↓
 
Home » Impeachment theater du jour: in a move that should surprise exactly no one…

Impeachment theater du jour: in a move that should surprise exactly no one…

The New Neo Posted on by

…the House Judiciary Committee votes along party lines to approve the two impeachment articles:

“There was an abuse of power at the Department of Justice, there was an abuse of power at the FBI,” Gohmert said in remarks after the vote. “This is a sad day for the country.”

He added, “America needs to hear from the witnesses and we didn’t get to hear from them here. This was a kangaroo court.”

Will the GOP ever get to call witnesses? That depends on what McConnell decides to do in the Senate. Of course, first the House will have to vote to impeach, but I believe that will happen, with enough “ayes” to form a little cushion but allowing quite a few of the vulnerable Democrats in swing districts to vote “no” in an attempt to preserve their re-election possibilities. Of course, voters who don’t favor Trump’s impeachment and yet who might vote to re-elect these Democratics in swing districts because they voted “no” probably don’t take into consideration that electing a Democratic majority is what ensured the impeachment in the first place.

As for McConnell, here’s what he said last night:

The gist of it is that there will be no removal, and how much of a trial will occur will be a decision that’s coordinated between McConnell and the president’s lawyers.

Comments

Impeachment theater du jour: in a move that should surprise exactly no one… — 32 Comments

  2. Yes, been very aware of that fact!

    Mitch says he’ll do what White House lawyers want. Much as a juicy reexamination of the evidence and some new witnesses appeals to me, I’d rather leave the investigating to Durham and throw this thing out on a move to dismiss immediately. Durham has the legal power for a good criminal investigation and his results, though many hunger for them, will come further on in the electoral calendar. That’s a better way to do this than having senators carry on when everyone knows the result already.

  4. Move to dismiss , Great way to enhance the triviality of this whole hissy fit.! Reminds me of my parenting days when you have that youngster acting out, pouting, slamming doors, sighing, sometimes yelling. And you simply say ” Because I m the boss that ‘s why !

  5. What’s best for the country in the long run is probably a long Senate trial where President Trump gets to call every witness he wants and fully expose this whole ugly business for everyone to see.

    What’s probably good for Trump and the GOP in the short run is to treat this impeachment like the nonsense it is and leave the media, the Democrats, and the Left sputtering and fuming about it all the way through the election.

    Mike

  6. IMO, dimissing the charges would be a mistake. That would play right into the DNC-MSM conspiracy allegations. Bring witnesses under oath to debunk the keystone cops ‘investigation’ into the light. This is the biglyest scandal in American history. Expose it and let the DNC-MSM try to explain it away. Give Peoria a chance to pass judgment.

  7. I’m up for a long, messy, no-holds-barred Senate trial.

    I don’t see much downside unless one buys the argument that Joe Biden is the big threat to Trump, therefore part of Pelosi’s impeachment strategy is to clear out the Dem Senators from the primaries, because they will be forced to sit in the Senate for the trial while they would rather be out campaigning.

  8. But no one cares. The Democrats have already lost this one. Dragging it out will just bore people beyond endurance. Who will watch it?

    Second problem is, it wastes a lot of time.

    Third problem is, a long, messy trial will just steal the thunder from the Durham investigation.

    Treat it the way it deserves, a quick termination. Unless — the one exception — if Trump insists on testifying himself. A risky strategy, but he would change all the above arguments since people would watch, and he would have a stage the Democrats foolishly provided him. God knows he would make good use of it!

  9. I beg to differ. A quick determination in the GOP dominated Senate is a huge mistake. As to who will watch? Well, the whole world. Even the msm can’t resist. Yes, the cabal will try to spin, spin but in vane. Let Peoria decide. Barr/Durham will be the second act.

    Don’t back down, go for the throat.

  10. A quick dismissal of the charges has the good effect of allowing the Senate to continue with business (approving judges, USMCA, the China deal etc.) as usual. That could have salutary effects………..except that it leaves the GOP open to the charge of cover up, partisanship, and worse. It brings no closure to the Dems impeachment efforts. They will always claim it was a sham and a cover up.

    A full trial would allow the President the opportunity to bring out all the impeachment schemes, all the plotting, all the plotters, all the corruption of the Dems, all the politicization of the government by Obama, and more. A full trial with skilled defense attorneys could destroy the Democrat party as it exists today. And might even bring reform to the MSM. Yes, I know I’m a cockeyed optimist. However, the desire to get all the chicanery out in the open, where even biased people will recognize the wrongs, runs deep. At this point only Fox News viewers and conservative blog readers know some of the true extent of the politicalization of agencies that was done by Obama and his appointed agency heads. We may never know the full extent of the plot to destroy Trump, but depending on Durham and Barr to do all the work may be a misplaced hope. A full trial followed by indictments by the Durham/Barr efforts could really clear the air in our national politics. And possibly put us back on the road to being a democratic republic that honors the rule of law.

  11. And might even bring reform to the MSM.

    Won’t. I mean, sorry, but how the fuck would this happen? The major problem is monetization now, so where in this ridiculous mess is the cure to that? The parties can openly underwrite their favored organs, which in turn continue to spew canned rhetoric dressed as news and commentary.

    There won’t be independent press on that scheme.

    So, who pays for it? Who makes it independent? Who teaches the need? Who shows the way? I don’t see any answers.

  12. But no one cares. The Democrats have already lost this one. Dragging it out will just bore people beyond endurance. Who will watch it?

    Kai Akker: Speak for yourself. I care. The Democrats may have lost but they could still lose bigger, which could make a difference. The more thoroughly we expose the Democrats’ schemes, the better, I say.

    Wasting time? Well, that could be to Trump’s benefit. Democrats need to pull together their party for the general election.

    The Democrats have wasted three years of the country’s time with this witch hunt. If Trump spends three months worth debunking, it’s more than fair.

    Your claims are your opinions and mostly not supported.

  13. A full trial would allow the President the opportunity to bring out all the impeachment schemes, all the plotting, all the plotters, all the corruption of the Dems, all the politicization of the government by Obama, and more. A full trial with skilled defense attorneys could destroy the Democrat party as it exists today. [J.J.]

    J.J., and Parker, too, I love reading your visions of this. Who wouldn’t want such outcomes?

    But it would take a lot of tricky explication and complicated testimony to arrive at the place you are describing above, J.J. And the Democrats would be countering with all the devious and phony devices they could muster inside the chamber, dirtying the water. Outside the chamber, their brigades would be hurling mud as fast as they could scoop it up, and some of it would stick. And the media, who finally sound a little awkward and embarrassed to me (listening to NPR news on the radio; the smugness is finally gone from their voices), will seize on anything that might justify their bias and woeful errors.

    So I doubt that a clean, clear case will emerge from this. And I think there is risk that in a mud fight, even the right side will get muddy.

    Terminating the case as it deserves shows respect for the voters.

    But however this argument may run, in the end, it is all going to be up to Donald Trump. And I would not bet against him deciding to walk into that Senate and blast them to hell as in a Frank Capra movie.

  14. Trump’s in a heads I win, tails you lose position.
    Quick trial, it was a sham inquiry, there are no crimes nor misdemeanors — the articles likely won’t even reference any of the thousands of pages of Federal law which lists crimes.
    Part of me likes this.
    The other part wants a more thorough trial. With lots of DOJ & FBI swamp critters on the stand.

    Second problem is, it wastes a lot of time.
    While I agree that it “takes up” a lot of time of the Senators, it’s not clear this means policy produces worse results. Bipartisan usually means a BIG new gov’t program that costs a lot, without making things much better except for the chosen businesses who get more profit, and their workers.

    Compared to what Senators have done in other years, passing poorly thought out boondoggle creating laws so as to do better virtue signaling, compared to that, talking ad nauseum about the deep state criminals seems definitely more positive.

    Every week there would be more deep state dirt uncovered and publicized, and the MAGA hat wearers can tell the Dem scolds: “YOU wanted the deep state scum. YOU enabled the gov’t crooked cops”.
    Trump loves winning, and I see any fair trial as likely to allow him lots of publicity winning.

    Whatever Trump decides will be OK with me — his PR / understanding of voters has proven better than me or any pundit.

    In the meantime, Trump has been nominating young conservatives to becoming Federal Judges. The Russian Hoax and this Impeachment Scam have been keeping the Dems away from “Far Right Judges taking over” hysteria & publicity. A big Trial would keep sucking up Publicity Time to reduce time spent on any judge.

  15. …the House Judiciary Committee votes along party lines to approve the two impeachment articles:

    Yep to no ones surprise. Both parties are simply falling in line and doing exactly what their party leaders [and constituents] want. Democrats want him impeached without weighing the actual evidence. Republicans don’t want him impeached without weighing the actual evidence. Alexander Hamilton wins again.

    there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

  16. Montage:

    Are you kidding me?

    The Mueller report and the testimony in the House and all the “evidence” therein amounts to a big fat zero. The 2 impeachment charges, even if they were true, are not high crimes and misdemeanors. We have looked and looked at the evidence and it’s nonexistent or manufactured. The only evidence of wrongdoing is on the side of the FBI to frame the Trump administration.

  17. “Obstruction of Congress” is an huge, enormous absurdity, created by the Congress itself. It is beyond preposterous.
    And the other charge? It is a wee, wee, wee.

    It should not take very long to put this garbage into the toilet by the Senate, despite Democratic maneuverings. But we must take care never to underestimate the enemy, who needs to be crushed to the max.

    This is an effort to take the spotlight off the Bidens, father and son, just as the Russia-meddling claim was a successful effort to take the spotlight off Hillary’s and the DNC’s corruption and her possible treason.

  18. sdferr: “Won’t. I mean, sorry, but how the fuck would this happen? ”

    I get it. They have been completely unscrupulous. What could change that? Economics might help. They are doing poorly now. Won’t someone decide they need to take a different tack to improve the bottom line? Who’s succeeding right now? Fox News, that’s who. Fox does both sides of the story but with a rightward tilt. Why not both sides with a leftward tilt by some TV network? Why not drawing a line between real news and editorializing? There is a need for that approach. People would tune in, buy subscriptions, vote with their dollars.

    The other possibility is that they could be honest and declare their bias up front. That was the way news worked in this country for a long time. Most large cities had a right wing and left wing paper. A lot of people subscribed to both so they could get both sides.

    But your doubts are probably more realistic than my hopes. I’m a cockeyed optimist sometimes. Hope for the best. :-)Prepare for the worst. 🙁

  19. Tom Grey: “Whatever Trump decides will be OK with me — his PR / understanding of voters has proven better than me or any pundit.” That’s true.

  20. Trump should erect a guillotine on the White House lawn and just smile when they ask about it. Or say “tick tock.”

  22. “But however this argument may run, in the end, it is all going to be up to Donald Trump. And I would not bet against him deciding to walk into that Senate and blast them to hell as in a Frank Capra movie.” – Kai

    I would also not take that bet.
    Why shouldn’t we expect a movie plot; trump has been using the wrestling idiom against he Dems for years — the whole last 3 or 4 years has been like living in a long-running reality sitcom with espionage to boot — kind of like an alternate-universe West Wing.

    “A quick dismissal of the charges has the good effect of allowing the Senate to continue with business (approving judges, USMCA, the China deal etc.) as usual. That could have salutary effects………..except that it leaves the GOP open to the charge of cover up, partisanship, and worse. It brings no closure to the Dems impeachment efforts. They will always claim it was a sham and a cover up.” J J

    Trump is doing just fine with business because the Democrats are so wound up with impeachment (of whatever flavor) that his agendas are moving right along anyway. USMCA to be implemented; judges being confirmed; immigration progress being made (the wall is just the talking point that gets the most attention); economy doing so well even the MSM finally had to admit it.
    I say keep the Senate distracted so he can get even more done.

    My position is for a trial because we need to get the facts on the record, not just in the news reports. Also as JJ & others suggest, a dismissal lets the Democrats take Comey’s victory lap of “vindication” because there is not even a need for the MSM & Left to lie about what was said during the trial — the same one he gave Hillary, I note.
    Regardless of the outcome, the Democrats will call it a sham and cover-up (Warren Report, anyone?), but it’s harder if there is an offical record to fight against.

    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Countering_Criticism_of_the_Warren_Report

  23. Footnotes supporting my assertions about Trump’s agenda successes.
    Picking from the Google list; I actually read different posts through the last month on the subjects, but I can never find them again.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/very-quietly-democrats-cave-on-funding-border-wall-in-new-spending-bill/
    Dec 13, 2019

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/huge-win-for-trump-dems-agree-to-emergency-funding-for-border-crisis-they-once-called-fake/
    June 27, 2019

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/democrats-get-rolled-by-trump-and-the-gop-in-final-defense-spending-bill/
    Dec 12, 2019

    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/10/house-democrats-and-trump-administration-reach-usmca-trade-deal.html

    https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-judges-nominees-senate-mcconnell-1475828
    December 7, 2019

    President Donald Trump, who campaigned in 2016 on a promise to remake the federal judiciary, predicted last month that he would nominate more than 180 federal judges to the bench by the end of the year. He is well on track to do so.

    This year alone, the Senate has confirmed 90 of the president’s nominees.

  24. I think an immediate dismissal might be a mistake. But as almost always, it’s probably a good thing I’m not a policy-maker.

  26. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/12/13/trump-response-to-impeachment-n2557969

    President Trump also noted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was “duped” in an interview during POLITICO’s Women Rule Summit in Washington D.C. this week. During questioning she admitted House Democrats have been trying to impeach him for nearly three years.

    “It’s a hoax and Nancy Pelosi knows it. By the way they duped her yesterday, she was on an interview and she said ‘we’ve been working on this for two-and-a half years. So she was working on it, in other words, two years before we ever spoke to Ukraine,” he said. “The reporter was shocked when she got this answer because it showed that she’s a liar.”

  27. I mentioned this a couple of days ago, but RedState has more details (and is better written than the post I linked).

    https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2019/12/13/top-ukraine-official-andriy-yermak-blows-up-key-impeachment-testimony/

    A Ukrainian official, Adriy Yermak, a top adviser to the President of Ukraine, has called into dispute the only exchange between an American official and the Ukrainians alleged to involve quid pro quo in the House Intel Committee Chair Adam Schiff’s impeachment report.

    From Time:

    Based on the testimony from Sondland and other witnesses, the final report from the House Intelligence Committee concluded last week that Sondland made this offer of a quid pro quo clear to Yermak that day in Warsaw. “Following this meeting, Ambassador Sondland pulled aside President Zelensky’s advisor, Mr. Yermak, to explain that the hold on security assistance was conditioned on the public announcement of the Burisma/Biden and the 2016 election interference investigations,” the report states.

    Yermak disputes this. “Gordon and I were never alone together,” he said when TIME asked about the Warsaw meeting. “We bumped into each other in the hallway next to the escalator, as I was walking out.” He recalls that several members of the American and Ukrainian delegations were also nearby, as well as bodyguards and hotel staff, though he was not sure whether any of them heard his brief conversation with Sondland. “And I remember – everything is fine with my memory – we talked about how well the meeting went. That’s all we talked about,” Yermak says.

    Not to mention a further problem with Schiff’s account of this story is that Sondland has already admitted that “no one on earth” (meaning President Donald Trump or any other official) told him to make such a linkage between investigations or an announcement and aid. So had Sondland actually said this, it wasn’t because anyone in authority, like Trump, told him to do so.

    Yermak said he never saw such linkage, same as Zelensky. So this key critical point that Democrats are claiming is completely disputed by Yermak.

    So the report then really has nothing.

    And as Aaron Mate of The Nation notes, no one called Yermak as a witness during the hearings. One has to wonder why? Because he would be able to blow their claim away?

    Another argument in favor of a Senate trial, with GOP calling witnesses for a change.

  28. You all do remember Yermak, don’t you?

    https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/11/14/madame-speaker-hearing-absence-speaks-volumes/

    Especially amusing was Jordan’s reading of the first paragraph of U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland’s addendum statement.

    “Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr.Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019 in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelinsky.”

    Jordan then says, “We’ve got six people having four conversations in one sentence and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding…Now, this is his clarification.”

  29. https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/12/13/levin-fire-every-past-president-subject-impeachment-current-articles-debated-house/

    Let’s look at the committee chairmen and the Speaker. You have Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler. What do they have in common? A lot of things. They talk about the rule of law. They come from sanctuary cities that nullify federal law and they support that. They obstruct ICE and law enforcement. They reject our immigration laws and now they’re talking about the rule of law.

    They don’t believe in the rule of law. The constitution is the law of the land. Not any of these potentates that run these committees and not Nancy Pelosi. It’s the President’s duty to uphold the constitution, not a rogue House where the Democrats are in control.

    Literally every president who crosses the House of Representatives in the future, under the standardless procedures they have in place with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress is subject to potential impeachment if they do not bow to the will of the majority in the House of Representatives.

    First of all, obstruction of Congress, they say, right? Has the Senate done anything yet? So how is it obstruction of Congress? It’s obstruction of a rogue faction of radical Democrats in the House of Representatives.
    …
    Let me tell you something: every past president would be subject to impeachment under the current articles being debated in the House of Representatives.
    …
    The Democratic party needs to be slammed down now! The next Democrat president of the United States must be impeached. Not to get even, not because we are at a low level. But because the Republicans can’t live under one constitution when the Democrats live under another constitution. it’s the only way we are going to stop them. One party cannot be allowed to abuse the constitution yet wave it around while the other party sits there and takes it. The Democrat party must be slammed down. The next Democrat president, if they vote for impeachment against President Donald Trump, must be impeached.

  30. How you can get none of a loaf instead of only half of it, because you wanted all of it.

    https://www.redstate.com/darth641/2019/11/19/governor-huckabee-right-democrats-feeding-trump-landslide-impeachment-circus.-choice

    The Democrats are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. If the Democrats had cooperated with President Trump on Immigration Reform, where he offered them huge compromises—or on the US-Canada-Mexico trade agreement, coupled with his performance thus far, a landslide in 2020 would have been pretty much assured. Rather than cooperate on anything that might accrue to Trump’s political credit, the Democrats needed to do something to deflect. The path they’ve chosen, as Governor Huckabee points out, will lead to a landslide. Landslide or landslide, take your pick. The Democrats are in a very bad place.

  31. On balance, I think that Senate should call a limited number of witnesses, including Turley, Dershowitz, Chalupa, Vindman, and Misko. Don’t call Bidens, Schiff, or Ciaramella – no need to. Let the whistleblower remain behind Schiff’s closed doors while Vindman and Misko obfuscate and try to keep him there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑