The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

[The Larch]

Because, at this point, all the news re: the Russian treason is partisan news. Trump cultist will forgive anything. The Republicans will support him at any cost. People opposed to Trump already know he betrayed the Republic, and have already suspected that a number of his cronies are in as well. And people who are indifferent to the Russian treason have tuned out, probably vaguely annoyed that it's still in the news.

Which is why the complete breakdown of American institutions warrants a lot more coverage, and a complete overhaul of tone. There are years of truism and mental defenses about "checks and balances" to undo, to rather reveal both the frailties of these institutions, and the astonishing passivity of people in power. Check, for instance, this new account of Trump's meetings in the Pentagon, and how utterly unprepared for Trump the General Staff - and the actual secretaries - were.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/youre-a-bunch-of-dopes-and-babies-inside-trumps-stunning-tirade-against-generals/2020/01/16/d6dbb8a6-387e-11ea-bb7b-265f4554af6d_story.html

I didn't expect Tillerson to be the one who'd come out looking better out of that story.

[Syt]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-admits-to-withholding-evidence-from-impeachment-inquiry

President Trump appeared to admit Wednesday that he is comfortable with how his impeachment trial is playing out in the Senate—because the White House is withholding evidence about his dealings with Ukraine. "Honestly, we have all the material. They don't have the material," the president told reporters in Davos, Switzerland, where he is attending the World Economic Forum, regarding the documents the White House has refused to turn over. "When we released that conversation, all hell broke out with the Democrats because they say, wait a minute, this is much different than shifty Schiff told us, so we're doing very well. I got to watch enough, I thought our team did a very good job," Trump said, referencing House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), who has spearheaded the House impeachment inquiry against the president.

Rep. Val Demings (D-FL), one of the seven congressional impeachment managers, blasted Trump's admission on Twitter, writing, "The second article of impeachment was for obstruction of Congress: covering up witnesses and documents from the American people. This morning the President not only confessed to it, he bragged about it."

[HisMajestyBOB]

Doesn't matter. If Republicans do it, it's not a crime.

[The Minsky Moment]

Ken Starr c. 2020: ""It's really unwise of the House. It's made up. There's really no such thing as obstruction of Congress."

Ken Starr c. 1998: " President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States."

[crazy canuck]

Older and wiser?

[Razgovory]

I liked the Clinton impeachment better.  The whole thing was funny.  The President got a hummer from a fat chick, lied about it, and then tried to weasel out of it.  It was hard to take seriously because the situation was so... silly.  At least that was my impression as a kid in high school.

[Admiral Yi]

I took the impeachment of Clinton more seriously than most Democrats at the very least because I think perjury, especially by the nation's chief of law enforcement, is no joking matter and because I got the distinct impression all the various hangers on were conspiring to cover up Bubba's wrongdoings in Arkansas, but at the same time I never thought there was a serious chance of conviction.

[Berkut]

I took the impeachment of Clinton more seriously than most Democrats at the very least because I think perjury, especially by the nation's chief of law enforcement, is no joking matter and because I got the distinct impression all the various hangers on were conspiring to cover up Bubba's wrongdoings in Arkansas, but at the same time I never thought there was a serious chance of conviction.

I never took the impeachment seriously because it was obviously pretty much partisan BS.

I did think he should resign though.

[The Minsky Moment]

Older and wiser?

The 2020 version is probably more right then the 1998 version (I'm not a big fan of the second article of impeachment vs Trump) but not because he is wiser, more that we just happened on the right time of day for this particular broken clock, where the hands always point resolutely to 3:15.

In retrospect it is astounding that Ken Starr was thought to be an appropriate choice for independent counsel; his conduct was so  inappropriate it helped destroy the institution. The treatment of Lewinski was flat out abusive.  It was pointed out that his office violated the local bar ethics rules in dealing with her to which he responded those rules didn't apply to the Dept of Justice. It was then pointed out the DoJ ethics rules also barred the conduct, at which point he argued that DoJ rules didn't apply to independent counsels. The impeachment recommendations of his report were so overreaching that if seriously applied probably every President would have to be impeached. Its lead author - Brett Kavanaugh (yes that one) - has since repudiated the work, but Starr is still content to bask in his grotesque hypocrisy.

[The Brain]

I didn't pay much attention to the Clinton impeachment. I didn't understand why the president would stoop to answering questions about his sex life so the whole thing came across as weird.

[Barrister]

Politics amuse me.  Polls come out showing Saunders is in the lead?

Suddenly someone is doing an oppo dump releasing statements Saunders made in the 70s about how Vermont workers were basically just like blacks during slavery.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-once-compared-vermont-workers-to-black-slaves?ref=home&via=twitter_page

Of course while the article tries to make it a race issue, I'm more troubled by the naked communism Saunders was supporting (he wants workers to own the means of production).

Really though, Bernie Saunders as the Democratic candidate is about the only way Trump gets re-elected.

[Oexmelin]

Really though, Bernie Saunders as the Democratic candidate is about the only way Trump gets re-elected.

How do you figure? Because of race, or because of leftism?

I see Trump's reelection as a very real possibility, regardless of who gets the Democratic nomination.

[Valmy]

Yeah I admire your optimism, both that the US population would reject extremism or would dump Trump for any reasonable alternative.

[Barrister]

Really though, Bernie Saunders as the Democratic candidate is about the only way Trump gets re-elected.

How do you figure? Because of race, or because of leftism?

I see Trump's reelection as a very real possibility, regardless of who gets the Democratic nomination.

Leftism.  Plenty of people are tired of Trump, ready for a return to normalcy.  Only a radical leftist promising a "revolution" would scare them off enough to vote for Trump instead.

[alfred russel]

I think Biden rocks Trump. Even if all the negatives about Biden are true (he is too old, too senile, low energy, not all that honest and maybe even with some corrupt family members), they are far more true of Trump.