Pelosi argued Trump is daring them to impeach him because he believes it would help him “solidify his base” ahead of his 2020 re-election. Pelosi said that puts Democrats in a dilemma.There's also "The nightmare scenario for Democrats on Trump’s corruption" by Greg Sargent (at WaPo). Sargent is recommending impeachment proceedings in order to generate a legitimate purpose for the House to get Trump's tax returns. Without impeachment proceedings, there's a good chance that a court would reject "just rummaging through Trump’s returns to embarrass him and not for a legitimate legislative purpose." And that loss would make Democrats look bad right before the 2020 elections. Sargent says:
“We can’t impeach him for political reasons, and we can’t not impeach him for political reasons,” Pelosi said. “We have to see where the facts take us."
This would constitute an epic, disastrous failure. Not getting Trump’s returns would allow him to get away with one of his most blatant acts of contempt for transparency, for the separation of powers and for the notion that basic accountability should apply to him at all.That's histrionic. If the courts took the position Sargent is afraid of, it would be because the court was enforcing separation of powers, limiting Congress to the legislative role and protecting the Executive power from encroachment. Trump isn't showing "contempt" for separation of powers. He's taking a position on separation of powers. That position would either win or lose in court, and the court would give the final answer on the meaning of separation of powers.
Sargent says that "if Democrats were to initiate an impeachment inquiry, it would create a legislative purpose for compelling release of the returns that is basically unassailable — that legislative purpose being impeachment." Sargent quotes a legal expert who says “I don’t see how any information can be withheld — the Mueller report, tax returns, anything. This would make it airtight.” The expert suggests that even without impeachment, Democrats could just say their legitimate legislative purpose for getting anything they want from Trump is to figure out whether to start impeachment proceedings. It seems to me that any of that would lead to the same resistance from Trump and need to resort to the courts, with the same potential for the "nightmare scenario" outcome for Democrats.
Sargent doesn't say that that Democrats "must launch an inquiry right this second." But they need to put it "on the table clearly as a point toward which they are converging out of necessity" and "more forthrightly engage with the argument that the failure to do this could end up with Democratic oversight mostly being neutered, with no remaining options." So... forthrightly admit that they are cornered?
I think Pelosi is taking another path. She knows they are cornered, and she's not going to admit that. Her idea is to shift attention to Trump: Look, he's trying to make us impeach him! She's trying to get Democrats to adjust to what she knows must happen. There won't be an impeachment. Start thinking that impeachment is what Trump wants.
पोस्ट्स
१७७ टिप्पण्या:
I know it's not PC to say it anymore, but this sure sounds like the old tale of "don't toss me into that briar patch"...
Democrats say: If we had some ham we could have a ham sandwich if we had some bread.
Heh.®
Nancy Pelosi reminds me of the lemming at the front of the pack leading the charge...who has suddenly realized what is ACTUALLY going to happen when they reach the cliff's edge, and is desperately trying to get the lemmings behind her to stop. Stop! For the love god, STOP!
Is anybody else as sick of eating all of this popcorn as I am? You couldn't make this up if you tried.
Pelosi is the smart, strategic political thinker among the Democrats, maybe the only one. She is clearly not suffering from TDS. She is planning and plotting to do what she believes is in the best interest of the Democrat's power and politics.
As for Trump, I'm with BADuBois; that's the first thing I think of when seeing how Trump behaves on this.
I think about Pelosi every time I take a shit because we have a 'Pelonis' space heater still sitting in front of the throne.
President Trump also has been goading Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller to testify to Congress.
Nancy is realizing just how idiotic the Dems look. Citizens are working, making more money, looking for a brighter future, and all they see are the Dems wanting to stop all of that good stuff, no matter what, even if they have to make some shit up.
Losers.
I'm waiting for Pelosi to walk over to Maxine Waters, pull the mask off Scooby Doo-style, and exclaim, "Old man Trump!!!"
Pelosi, Schiff, Chuck Schemer, and the Waddler remind me of a chihuahua nipping at Trump's heels. Every now and then he turns around and boots them back 20 yards or so.
What a charismatic leadership group!
Is Sargent serious? I mean, you could possibly argue that initiating impeachment specifically on tax fraud grounds would create a legitimate cause for gaining access specifically to tax records.
But to suggest that they can just start impeachment proceedings and that gives them the right to everything, because until they look at everything they can't know what they're impeaching him for?
He can't honestly think it works (or should work) that way, can he?
Nancy Pelosi is many things but politically naive is not one of them.
I'm pretty sure that even in the case of impeachment, Congress would need an actually REASON to get the President's tax returns. "We just want to see them" doesn't qualify. There would have to be some at least vaguely legitimate and specific question to answer.
Mike
“We can’t impeach him for political reasons, and we can’t not impeach him for political reasons,” Pelosi said.
You know who else is damned if they do and damned if they don't?
The Chinese trade negotiators.
I hate to say it but I don't think we will get through this election without serious violence.
The crazy "Gay" state legislator is just one example of this stuff.
In video first reported by Live Action News on Sunday, Pennsylvania state Rep. Brian Sims, a Democrat and self-styled LGBT activist, harassed an elderly pro-life sidewalk counselor outside a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic. In an update from pro-life site LifeNews on Monday, video emerged of Rep. Sims targeting more pro-lifers; this time he was harassing and offering money to dox three teenage girls praying outside the abortion clinic.
Now, the Sheriff for the county that surrounds Portland OR is seriously considering refusing calls in Portland because of danger to his officers.
The Portland PD is seriously unstaffed because of resignations. ANTIFA can become the police, I guess.
They seem to be ready to take over.
I guess my comment was too long so here is the quote,.
“If you’re opposed to fascism then you are Antifa because it’s anti-fascism. That could be a lot of things,” Ariel stated after Bell asked about Antifa’s beliefs. “Maybe they’re a great programmer, and they could build a website to educate children.”
“So I went to visit this protest in Portland. There was like the Proud Boys and this group called ACT. It’s anti-Islamic and this guy just ran at these two girls and so they were both wearing hijabs and he definitely looked like he was going to hit them, jump on them,” she later added. “I didn’t really even think about it, I jumped, like, at him but I picked him up like off the ground and I threw him on the ground and I jumped on him and started, like, punching him.”
Ariel also at one point showed Bell her brass knuckles and a knife she keeps on her.
The zeal to get at Trump's tax returns is funny and odd.
The fear that the billionaire ran for president to get rich just doesn't seem serious.
Nancy may be an ancient witch, but she is a smart Machiavellian witch. She knows what is up and recognizes that Trump is a master troll artist.
If the Democraps weren't so maniacally fixated on Trump Trump Trump, they would be smart to listen to her. But...they are too deep into their fantasy and still reeling from the disintegration of their Muller clown show.
Ann’s got it. The Watergate gambit failed and now they have to extricate themselves from the wreckage. But how? Let’s try some stuff...
Trump has managed to stay one step ahead of the sheriff for decades, in a very tough environment. The Impeachniks should be aware, as no doubt Pelosi is, that this is not his first time at the rodeo.
Don't we go through this every President now? Have we seen Obama's college transcript yet? It took ages before we knew that Kerry was a C-student in college, just like Bush. Not that that would have changed anyone's vote.
It just seems so odd that they are so focused on these tax returns every Presidential cycle. Do normal people care?
Nadler: [upon seeing a gate come down from a constructed wooden toll booth]
Mueller Thruway?! Now, what'll that asshole Trump think of next?
Does anybody got a dime? Somebody's gotta go back and get a shitload of dimes!
That W2 from Putin must be there. It’s gotta be there...just gotta.
“We have to see where the facts take us."
What facts? I still don't understand the "facts" of the impeachment argument at all. From what I understand, you can't impeach a president just because you don't like him. There has to be, you know, evidence of some sort of high crime and misdemeanor, "crime" bring the operative word. Are they still claiming that Trump allegedly telling someone to fire Mueller and that firing never actually happening somehow amounts to obstruction of justice? That's bananas.
These people are insane. Trump has driven them beyond the realm of rational thought and into cloud cuckoo land.
Can someone kindly provide a Trump quote that supports the goading claim?
She knows what is up and recognizes that Trump is a master troll artist.
Why just last week he was too moronic to hold the job and too incompetent to get elected without Putin's help.
That would be some serious whiplash.
SeanF: "He can't honestly think it works (or should work) that way, can he?"
That is PRECISELY how all leftists/LLR-lefties think and believe.
Without exception.
Longer Nancy Pelosi: Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I'm not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Trump: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
recommending impeachment proceedings in order to generate a legitimate purpose for the House to get Trump's tax returns. Without impeachment proceedings, there's a good chance that a court would reject "just rummaging through Trump’s returns to embarrass him and not for a legitimate legislative purpose."
So;
1) have a trial
2) use the fact of the trial as justification for a search
3) (hopefully) find something to justify HAVING the trial
It's the American Way
File the articles and start the process, or shut the fuck up.
Enough already.
Trying to take down your political opponent is not "oversight", no matter how much you tell yourself it is.
"If the courts took the position Sargent is afraid of..."
Greg Sargent has a BA in English. I'd be surprised if he could find his ass with both hands, let alone opining intelligently in a national paper about this shit.
He might have gotten his WaPo job by giving a great blowjob.
The Portland PD is seriously unstaffed because of resignations. ANTIFA can become the police, I guess.
The Democrat Liberation Organization is also run by terrorists.
Let's decide this with a duel.
Satan will arm-wrestle Jesus.
If Satan wins, then the Democrats will get a copy of Trump's tax forms.
If Jesus wins, then the Democrats will not get a copy.
You'd basically have to be braindead or self-loathing to vote for a Dem in 2020. Foreign policy is so under control the Dems NEVER bring it up and we have the lowest unemployment rate and highest consumer confidence in 50 years. What do the Dems have to offer? More foodstamps, government assistance, less personal freedom, etc? Lindsey Graham nailed it for once during the Kavanaugh hearings. A Party that wants power this bad should never hold it again
Sargent says that "if Democrats were to initiate an impeachment inquiry, it would create a legislative purpose for compelling release of the returns that is basically unassailable — that legislative purpose being impeachment."
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think impeachment is a legislative act. It's a judicial or maybe quasi-judicial act being undertaken by a legislative body. In an American judicial proceeding, the prosecution needs to turn over any exculpatory evidence to the defense, but rules strictly govern when the defense is required to turn over evidence to the prosecution. Similar rules surely ought to apply with an impeachment. To find Sargent's logic sound, courts would need to make executive privilege a dead letter. Otherwise, Congress could simply schedule impeachment hearings at any random time and then demand any information of any kind from the President, with no limits whatever on what they could request.
You'd basically have to be braindead or self-loathing to vote for a Dem in 2020. Foreign policy is so under control the Dems NEVER bring it up and we have the lowest unemployment rate and highest consumer confidence in 50 years. What do the Dems have to offer? More foodstamps, government assistance, less personal freedom, etc? Lindsey Graham nailed it for once during the Kavanaugh hearings. A Party that wants power this bad should never hold it again
“We can’t impeach him for political reasons, and we can’t not impeach him for political reasons,” Pelosi said. “We have to see where the facts take us."
Isn't this like ObamaCare? You have to impeach him to find out if he's impeachable?
At least she isn't trying to pretend that the Constitution plays any role in her thought processes.
Someone hasn't learned the first rule of what to do when you find yourself in a hole.
It's a scream. These guys are the gift that keeps on giving.
I have to laugh at them. I also have to ask why Trump isn’t 50 points ahead...
Trump's skill is an ability to read the room. It's why Twitter is such a good fit: he can throw out tweet after tweet, and if he gets the response that he wants, he follows that line, and if not he moves on.
Pity the Dems in their dilemma: "How can we indulge ourselves in blatant low-life dirt-bag partisan thuggery and yet not have it backfire on us? Life (and that big meanie Trump) is just so unfair to a poor innocent thug sometimes."
Ann, Nancy asked you not to tell anybody. She will be very disappointed you shared this very confidential info.
Stalinists.
Nonapod said...
What facts? I still don't understand the "facts" of the impeachment argument at all. From what I understand, you can't impeach a president just because you don't like him. There has to be, you know, evidence of some sort of high crime and misdemeanor, "crime" bring the operative word.
No attorney am I but I think it works this way:
- House of Reps files articles of impeachment and takes a vote, if it wins a simple majority
- Senate conducts a trial and ultimately votes, needing a 2/3rds majority to convict.
The first step is a purely political act, they can make up the reasons for filing. There are no facts - they're hoping to find them during discovery, I guess, as part of the Senate's trial.
Or something.
Why don't the Dems just win the 2020 election? Then Trump would be gone.
This Russia and impeachment stuff is old. Time to move on. Let's indict Comey et al. That's way more fun and its new.
The only voices Nancy Pelosi and her fellow travelers hear are the multitude of voices in their heads. In more normal times, the sane folks would take pity on them and get them some much needed medical attention.
These days we elect them to their federal sinecures becuase they promise us free shit paid for by 'those evil rich people'.
Except everyone of them IS rich tmeselves, but they never pay. Just the middle class, who have no paid operatives at their beck and call.
We are supposed to just shut up and open our wallets.
At some point,it all falls apart and must be rebuilt. Hopefully without the violence oof the USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela.
He has been living rent-free in their heads for over two years and it's made them crazy people. They tended to lean there anyway, but they've gone full Jeffrey Goines since the election of 2016.
As the economy and labor market strengthens, even with most of Washington and the media constantly barraging Trump, he's looking more favorable to the public, and the Dems are looking like...well...Jeffrey Goines. Think I'm wrong? Watched Bernie Sanders lately?
Dave Begley said...
Why don't the Dems just win the 2020 election? Then Trump would be gone.
But the Republic would still have a chance.
Would you submit to these people just because they won an election knowing they are committing fraud on a massive scale?
The next election they win will be the last election we have.
Even now they are preparing their "Vote Harvesting" schemes in numerous states including Pennsylvania and Michigan.
They are not good people and only cowards would let them have power.
Sargent is just following Nancy's lead:
Nancy: We had to pass the bill to find out what is in it.
Sargent: We have to impeach Trump to find out what he's guilty of.
Trump's base does not need solidifying.
What makes democrats believe that POTUS Trump and his business haven't been audited every year for the past two decades? Trump must have the best tax consultants available anticipating every option available to the IRS to go after his billion dollar enterprise. What are these democrats smoking to come up with these stupid ideas? CDB oil must be a miracle drug to them...
It's bad for the country to impeach a President, particularly on the bullshit phantom grounds we have here.
I don't think Trump is goading them into impeachment. I think he'd rather beat the Dems on the merits (no spying allowed!) in Nov 2020.
I am not going to give any specific advice to the Democrats. They should do what they think is best. They shouldn't worry about what anyone else thinks. They should just do what they think is right.
They should try to uncover whatever they think should be uncovered, and they should try to hide anything they think should be hidden.
They should take the advice of a famous character from literature who was a counselor to kings and queens:"To thine own self be true and it must follow as the night the day, thou canst not be false to any man." Also, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be." and "Costly thy habit as thy wallet can buy, but not expressed in fancy; rich, not gaudy;for the apparel often proclaims the man." Also, "Oh, I am slain!"
Yes, the Democrats just need to follow the advice of Polonius, and all will be well with our country.
The Watergate gambit failed and now they have to extricate themselves from the wreckage. But how? Let’s try some stuff...
start impeachment or shut up
Exactly. The Dems know they don't have any evidence for impeachment. They also know that the IRS has had Trump under a microscope for the last decade. If there was anything criminal about Trump's taxes we would know by now, from either a court filing or leaks at Deep State.
So they can't impeach, but what they can do is talk talk talk about Trump and Impeachment 24/7 and tar Trump by the continuous association. So that he is unfairly regarded as "that President who evaded impeachment for 8 years and therefor must have done some very sketchy things mumble mumble false assertion mumble".
They want to stain him with impeachment without the actual proceeding. Fucking fascist cunts.
How many Washington Post Op-ed writers work at the DNC? It seems like they all do.
“We have to see where the facts take us."
Says something about Democrats that Nancy Pelosi has to point out to them that facts should come first and actions should come second, based on the facts.
Sargent thinks it would be a disaster for his tribe, but can't spare a thought to how it would hurt America. These people truly are no longer our countrymen.
But I think Sargent should lead the way and release all his tax returns, to prove his innocence, since that's they way he views the Rule of Law these days.
“We can’t impeach him for political reasons, and we can’t not impeach him for political reasons"
Let the sheer cynicism of that statement sink in.
Of course, the political reason that BS impeachment proceedings harm the presidency and the country is not one of them.
“We have to see where the facts take us."
Bull. You didn't do it when the Mueller Report delivered a "no collusion" verdict and you certainly won't start doing it now.
Pelosi recognizes that she is dealing with children.
Based on yesterday's back and forth, and this post today, I am not seeing Adams's "two movies." I am seeing a religious war. One side is trying to explain that facts are important, and so is reality, and other side responds "WE HATE TRUMP!" with religious fervor.
Had this been tried in 2015 by the Republicans, then IMMEDIATELY 50% of the Republican Senators, led by Johnny McCain, would've ran to the nearest TV Camera to denounce, disavow, AND say they want NO PART of impeachment. "We need to get serious, and stop playing political games" McCain would've harrumphed - to the applause of the NYT/WaPo.
But now its Trump, so our Democrat Senators say nothing. Is Peggy Noonan going to write another column about "The adults in DC, who need to control Trump"?
The call for Trump's tax returns is pure fishing expedition. They hope to find a few otherwise ordinary but highly complicated transactions that they can misrepresent as corruption. The only proper response is: "Go fish!"
The MSM and Democrats have made it clear over the last 2.5 years that NOTHING matters to them except gaining political power. The country, the laws, the Constitution, all the unwritten traditions and ways of doing things in DC =0 All that matters it "Get Trump" and "Get Back Power".
Let the sheer cynicism of that statement sink in.
Yup. You'd think somewhere or another there would be a Democrat who would do things because it's what's best for the country instead of what seems tactically expedient, politically, but apparently no chance.
I also see that today Joe Biden pledged to repeal the tax cuts. Worked for Walter Mondale, didn't it? Oh, wait.
@Ann:the court would give the final answer on the meaning of separation of powers.
I think this is very close to a contradiction in terms. Whether the Supreme Court has the final word on "separation of powers" is itself a "separation of powers" issue.
Why don't they just vote on a resolution? As in, "Resolved: I hate that man!" And maybe stick it to a few voodoo dolls. And a Two Minute Hate, plus Primal Scream?
That way they can express themselves cathartically without getting themselves and their party to deep into the political poop.
For the root problem they have with Trump is not what Trump does but what he is. He's Trump! And as they see it that justifies anything, just anything, they might do.
Trump is goading the Dems to establish defending yourself as not guilty IS Obstructing the prosecution and execution of a Russian collaborator in time of war.
That means Trump can treat the Dem Collaborators in time of war the same way. That means Military Tribunals at Gitmo and executions for the ones who sold out our soldiers for cash...and Munuchin can confiscate the cash.
Fancy Nancy is fear struck.
"Trump is goading us to impeach him."
Just like a spousal abuser: "She made me hit her, your Honor. She was goading me."
Pelosi knows that Trump has spent YEARS developing an immunity to iocaine powder.
But maybe she can start a land war in Asia. That should fix his wagon.
We have to pass the impeachment resolution to find out what's in it.
She being quite the old goad herself.
"That's histrionic. If the courts took the position Sargent is afraid of, it would be because the court was enforcing separation of powers, limiting Congress to the legislative role and protecting the Executive power from encroachment. "
But Truuuuuumppppp!
I'm beginning to think the Dems have come to the conclusion that they can't beat Trump in 2020, so all they have left is impeachment. Why else would they go through all this nonsense?
Gabriel understands that the Constitution doesn’t really say anything specific about anything. Except where it grants unlimited power to the government to tax, defend the nation, provide general welfare and do anything necessary and proper. And a few others. Any one of which means the government has never been, is not and will never be limited in any way.
By the way, how smart does Pelosi have to be to see that the Senate can’t get the necessary votes to impeach? Just barely smarter than concrete. Stop with the plaudits.
The Left, when Trump says something stupid:
"See, he said something stupid!"
The Left, when they say something stupid:
"See, he made me say something stupid!"
Can't win with those guys. Harumph.
If they impeach, the Senate should hold a 1 day trial in 10 days, with Comey and Barr as the only two witnesses, and then swiftly acquit. Gotta move on in life.
Poor old Nancy Pelosi. While I'll agree that she usually possesses a low sort of cunning (not demonstrated when she said "You'll have to pass this bill to find out what's in it.") she's now in the position of a kindergarten teacher who has control of her class.
They may be fried chicken eating 5 year olds (Steve Cohen I'm looking at you) fat little kids (Nadler) and nasty little Junior Eddy Haskells (our pencil necked geek Adam Schiff). But they are all way off the reservation and beyond her control.
You cant give wrong with princess bride references
So let me get this straight. If the Democrats move to impeach Trump, they believe no law or principle in the Constitution can restrict their right to information, even grand jury material? That would be a stunningly bad precedent and encourage impeachment every time the House is controlled by a different party than the presidency.
Also, one thing I’ve never understood about the tax returns issue: do Democrats think the IRS isn’t capable of reviewing the tax returns of a high-profile billionaire real estate developer? I would like to hear the Democrats say whether they think Trump has committed tax fraud and somehow tricked the IRS all these years.
Fancy Nancy had made a deal to make Pence President after the NATO deep state’s missile hit the White House where Trump was alone, But DJT’s guardian force had her gang arrested on their get away bus at the curb in DC last Xmas. And the Marine double agent from the White House detail that was to finish him off was exposed and killed. Interesting times we live in.
If you try to kill the king do not miss or you will be in Nancy’s predicament.
In yesterday's Washington Post from columnist Brian Klaas:
"So here’s a question for congressional leaders: Precisely how many crimes does someone have to commit before impeachment hearings are warranted? Does the person in question get a pass if it’s three or fewer? Was there some clause in the Constitution that I missed that says it’s okay for the president to direct a criminal conspiracy in certain circumstances? Is there a Federalist Paper that says the president can commit tax fraud so long as it was years ago, or that obstruction of justice is fair game so long as it happens on Twitter?
To oppose impeachment hearings now, you have to believe that the president allegedly engaging in three separate categories of criminal acts isn’t serious enough to even consider impeachment. Really?"
More unhinged ranting by MAINSTREAM Democrats. Let's start with "Was there some clause in the Constitution that I missed that says it’s okay for the president to direct a criminal conspiracy in certain circumstances? WTF? Over! A whole bunch of Democrat lawyers directed by Robert Mueller just spent two years investigating President Donald John Trump- and they failed to detect this criminal conspiracy.
We'll now move on to "Is there a Federalist Paper that says the president can commit tax fraud so long as it was years ago," . Again, WTF? Over! What tax fraud? I don't know and I don't care if Trump is saying he's a multi billionaire when he's only a multi hundred millionaire. I just don't care. I do know that NYS and the IRS have been poring over his NYS and Federal tax returns with a fine tooth comb since before the day he was nominated trying to some, any, even the smallest, illegality they could charge Trump with, or even something that "skirts the law" they could leak to the media. Anyone who doesn't believe that is being deliberately ignorant. If there was anything sketchy in his taxes, we'd already know it. Trump doesn't do his taxes personally. A firm of accountants and tax lawyers prepare them. Probably hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of tax forms and supporting documents each year. Returns like that get audited each and every year they're filed- by government tax accountants and lawyers. BTW- "skirts the law" is another term for "completely f-----g legal".
As for the last, "obstruction of justice is fair game so long as it happens on Twitter?" it's possibly the most laughable. There's a reason the special counsel didn't recommend obstruction charges. There was no obstruction. IIRC, a 400 page collection of innuendo and suppositions that turned American law upside down by saying "We couldn't prove he was innocent", but no charges of obstruction- because there was no proof he was guilty. That and I really doubt that anyone except rabid and unhinged Democrats would support obstruction of justice charges against a sitting president when- THERE WAS NO UNDERLYING CRIME! None, zero.
The Washington Post is the paper of record for the DC area. They saw fit to print this in their op-ed section. This is what passes for serious thought in Democrat circles.
Nancy Pelosi says “don’t tell anyone I’m telling you this”.
What a lunatic party the open border democrats are.
I thought you needed a crime to impeach, not a hope to find a crime.
Can you imagine the special episode of the Trump TV series that is the Trump presidency with an impeachment trial? The multi-part episode arc where Trump personally show's up in the well of the Senate for his "trial"? Do you want to be the congressperson responsible for acting as prosecuting attorney? Trump gets to bring in whoever he wants to defend himself. Senate rules state that Congress itself must try the case (or at least that's what I remember from the Clinton impeachment).
He'd shut down the government during the trial. Have all the networks present it. Nothing would get done for the length of the trial. Employees would be sent home. Monuments closed. They can't argue that it's no big deal and the president should continue with the operations of the government. Not with the Chief Justice sitting as President of the Senate. Clinton wanted us to think his alleged crimes were no big deal even if he did them. That he was working hard for the American people. Trump's defense would be that alleging the crimes in itself is a big deal. So he'd make the impeachment itself the biggest deal of them all. Daring them to vote to convict and remove him.
He can't lose. They acquit him and he becomes even stronger and coasts to re-election. After that, what are they going to do, impeach him a second time? Any problems with the country (Market tanks? War? Anything at all) can be immediately blamed on wasting time with impeachment.
If they convict and remove him he goes off and starts a new network with a 60 million person viewership. It will cover the front lines of the new civil war.
They can't get him to resign. He doesn't care about traditional definitions of political legacy!
This is the new normal. This is breaking the rules of Jeopardy. Pelosi has figured it out. But she's stuck. She can't go forward and she can't go back.
Didn't Nancy famously say "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."
Now she's saying "We have to impeach him to find out why he needs to be impeached."
This is 100% about getting Trump off the ballot in 2020.
The impeachment crowd sees the upside as Trump losing the 2020 election as a result; the downside as Trump winning the 2020 election.
Pelosi sees the downside of impeachment as the Trump winning AND the Democrats losing the House.
If I was Trump:
"Today I have ordered the director of the IRS to release, in 10 days, the last 5 years of tax returns of every Democratic senator and member of the House. I strongly suspect that many of them have profited illegally from their government positions, and thus have committed impeachable crimes.
During that 10 days, the affected parties are free to go to court and attempt to block this order."
Trump just had his highest approval rating in the Gallup poll ever. That's obviously the ideal time for the Democrats to launch an impeachment, right?
I doubt Trump is goading them to do so, or even thinking about it, but I think it also clear that impeachment wouldn't succeed, and would strengthen Trump's position for the 2020 election. This is what Pelosi is seeing, so I have to give her credit.
There are lots of us out here who wish a pox on the houses of both democrats and republicans and who say, "We want impeachment and transparency."
this likely was the op ed, that triggered the wrath of the deep state:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gen-mike-flynn-why-hillarys-record-on-libya-is-even-worse-than-you-think
The Democrats have much more work to do to solid their base and get out the vote than Trump does. They have to constantly repeat the Big Lie that Trump is a danger to democracy because ... (the usual insane blabber).
The threat of impeachment works better in that regard than actual impeachment (when more facts or lack thereof come to light). Pelosi is an adult and she knows this.
Impeach him. That was the Strozk FBI insurance policy.
>>That was the Strozk FBI insurance policy.
Anita Hill had that same policy. She overlooked the "Pissed off and ready for a fight" exclusion to it paying off.
Trump is trying to goad us into nominating a leftist wacko. He's just taunting and taunting us with his jobs and high growth economy. He's just doing it to win votes. What a selfish prick he is.
War motherfuckers.
Whether it is left or far-left, conspiracy theory complements their witch hunts and warlock trials over these many trimesters.
Progressive Corruption (PC) in the District of Corruption (DC).
One of the strange things about the tax return obsession is how dirty most of the big-wig dems are. Pelosi got rich as speaker--how? Biden and his family had deals with China and Ukraine--very shady. Sanders had his campaign buy his books--that's how he got rich. AOC could be guilty of campaign finance violations, etc.
If history is any indicator, Trump will eventually release his taxes after the Dems have made a final stand on that narrow peninsula, and they will show him paying huge tax bills with nothing impeachable. They of course will make up lies about what his taxes show, but it will be the releasing itself that he will use to push them into the sea. The last in a full term of overreaching attempts to reverse an election. That alone will get him votes he might not have had otherwise. You go, Dems! Do what you do, and lose another 1000 seats nationwide. And thank you.
alex downer, high commissioner for Australia, fmr board member of Huawei, and current one with haklyut, insists he was not prompted to contact Papadopoulos, Shirley, as Austin powers would say, Right,
Perhaps Trump will agree to release his tax records so long as the books are open to ALL elected federal officials.
Even include the Supremes, because why not?
He'll even advocate for releasing medical records, and then we'll see who's being prescribed Alzheimer's drugs (psst, it's Pelosi).
That'll really cause the cockroaches to skurry!
AOC could be guilty of campaign finance violations, etc.
And I am given to understand that she still owes $1800 in taxes from a failed business venture.o
of course, it's just a coincidence mifsud, fronting another intelligence training facility, the London campus, contacts him first, and Papadopoulos, plays back his info,
so long as the books are open to ALL elected federal officials
Yes, equal protection, due process, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, civil unions for all... wait, Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, PC.
If history is any indicator, Trump will eventually release his taxes after the Dems have made a final stand on that narrow peninsula, and they will show him paying huge tax bills with nothing impeachable
I agree and suspect it will be Octobder 1, 2020.
It will be a repeat of the Maddow fiasco with the leaked 1995 tax return.
'There are lots of us out here who wish a pox on the houses of both democrats and republicans and who say, "We want impeachment and transparency."'
I think we're gonna need a number.
meanwhile on another front:
https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/05/idlib-dawn-ttg.html
Horatius at the Bridge by Lord Macaulay, line 417
Was none who would be foremost
To lead such dire attack;
But those behind cried “Forward!”
And those before cried “Back!”
And backward now and forward
Wavers the deep array;
And on the tossing sea of steel
To and fro the standards reel,
And the victorious trumpet-peal
Dies fitfully away.
Have they considered not impeaching him because ... it’s just a normal Tuesday?
is there anyone at foggy bottom not in contact with steele,
https://saraacarter.com/citizens-united-docs-reveal-british-spys-motive-to-release-dossier-dirt-on-trump-before-2016-election/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social-pug
It's been really really clear for a long time that Pelosi does not want her caucus distracted by impeachment. That's why she's speaker instead of the beloved radical outsider.
She's giving the weaker-willed among her peers some spitballs to spitball.
Actually not, but unlike previous non-Lefties he is not afraid of the "stigma" of the accusation. Basically he has just shrugged his shoulders and said "so what".
Trump is going to stall, and as Dr. K predicts, release his tax returns. In October 2020. For 2019 and 2018.
Then let them Dems dig up the goalposts and move them while everybody is watching.
Democrats say: If we had some ham we could have a ham sandwich if we had some bread.
Then Pelosicutor can indict Ham Sandwich
Pelosi > Sargent
If history is any indicator, Trump will eventually release his taxes after the Dems have made a final stand on that narrow peninsula, and they will show him paying huge tax bills with nothing impeachable
They do not need impeachable.
Taxes as complicated as Trumps will provide plenty of opportunity to make accusations and spin legal and normal behaviors as somehow nefarious and evil. Dems and MSM will highlight stuff and blow it out of proportion in order to influence low information voters, which is most people. Most people get news from radio on way to work or TV for an hour or less after work.
The stupidity surrounding the Barr letter is the latest example.
yes, it's tails they win, heads you lose, it shouldn't surprise anymore, mark Levin, was relating how bulger protector, William weld, was trying to force ed meese, out because of the two special counsels who found bupkis at the end,
of course that gives the game away:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/07/us-removes-sanctions-venezuelan-intelligence-chief-abandoned/
It has always been a mistake for the congress to depend on prosecutors, who work for the executive-controlled JD, to investigate potential or real high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the president. We already know, as a matter of law, that Trump committed no federal crimes that can be prosecuted.
The idea that the JD will make a finding of fact, and congress will act on it, is ludicrous. It is congress trying to avoid its responsibility: "we had to impeach, because he broke the law, sez the JD."
Congress has its own ability to investigate, and of course impeach based on the findings. Impeachment is political act with quasi-judicial procedures.
If the congressional dems want to impeach, let them attempt to do so & take the political hit (or advantage). Don't squawk about Barr not giving you evidence to use against the man he works for. You don't need it, you need a backbone.
Pelosi has been in Congress for over 20 years.
She knew Newt Gingrich. She does not want to be Newt Gingrich.
Trump: I'm going to make some changes with this gambling game!
This is who state met with:
https://mobile.twitter.com/The_War_Economy/status/959852135931437059
Here is the type of thing they would use tax info for. This story suggests Trump did something shady, if not illegal, when there is nothing there..
Trump Organization ‘Sold Property to Shell Company Linked to Maduro Regime,’ Says Report
Matt Lewis
12-15 minutes
The Trump Organization sold a luxury ocean-view property in the Dominican Republic to a shell company that appears to be tied to figures from Venezuela’s Maduro regime, the Miami Herald reports. The property was sold to Venezuelans who are reportedly linked to a Diosdado Cabello, the second most powerful man in President Nicolás Maduro’s government. Cabello is now under U.S. sanctions for alleged drug trafficking and money laundering but, in April 2015, the Trump Organization sold the property to a Costa Rican company that has been linked to a Venezuelan woman named Marlene Coromoto Arenas Colina. She’s married to Pedro Fritz Morejón, the former Venezuelan tourism minister under late President Hugo Chávez, both of whom have been linked to Cabello, who is vice head of Venezuela’s Socialist Party. There’s no evidence of anything illegal, the Herald reports, but the sale is under scrutiny as Trump attempts to remove Maduro and blame past U.S. presidents for not driving Venezuela’s socialist governments from power. The Trump Organization refused to comment.
The rest of the story, is this was probably done through derwick associates which in turn has been in partnership with fusion gps
Different outfit but this a fourth party sale, a Costa Rican company in the Dominican republic which in turn had connections to Venezuela,
“alex downer, high commissioner for Australia, fmr board member of Huawei, and current one with haklyut, insists he was not prompted to contact Papadopoulos, Shirley, as Austin powers would say, Right,”
Let me see if I understand this. Ausralia’s most prestigious ambassador (to the Court of St James) somehow met with a low level American who was less than half his age.
Yes it was just a random commission of a paper in which he received critical info from papadopoulos
Catch Trump at Whistling Dixie, refers to a studied carelessness.
Contempt of Congress + racist.
QED ... Impeach him.
Let’s see Congress’ tax returns to see if any of them should be impeached.
Is Citgo a shell company?
No it's the American affiliate of the national oil company that the Russian acquired
Pelosi is the smart, strategic political thinker among the Democrats, maybe the only one. She is clearly not suffering from TDS. She is planning and plotting to do what she believes is in the best interest of the Democrat's power and politics.
I agree with this. She's trying to keep the AOC wing from destroying the Democrats in a 2020 election that should be an easy lay-up. If the Democrats start impeachment, particularly in a naked attempt to get the president's tax returns, they're going to get crushed.
as a point toward which they are converging out of necessity
What would be kind of amazing is for Congress to actually legislate something.
Enough with the fucking Hail Marys.
Citgo is the Venezuelan oil company that used to be known as "Cities Service."
I for one am shocked that a real estate development company bought real estate, improved the real estate, and then sold that real estate to qualified buyers.
Next you'll be telling me people engaged in commerce buy low and sell higher!!
This is an outrage!
Trump could never be so tactical and strategic.
Nancy Pelosi must, of course, be correct because she is a Democrat.
The square.
It will not circle.
Crazy right, most likely Tillerson was the one who blocked the additional sanctions against cabello,
The press Is no help:
https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2019/05/07/how-to-read-venezuelas-chaotic-power-struggle/
1. Is it "Trump is too stupid or mentally ill or mentally unbalanced to be President" or is it "Trump is such an evil genius that he can influence our behavior?" Just let me know so that my comments don't run contrary to the meme we need to promote.
2. There is a WaPo comment thread that claims the NYT has 20 years of DJT tax returns. But I don't have NYT access, and I can't confirm. Does anyone else know anything about this? (Or have the evil Russians been trolling me on the WaPo comment threads?)
I just saw on point 2 (Molly at 8:53) that an AA commenter did remark on the NYT article, and the 20 years are "old years" so (perhaps it's not 20, but) 1980-1995. So the reason WaPo and HuffPo and Drudge haven't picked it up is that it's not really the tax return for years that the dems want to see.
"...he's just like taunting and taunting and taunting"
When I say "Impeach!", you lips say "No! No! No!", but your eyes say "Yes! Yes! Yes!".
Molly, Drudge linked this story earlier this evening:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/5-takeaways-from-10-years-of-trump-tax-figures/ar-AAB2BDR
Seems like a lot of bullshit. It is based on "transcripts" of his tax returns. What the Hell are those?
They were given to the Times by someone who had the legal right to have them. I am guessing an attorney or accountant. My question there would be whether the person had the legal right to release them.
They show he did not do so well in the 80s. Well, we knew that, didn't we? He wound up not just broke but in the hole by quite a bit.
They show, according to MSN that he took advantage of "a valuable tax shelter known as depreciation."
He also, de noive of dis guy, carried his losses forward!!!!!
And so on.
My default position, based on general experience and especially when the story is about citizen or President Trump, is to doubt anythign the Times prints. But if truthy, it is a big nothing.
So he went broke in the 80's. Doesn't that make his comeback, from in debt to $9bn in wealth that much greater?
Supposedly Donald Trump holds the Guiness record for biggest financial turnaround ever.
I click the link in the MSN story and it takes me to the times story. Here is the link but you may have to click it from the MSN link
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html
John Henry
And obviously, since he had problems in the 80s, we need to discount his ability to do any good with the current economy, jobs, manufacturing, tax revenue, foreign affairs, NoKo and so on.
Bumbling fool. How could anyone think he could be successful.
Quick, impeach him!!
I question the timing of this too.
I wonder if something big is going to happen in the next day or two that they need a distraction for? Big like James Comey or/and John Brennan being perp walked in handcuffs?
Here's a prediction: If something like that does happen, the MSM line will be that the arrests (or whatever) are PDJT trying to create a distraction from the release of his tax "transcripts"
John Henry
John Henry
They show, according to MSN that he took advantage of "a valuable tax shelter known as depreciation."
These people are plain stupid.
Blogger Seeing Red said...
These people are plain stupid.
Awww, Red. I'm disappointed in you. Is that the best you could do? How about:
If a duck had his brain, it would fly north for the winter.
She doesn’t have enough sense to spit downwind.
If he was bacon, he wouldn’t even sizzle.
If brains were leather, he couldn’t saddle a flea.
He carries his brains in his back pocket.
Dumb as dirt.
Dumb as a box of rocks.
Dumb as a barrel of hair.
Dumb as a post.
Dumb as a wagon wheel.
Dumb as a prairie dog.
Dumb as a watermelon.
Dumb enough for twins.
He doesn’t know “come here” from “sic ’em.”
He doesn’t know enough to pound sand down a rat hole.
He can’t ride and chew at the same time.
So stupid if you put his brains in a bumblebee, it’d fly backwards.
If all her brains were ink, she couldn’t dot an i.
If all her brains were dynamite, she couldn’t blow her nose.
He don’t know which end’s up.
He don’t know a widget from a whangdoodle.
He don’t know nothing from nothing.
He don’t know diddly squat.
He couldn’t pour piss out of a boot with a hole in the toe and the directions on the heel.
If he had a brain, it’d die of loneliness.
So thick-headed you can hit him in the face with a tire iron and he won’t yell till morning.
He could screw up an anvil.
Take inspiration from Cyrano and that great Puerto Rican actor Jose Ferrer
https://youtu.be/6piUQsaOOSQ?t=8
John Henry
"Goading into impeaching" could and should become an impeachable offense and then trial would be the evidence for the crime. Go Dems. Keep the Madness Mad.
"If we get his tax returns, we can impeach. And if we impeach, we can get his tax returns!"
Catch 22 much, Benito?
John Henry reminds us to :Take inspiration from Cyrano and that great Puerto Rican actor Jose Ferrer
One of the best plays written. Haven't seen that film in many years.
“Go away or I will taunt you another time.”
“ Impeachment? Tell her we already have one.”
Step one: leak to media that Trump should be impeached.
Step two: Use media report that Trump needs to be impeached as evidence that Trump must be impeached.
Step three: Profit!!
The FISA strategy is always effective, if the controlling authority is stupid, or corrupt.
I just realized I used AlGore’s term controlling legal authority, that’s ok, but
“I still want to know your opinion of Dingle Norwood!!!”
Pelosi quotes Trump as saying, "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you?
Throw the orange rabbit in the briar patch.
Trump: make my day.
Dave Begley said...
Why don't the Dems just win the 2020 election? Then Trump would be gone.
Bellyaching laugh. I thought stand up comedians are not funny any more.
(eaglebeak)
As someone before me has observed, Trump habitually tries to set up outcomes so they are win-win for him--that is, either way something turns out, he can win from it.
Hence "all the winning."
It would appear that in the case of impeachment yea or nay, he has set up another win-win.
It would appear that Nancy is contemplating this and she's not liking it.
If you cannot accept the results of the 2016 Presidential race in May of 2019 I have no hope for your future.
Hint to Mr. Sargeant: Democrats already look bad. What you mean is that you will look far WORSE than having already violated norms like a young child in a Muslim Manchester Neighborhood.
And your answer is to double down. "We have to accuse him of a crime for us to gather evidence of a crime for which we have no evidence."
And yet this isn't something brought up by our resident legal scholar.
@ Michael K
IIRC, the Mayor of Portland, when the police were brought up on charges for being 'rough' when stopping a riot...I mean protest by abusive Antifa Leftists, congratulated the rioters on 'bringing up important issues' and also banned the effective crowd dispersal weapons that the police used to good effect.
And then he wonders why there is a swath of resignations.
By the way, how smart does Pelosi have to be to see that the Senate can’t get the necessary votes to impeach?
The Senate votes on conviction; impeachment is like an indictment. But aside from that, what if Pelosi has counted votes and realizes that she cannot be sure of winning an impeachment vote? In 2010 she was able to cajole, threaten, or appeal to party solidarity enough to pass Obamacare, and that fall the moderate Democrats in red and purple districts paid for voting “aye” with their careers. It took until 2018, four election cycles, to win some of those seats back. I don’t imagine that impeachment is popular in districts held by most of the 2018 freshmen who are moderates, so if we assume that moderates will be a bit more resistant to calls for solidarity this time around, a vote to impeach could well fail in the House.
Pelosi sees the outcome for what it is. TDS folks like Greg Sargent, mouths frothing from rabid hate, are taking the Dems/libs further and further toward the very fringe of the ledge, until they get to the "no deposit, no return" ending.
"There are lots of us out here who wish a pox on the houses of both democrats and republicans and who say, "We want impeachment and transparency."
Transparency, yes. But impeachment? What has he done to rise to that level? Name the crimes. Not," everybody knows."
We have to pass Impeachment to find out what's in it.
Traditionalguy, why do you tell lies in Ann's blog? Can you explain your behavior?
Trump is living in their heads rent free. She sounds like a crazy person.
"We want impeachment and transparency."
And when Biden's tax problems surface you will suddenly lose interest and attack Trump from another angle. Fen's Law: you give don't give a rat's ass about transparency.
How about you post your tax returns and medical records here?
Name the crimes...
*Clearly* he has committed impeachable crimes. Anybody can see it.
I am betting that in her deepest heart, Pelosi has a lot of respect for Trump as a political opponent. But she comes from a generation with too much respect for logic and realpolitik, and that’s something that AOC’s generation can barely abide.
Name the crimes
Just look at the Mueller report! Plus his tax returns are chock full of more crimes!
Blogger Josephbleau said...
“Go away or I will taunt you another time.”
“ Impeachment? Tell her we already have one.”
"Poor Sleepy Joe - his mother was a hamster, and his father smelled of elderberries."
"Just look at the Mueller report! Plus his tax returns are chock full of more crimes!"
Trump should announce he is refusing Democrat demands to hand over his medical records and browsing history.
The GOP is losing the messaging war here, Americans need to be reminded that if the President's privacy rights can be violated because of spite, so can theirs.
Alexandria Cortez wants the records of anyone who has ever been a member of the Republican Party or supported a Republican candidate for office.
And your answer is to double down. "We have to accuse him of a crime for us to gather evidence of a crime for which we have no evidence."
And yet this isn't something brought up by our resident legal scholar.
What's more interesting to me is that Ann Althouse joined the "100 Legal Scholars" on a petition claiming that President Clinton's obstruction, perjury and subornation of perjury did not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and thus were not grounds for impeachment. (please correct me Professor if I've misrepresented anything).
She claimed she was "tricked", that they changed the cover letter to something it did not say when it was presented for her to sign. But her name and 99 others were used as an appeal to authority, experts giving cover for Democrat talking points to obstruct* the impeachment proceedings.
Now is a chance to make amends for that, or at least an opportunity to balance the scales by writing a very strong op-ed for NYTs or WaPo condemning all this impeachment talk. Where is she?
*I'm using the Mueller definition of "obstruction of justice"
Not getting Trump’s returns would allow him to get away with one of his most blatant acts of contempt for transparency
No, that would be "elite educated" Barack Obama refusing to release his college transcripts, law school transcripts, and senior thesis.
IIRC, he didn't ever release as much of his health records, as President, as Bush did.
Sorry, kids, but "transparency" died with Democrat President Obama. None of you said a peep in public about it them. So none of you can legitimately complain about it now.
I guess Sargent and his lawyer friend and everyone else has never heard of "probable cause," which exists specifically to prevent fishing expeditions like what they want to do.
Beat him at the polls, if you can. All the impeachment talk just tells me that his opponents think he has the better political case on the issues, including even his own personality.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा