pm hour, I see NOTHING that the left should be bitching about.
She had Trey Gowdy on at the end but even he was not batshit crazy in his defense of Trump, he actually made some sober points.

I fear for the poor, elderly, women, immigrants, and those who ultimately need health care, but frankly, I think we are not in as bad shape as the crazies in the political parties and media would have us all believe. We've got problems. Big problems. The environment is an existential crisis. But overall I think we will survive. The United States is very resilient, it's like our livers, it can take all this abuse and bile, over and over, and nonetheless keep regenerating itself....

[Chateau Vin]

It's an astonishing discussion that we got here...But the state of affairs in the country is akin to "a trial lawyer arguing in the court while half the jury is not even present..." Jeez, I will get back to this later...

Jim, I assume it's your frustration that DJT has been getting away with lot of things. And maybe the lawyer in you sees how petty criminals get locked up for trivial things, but a rich, law breaking and constitution trashing President can get away with almost anything as of now.

In reference to the wikipedia definition of steele dossier, I wouldn't put much emphasis on wikipedia, especially related to controversial, sensitive or political in nature stuff. Well, I am a registered editor of wikipedia, and everybody knows that anyone can edit the wikipedia pages...

Come on Jim. Maybe the political calculus in you is saying that Trump's impeachment enquiry should not move forward. I don't understand why next year elections should matter to carry out investigations of wrong doings (I am pretty sure everyone in good conscience agree there are at least probable causes to investigate). The presidential term is just 4 years, and by the time impeachable offense happens, comes to light and the legal process slumbers on, you are not gonna have 2, 3 years left to carry on impeachment proceedings. Then basically, it will be abrogation of constitutional duties of the house, and can you imagine the absolute of power resting with executive with no oversight? I am pretty sure you won't argue in front of a judge that "the defendant anyway does not have much time to live and therefore let's not proceed with this trial and find the truth". It seems to me like the line of Mitch McConnell when he said that "the election is around the corner, so let's not appoint Supreme Court nominee now". I remember you saying at that time that the republicans stole the SC seat. If you were so pissed that time that the Senate did not fulfill it's constitutional duties, why are you unhappy that the House Dems are performing their constitutional duties. It's not like the House Dems are talking about impeachment right from the beginning. Yeah, maybe there are a few AOC crowd that are like that, but just as you say that not all republicans are bad, not all house dems can be equated with AOC crowd either.

But if I understand you correctly, your motivation to not go toward impeachment inquiry is for not riling up republicans to reelect DJT. But the quandary is, you can pretty much never have any ability to investigate executive power's excesses/law-breakings in these times we live in with country divided right in the middle!

Coming back to the first line I stated....One of my serious hobbies is photography. It gave me opportunity to travel to and travel through some of the unknown and forgotten places in the US. Many times, I have traveled through Trump country, native Indian reservations and rural areas away from the coasts and metro areas. In fact, as an Asian with brown skin, I was scared about my safety few times! As much heartbreaking as it is to see their conditions, I think I do have a sense of why they support Trump. It's not that they view him as savior, but they are just fed up with Washington and they hired a hitman to shake up things! I think the religious right felt that washington republicans are ignoring and compromising on social issues, so what did they do? They hired a hitman, DJT, to get the job done! As grotesque as his nature of doing the business or running the country, the tax cut favoring people and the rich poured in money to hire a hitman to do their bidding! And never mind the implicit/explicit racial bias against Obama (sadly the racial bias is not just white vs. black, which what we generally think of, but it's in full glory when I saw my rich asian relatives throwing racial slurs at Obama!!!) that quite a few people of metro suburbia harbor-- they hired a hitman to purge the deeds of previous administration. This is the state of the State, divided right in the middle, devoid of any sense of what is right, what is just and what is democratic. Just blind loyalty, pure tribalism without any upholding of democratic duties and norms.

That's why I state that half the jury is not present in the court proceedings! Jim, I know you watched Fox news too, but I was watching Fox News today afternoon, and one would think that the broadcast is from a different planet or from a different time frame. Half the country, beholden to Fox and willing to sacrifice knowing the facts, are absent from the proceedings that would have at least helped them see the facts for themselves and then decide. And never mind the likes of Maddow, going gaga over every trivial thing, gushing over nothing burgers in her seemingly never ending detectivesque rants...I was never disappointed that MSNBC's experts' promise of Mueller report's treason never materialized. Because, I never bought into their opinionated cuckoo head story telling...And I roll my eyes when I see anchors like Don lemon on CNN...

In earlier decades, irrespective of political leanings, people had access to same (if not exact) set of news facts. So in the past, peoples' views on abuse of power, when it came to light, have changed. But now, with this information chasm among the people, I don't think opinions about impeachment will change much. We will be operating in this half and half environment for years to come without any overwhelming public opinions towards one side or the other on any serious issues. But for me, that doesn't mean we should avoid investigating if there is probable cause and relegate it to the next election cycle...

[JimHow]

Thank you for your thoughtful message CV.

Although you don't speak to it in your message, I will assume you take the position similar to that of David G, Racer Chris, and Blanquito, that impeachment proceedngs need to commence against Donald Trump.

And I'm going to further make the assumption that you, David, Blanquito, and Chris believe that we should proceed with some unspecified article or articles of impeachment against DJT in the U.S. House of Reprepresentaives, even though it appears basically 100% unlikely that the required 19-20 Republican senators will ever swing over with the Democrats to actually convict DJT on the unspecified article(s) and have him physically removed from the White House, 1600 Pennsylavania Ave, NW, Washington.

And thus I'm going to then seemingly logically conclude that you think that this fruitless exercise in constitutional bravado will somehow benefit an already severely divided electorate.

So I guess my question to you, David, et al, is this: Explain to me how a fruitless, nation-destroying impeachment effort to have Donald Trump removed from the White House will:

a) Benefit the country.

b) Help to get a Democrat elected to the presidency in 2020.

[JimHow]

By the way, can someone tell me what was so special about Hunter Biden that allowed him to receive $50,000 per month on some board out in Ukraine?

If his dad weren't Veep, would he be receiving this windfall? Just a question.

[DavidG]

Impeaching Trump...

Thought I laid out my position pretty clearly. Nothing you’ve written has changed it. Not the irrelevant and inaccurate (based on inadequate sample size) assessment of Fox News, not the attempt at distraction with questions about Biden father or son, neither of whom are the subject of the debate.

At the risk of repeating myself, impeachment:

Will not be fruitless.
Is the right thing to do.
Is the correct way to formally accuse Trump of his crimes.
Will show the nation and the world that some segment of our leadership has the spine to finally say no.
Will force Rs to vote to ignore Trump's crimes, giving Ds a campaign weapon.
Will offer an opportunity for Ds to go on the offensive in the media.
Will give the media an opportunity to focus on Trump's subversion of our democratic ideals.

Whether Ds can rise to the occasion and whether the media* can avoid the both-siderism and false equivalencies that you’ve so clearly demonstrated in your posts today is in serious doubt. But it’s time to make a stand, even if success isn’t measured by removal from office.

*TV media incompetence is another of my pet peeves and another topic where I know we differ. Maybe we can debate that tomorrow.

[JimHow]

This "false equivalencies" argument is a new one I'm hearing from you only today, DavidG.

Query re false equivalencies:

Are the "crimes" from the Mueller investigation that you and others here were promising would result in removal from office and/or indictment more, less, or "equally" serious to/than those arising from the 15 minute phone call with the comedian from the Ukraine?

And: Not sure whether you answered this question previously:
What are the specific allegations in your articles of impeachment?

[JimHow]

I guess the point I'm trying to get at, David, is:

I'm the lawyer defending Donald Trump.

In your impeachment quest to bring down the presidency of the United States, what specifically am I defending?

What is in your impeachment indictment?
Am I defending stuff from the Mueller investigation?
Am I defending tax issues before my client was president?

Am I defending only the hearsay allegations that are less than a week old pertaining to a 15 minute phone conversation?

Be specific what I'm defending here.

[Racer Chris]

I just heard that Paul Ryan is partly behind the decision at Fox News to part ways with Trump.

[Blanquito]

“In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. government officials that the president of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election" -- from the Whistle-Blower statement.

This statement, by itself, is 100% an impeachable offense and boy should it be even, without the fact that Trump also held up US aid to Ukraine to extort their cooperation.

Indeed, this is nearly the exact accusation leveled at Trump for working with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election, for which he was only "excused" for because of lack of evidence!!! These facts by themselves should enrage every single American who believes in Democracy.

Jim, I love you and you may be playing devil's advocate here, but how the President's actions, using the full weight and authority of his office -- including the diplomatic, financial, and as is increasingly evident, law enforcement powers of the executive branch to extort a foreign country utterly dependent on our aid and goodwill to pursue debunked dirt on a political rival -- can be equated to a private citizen hiring a private detective to do RESEARCH on the potential crimes of Trump (AKA the Steele dossier*) is beyond me.

*Moreover, the Steele dossier was initiated and initially paid for by other Republicans! https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/p ... ained.html

[Blanquito]

Any why the hell isn't Barr being forced to recuse himself? He is named by Trump in the "transcript" and in the whistle-blower's statement and is as such a party directly concerned in the criminal* matter at hand!.

*Maguire referred the matter to the Justice Department to evaluate its potential as a criminal act.

[jal]

By the way, can someone tell me what was so special about Hunter Biden that allowed him to receive $50,000 per month on some board out in Ukraine?

If his dad weren't Veep, would he be receiving this windfall? Just a question.

That's what the NYTimes Editorial had to say about this in Dec 2015:

Sadly, the credibility of Mr. Biden’s message may be undermined by the association of his son with a Ukrainian natural-gas company, Burisma Holdings, which is owned by a former government official suspected of corrupt practices. A spokesman for the son, Hunter Biden, argues that he joined the board of Burisma to strengthen its corporate governance. That may be so. But Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, has been under investigation in Britain and in Ukraine. It should be plain to Hunter Biden that any connection with a Ukrainian oligarch damages his father’s efforts to help Ukraine. This is not a board he should be sitting on.

The whole piece:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/opin ... ule=inline

[jal]

The strategy by the Democrats may actually be just to put enough pressure on Trump and see if he shoots himself in the foot. The man is arrogant enough and narcissistic enough to make bad mistakes and bring down his own administration.

[Chateau Vin]

By the way, can someone tell me what was so special about Hunter Biden that allowed him to receive $50,000 per month on some board out in Ukraine?

If his dad weren't Veep, would he be receiving this windfall? Just a question.

Nothing special about him other than his last name being Biden, and his father Joe happens to be veep. Is it illegal? It would be just as illegal as other DC politicians and former government bureaucrats sitting on the boards of countless US and foreign companies. Like Kissinger and George Schultz who sat on the board of that fraudulent company Theranos, which was corrupt and which defrauded investors to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Did the company want favorable treatment from the US and therefore he was offered the seat? Probably. Did the company get favorable treatment from the US govt.? I do not know, but if it did and if there is a probable cause for that, then needs to be investigated. But as long as he is not culpable and did not partake in corruption while he was on the board, I wonder what else can you do...

[Chateau Vin]

Thank you for your thoughtful message CV.

Although you don't speak to it in your message, I will assume you take the position similar to that of David G, Racer Chris, and Blanquito, that impeachment proceedngs need to commence against Donald Trump.

I do not know exactly what others' positions are, but my rationale is that...."we have enough information for a probable cause that abuse of power or some illegality has taken place in the WH. The congress has the duty to have the oversight over the executive branch and need to look into it. They believe an impeachment enquiry would shed the light on the facts...Let the facts come out, and see if the facts render some meat on the bones...But atleast they should look into it. I mean without looking into it, how would you even know what exactly happened?..."

And I'm going to further make the assumption that you, David, Blanquito, and Chris believe that we should proceed with some unspecified article or articles of impeachment against DJT in the U.S. House of Reprepresentaives, even though it appears basically 100% unlikely that the required 19-20 Republican senators will ever swing over with the Democrats to actually convict DJT on the unspecified article(s) and have him physically removed from the White House, 1600 Pennsylavania Ave, NW, Washington.

My understanding is, once congress proceeds with the impeachment enquiry, then one can ascertain under what articles the house impeachment process can proceed (if at all if the inquiry unearths and produces factual evidence for the impeachable offenses). Regarding the senate, my question would be -- does the house need to do its duty depending on the outcome of the senate, or does it need to do independent of what the senate does? If it's the former, doesn't that mean if the senate is divided right down in the middle, no president will ever (I emphasise, EVER) be held accountable for any transgressions, however grave they are! I mean, even if there is overwhelming prosecutorial evidence that the guilty verdict for a defendant is a foregone conclusion, shouldn't the defendant lawyer still do his/her job and argue before the court to the best of his/her abilities?

And thus I'm going to then seemingly logically conclude that you think that this fruitless exercise in constitutional bravado will somehow benefit an already severely divided electorate.

So I guess my question to you, David, et al, is this: Explain to me how a fruitless, nation-destroying impeachment effort to have Donald Trump removed from the White House will:

a) Benefit the country.

The benefit is the 'rule of the law'. If someone broke the law, he/she should be held accountable. The senate might not convict and DJT might still finish his term. But I don't see the effort as fruitless. I don't see it as nation-destroying effort either. In fact I see that as a sign of working democracy, albeit not necessarily fully functional democracy. Sure, it will cause heart ache to the nation, but atleast the people will get the facts about what exactly happened, and maybe the congress will devise laws that would make future Presidents more accountable for any misuse/abuse of power. Well, you said that US is resilient. So there you have it. No need to worry about heart ache it will cause! If a nation can overcome a civil war (divided right down the middle), the consternation that this impeachment enquiry might cause is a chump change...

b) Help to get a Democrat elected to the presidency in 2020.

For me, this enquiry is not about electing a democrat in 2020. I am neither a democrat, nor a republican. I voted both ways depending on the candidate and issues at hand. Nobody can buy my vote, but only can earn it. I am neither rich nor powerful. My well being is dependent on the rule of law. That's the only thing that protects me, helps me move forward and have upward mobility and puts my children in a better position in the future. So I want the rule of law to reign supreme...And if people have to acknowledge that lady justice is infact blind and everyone is equal before the law, that should include president too....

Generally speaking, had the rule of law routinely favored only the few, the people who are rich and powerful now would not have gotten there in the first place. But how ironic is that the same people are now bending the law, abusing the law and breaking the law with whim...

[JimHow]

Impeachment is an unusual animal because it is a combination of law and politics. It cannot just be about whether the president “broke the law” because presidents break laws all the time and abuse power all the time, and can be subjected daily to interpretations that he/she broke the law. If you haven’t read it since high school or college perhaps now is the time to pull out your dusty volume of Profiles in Courage and the chapter on Edmund G. Ross. There has been revisionism since Sorensen/Kennedy but I like to idealize that Ross stood for the principle that there needs to be a separation of powers, that the independence of the presidency from the rabble of the Congress is paramount to our system that has worked so well for going on three centuries, and that the national general presidential election is sacred and should be disrespected only in the most extreme of circumstances. We all agree Orange is slime, including many of his supporters. But he is a slime who was lawfully elected under the constitutional electoral college system that currently exists. And I just don’t analyze it as purely as you do, CV. I analyze it more like Edmund Ross did. Andrew Johnson was in many ways even worse than Orange Head. But the country survived him, and the presidency was saved by his “courageous” vote. (Or maybe it was just a bribe, but I’ll choose to believe Kennedy’s version of history.) The presidency and its independence is not something to be diminished so easily, or upon whichever political winds happen to be blowing. We will just have to agree to disagree that the likelihood of conviction should play a role in all of this. You think it shouldn’t, I think it should. Prosecutors in criminal cases every day make decisions not to prosecute based on whether they think they can ultimately prove their cases, and if they can’t they often dismiss them. And Tulsi Gabbard and I disagree with you that the extreme pain that will be brought to an already highly divided country should not be forced on the public, in an election year, on an exercise that has zero chance of succeeding. And finally, and I disagree with you here as well, I think there SHOULD be consideration about the potential political ramifications in 2020, that, like Rove, I believe the Dems are engaging in a circular firing squad, that it will hurt members in swing districts, and that it will also alienate swing Reagan Democrat and working class voters in the rust belt and other swing states, and result in Orange Head getting re-elected for another four years of fun and mayhem. Ignoring that disastrous prospect to me is just an AOC-like lack of common sense. He’s not going to be convicted. Let the people decide his fate, just a short year from now.

[Racer Chris]

Mike Pence met with the Ukrainian President this past summer, in the middle of the timeline in question.
There's a good chance he goes down with the Trump yacht.
The first woman president in the US may not need to be elected.

[JimHow]

Lol, wow, Lindsay Graham et al are not only going to convict Orange Head but Pence as well, resulting in President Pelosi. Can't wait!

[JimHow]

David Brooks spells it out better than me:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/opin ... e=Homepage

[DavidG]

I guess the point I'm trying to get at, David, is:

I'm the lawyer defending Donald Trump.

In your impeachment quest to bring down the presidency of the United States, what specifically am I defending?

What is in your impeachment indictment?
Am I defending stuff from the Mueller investigation?
Am I defending tax issues before my client was president?

Am I defending only the hearsay allegations that are less than a week old pertaining to a 15 minute phone conversation?

Be specific what I'm defending here.

As to why impeachment should happen, I’ll second CV's reasons. He puts it more eloquently than I can.

Possible charges, the Ds will have to weigh whether to bring them all or only some:

Soliciting a foreign power to interfere in our election.
Intentionally up-classifying documents to cover up the above.
Obstruction of justice.

Probably a few others that could be brought.

I agree with you that impeachment is a political and legal process, and that there needs to be public support. But that support does not need to be mustered before impeachment proceedings begin. The proceedings themselves should bring to light details that will make the case, and that should swing public opinion. It’s not just a vote. Nixon resigned before there was a vote in the Senate. There’s always a possibility the Ds will screw it up. Like you, I’ve been dismayed by their past performance. Hoping they have it together for this.

So far, the public has been exposed to reporting that is so both-sides that it has intelligent people wondering whether the Clintons and Biden’s are the ones who have abused government power.

[Blanquito]

Mike Pence met with the Ukrainian President this past summer, in the middle of the timeline in question.
There's a good chance he goes down with the Trump yacht.
The first woman president in the US may not need to be elected.

There's more to this story than just Trump's phone call to Kiev. My guess, a lot more.

[Blanquito]

Technically, impeachment of course requires no public support.

We can all agree it is a bad idea without it, but the Constitution doesn't require a poll or a referendum. In fact, it leaves it entirely up to Congress to decide what constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor. The framers wanted Congress to be the ultimate power in DC, not the President. If the public doesn't like an impeachment, they can vote their representatives out of office (which to a degree happened after the Clinton impeachment).

[JimHow]

The numbers I’ve been seeing have been around 57% opposition to impeachment.

The founders may have created Congress in Article 1 over 200 years ago but I think most experts and regular citizens as well have desired a strong executive branch and have agreed that the country has clearly benefitted from a strong office of the presidency.

[johnz]

I agree with Jim, that Ukraingate will help Trump in 2020 just like Russiagate did.

Russiagate was an invention by the Democratic leadership as a way to avoid changing policy after their 2016 election drubbing and becoming the party of Bernie Sanders. Russiagate kept the Democratic leadership in tact, but it won’t get them any more votes in 2020, and they really don’t care.

Remember, Trump in 2016 portrayed himself as an anti-establishment working class champion, promising to “drain the swamp.” The obvious direction for Democrats to go in 2020 is to go with a real anti-establishment candidate who could easily point out that Trump has enlarged the swamp for himself and his billionaire criminal cabinet. But no, that would mean changing policy and actually opposing Trump on bombing Syria, or creating genocide in Yemen, or doing away with private health insurance. Instead of trying to impeach Trump for splitting up migrant families after a Court ordered him to stop, or for illegal hush money payments to a porn star, or using his office to steal from working class people and line his pockets every day, Democratic leadership tries to impeach him for going after Joe Biden – the other faction of the establishment neoliberal elite – because that’s verboten. Half of the country will not understand this.

And a good portion of people will see that, like Russiagate, instead of being an actual opposition party that challenges Trump policies, Democrats instead rely on “intelligence officials” and continue to be the party of militarism and Wall Street money.

Who the hell is going to bother to vote for any of them?

--Gary Rust

[Chateau Vin]

Jim, I understand that impeachment is a combination of law and politics, and is hard to grapple with it for you want to do the right thing in the end. I get that Presidents break the law from time to time, but it is generally based on the way they interpret it. That's why we rely on the judicial system to correctly interpret it to avoid any ambiguities and settle disagreements. As you know it, that's another spoke in the wheel to have checks and balances ensuring and safeguarding democracy.

Based on the facts, I cannot equate current situation with Edmund Ross/Profiles of courage. It seems to me the roles are reversed and is the mirror image of what happened in 1868. The fact was Johnson was charged for violating Tenure of Office act (it's not even a vital act that goes to the heart of democracy, but a congress-passed act, nonetheless). If I remember correctly, the articles of impeachment also included "ABOUT TO commit some army related violations". Really? "ABOUT TO"? Congress was trying to convict someone for things one might do something? Looks like Minority Report to me. The 1868 congress was trying to impeach based on violation of a trivial act, and I don't see 2018 congress doing the equivalency of it. Soliciting help from a foreign government to interfere in US elections goes to the heart of US democracy. Digging up dirt on opposition is one thing and asking foreign govt. to start an investigation (and not to mention offering US DOJ machinery in the process) for political gain is another thing. And that too after all this Mueller thing, and repeated warnings and confirmations by heads of FBI and other intelligence agencies about such illegality?

Edmund Ross was concerned about fair trial for Johnson and he openly expressed so. I think the evidence favoring Johnson was not even admitted in the proceedings! Ross had misgivings about how the trial itself was conducted. He voted nay in the end, but he never opposed the enquiry to take place. 2018 congress is doing the enquiry, and I think that is the right thing to do. Let the proceedings take place and determine if was conducted in a fair manner or not. Let us hear both sides and see what evidence is allowed and what is not. Let the facts come out, and if they rise to the level impeachable offense they do. If they don't, they don't. The enquiry will tell the public what the facts are, and impeachment vote might not even be necessary. And maybe people, instead of congress might decide based on what comes out of the enquiry. As Edmund Ross himself said after his vote that "independence of executive branch itself was on trial". I think he was alluding to executive branch's hiring/firing of chosen federal post holders and the 'tenure of office act'. But the current circumstances are much different and the stakes are much more as it alludes to our sanctity of democracy. So let's just enquire about this stuff that is very damaging to our democracy.

Some might claim, "oh impeachment is a runaway train. Why even go there?" Then where are the checks and balances? Why is it even there in the constitution if it cannot be used in extreme circumstances. As much as people's mandate is paramount, the founders also put impeachment in the constitution (Not to use it willy nilly though, that's why the bar is also set high...). Correct me if I am wrong-- although I can't fathom what's exactly in the minds of the founders, the takeaway for me from the US constitution is... "as important as people's mandate is, democracy and democratic principles are paramount and everything else flows from it!" People's mandate to elect president is a means to achieve the ideals of democracy. Presidents come and go, people's choices waver, but democracy and democratic principles should and must stay put!!! That's why I feel the enquiry should proceed.

I see your point about the convictability, but on the other side of the coin is should we not do anything if the chance of convictability is close to zero? On that note, if even more brazen acts follow, should congress wait out because the president can't get convicted anyway? Jim, you mentioned that prosecutors might not choose to prosecute certain cases based on whether they think they can prove their cases. But I think the case here is different. For prosecutors, the issue is more of whether there is enough evidence or not to get a conviction, but not if there would be any bias from the judge. In the case of impeachment process, the convictability of Orange in the senate is probably not about the evidence (albeit I will reserve about culpability after the impeachment enquiry facts play out), but more about the senate's partisan vote of his acquittal. If Edmund Ross's profile of courage of his non-partisan vote (which he said he cast his as such) is to be followed by the senators, most likely Pence will finish the term.

US spent trillions of dollars and sacrificed thousands of servicemen to spread democracy around the world and extolled the virtues of it. It reprimanded undemocratic regimes. What moral authority does US have if democratic principles at home are trampled and let foreign interests have a say in our democracy? People huffed and puffed about Mueller investigation and some people got disappointed when it was not conclusive about certain things. But, I thought it was a good thing. Without that, we wouldn't have known the players who were involved trying to subvert our democracy, we wouldn't have known the tools that were used to destroy our democracy and we wouldn't have known what tools we could use to prevent from happening it again (that's another topic of discussion if we fixed our system or not!). We had probable causes about wrong doings and came to know lot of things through Mueller investigation. We have probable cause to believe that certain illegalities have taken place at WH, and we need an impeachment enquiry to know the facts. DOJ refused to act, and so did the top law enforcement agency under the directive of DOJ. Proceed with impeachment vote or not, I want to know the facts and congress should do its job with inquiry.

[Chateau Vin]

.
.
.. And Tulsi Gabbard and I disagree with you that the extreme pain that will be brought to an already highly divided country should not be forced on the public, in an election year, on an exercise that has zero chance of succeeding. .
.
.
..

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/27/us/p ... hment.html

[JimHow]

...And so the scene is set for impeachment, CV, we shall see whether this results in the mutual goal of removal of Orange Head from the presidency in 2020.

[JimHow]

Prediction:

President Donald J. Trump will not only NOT be removed from office, he will be reelected with at least as many electoral votes (304) as he did in that great Bordeaux vintage year of 2016.

Who wants to bet?

[DavidG]

I'll take that bet. He probably won’t be removed from office but I don’t think he'll get 304 electoral votes if he makes it that far. Failure to run again for any reason also counts as not getting 304 electoral votes.

How about a bottle of 1989 Lynch Bages?

[JimHow]

Deal. Orange Head will make mince meat out of the Schiff-ty Democrats.

[JimHow]

Trump fundraising surging:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-re-e ... cle_inline

[JimHow]

When can we expect the impeachment of Mr. Trump?

[felixp21]

lol, as an interested observer from afar, it boggles the mind to see just how stupid the Democrats are, simply incredible.
No way on this Earth Trump is getting impeached, and after this fiasco, his position amongst the electorate will be further strengthened.
If only the nutty Demos would actually tackle him on his many, many absurd policies, rather than his nasty character, his ignorance and his social awkwardness, they would have a decent chance of winning.
As someone living in a communist country, I can tell you the locals are thinking "thank god we don't have that crappy democratic nonsense here"
The CCP will have never felt more secure than they do now, with Donald and Boris the poster children for a failing political system.

[JimHow]

Well said, Felix, it truly is astounding how stupid the Democratic Party and the mainstream media are.
Incredibly, they are going to screw up the 2020 election... again... just like 2016.
I truly think they believed that Orange Head was just going to roll over and let them have their way.
I can’t wait to see their next flavor of the day theory as to why DJT should be removed.
The Trump fan base up here in northern Maine is beyond energized, it is rabid.

[jal]

Hmmmmm

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-wins ... yURL_share

In all honesty, what do you guys think?

[JimHow]

Can somebody tell me what an impeachment “inquiry” is, and how it differs from an impeachment “proceeding”?
I don’t recall an “inquiry” in Watergate or Clinton.
Isn’t an impeachment “proceeding” an “inquiry” followed by a vote whether to impeach?

[AKR]

My feel is that the first gnawing pangs of a recession has started, especially in manufacturing, and among the blue states that flipped to DJT in 2016. I think those voters more tolerate Trump, and were willing to try something different, than really rabid for him.

If one were some Harley Davidson worker, or GM assembly line guy, in a plant in the Heartland I don't think they care all that much other than get they enough hours to keep their life running.

Consumers in the coastal, service economy may feel differently. But my guess is that those are not persuadable voters in battleground states (mostly).

[DavidG]

There were plenty of closed hearings re: Watergate to gather evidence prior to the more orchestrated open hearings. Good investigators don’t do it all out in the open. Though I suppose a good defense attorney would argue they should.

The words used to describe the investigation are less important than what is actually accomplished. Each passing day seems to result in Trump and/or members of his administration giving the Ds more rope to fashion into a noose. Time will tell if he slips the knot. I think any one of several of Trump's actions are impeachable. Just hope the Ds don’t screw it up.

Of course the Rs won’t convict unless truly batshit horrible stuff is undeniable by even the Trumpiest Senators. But there should be plenty brought into the open to convince the non-delusional voter to boot the thug out. Unless Arv is right and they place their personal comfort above our process of government.

[Racer Chris]

Can somebody tell me what an impeachment “inquiry” is, and how it differs from an impeachment “proceeding”?
I don’t recall an “inquiry” in Watergate or Clinton.
Isn’t an impeachment “proceeding” an “inquiry” followed by a vote whether to impeach?

The Speaker of the House has the power to fashion it in any way she sees fit. There is no rule requiring a floor vote before the inquiry.

[Racer Chris]

I wouldn't ordinarily have anything good to say about the man but, John Bolton is going to come out looking like a true patriot for the way he handled the Ukraine scandal as it was unfolding.