There's Jeff Van Drew, who represents New Jersey's 2nd congressional district, which is southern New Jersey. His district went for Trump in 2016 and for Obama in 2008 and 2012. Van Drew won that seat after a 12-term Republican retired. There was a 10-term Democrat before that Republican.
[After the vote], he released a statement... "Without bipartisan support I believe this inquiry will further divide the country tearing it apart at the seams and will ultimately fail in the Senate....”Then there's Collin Peterson, who represents a district in Minnesota that Trump won by 30 points, making him the Democratic congressman whose district is the most Trump-favoring in the whole country. Unlike Van Drew, who's a congressional newcomer, Peterson is an old timer. He has held his seat since 1990.
“Everybody says, ‘Be on the right side of history’ — I think the right side of history is not to impeach," he told NBC News earlier this month. In that interview, he explained his view that impeachment is a divisive exercise — and a pointless one, given the unlikely prospect the Senate would vote to remove Trump — that will prevent Congress from addressing other issues....
Van Drew told "Fox and Friends" in September that he has seen no evidence of an impeachable offense and excoriated Democrats for not focusing on legislating. Trump then thanked him in a tweet.
After his "no" vote, Peterson said in a statement that the process "continues to be hopelessly partisan." "I have some serious concerns with the way the closed-door depositions were run, and am skeptical that we will have a process that is open, transparent and fair. Without support from Senate Republicans, going down this path is a mistake," Peterson said. "Today's vote is both unnecessary, and widely misrepresented in the media and by Republicans as a vote on impeachment. I will not make a decision on impeachment until all the facts have been presented."...I'm sure other Democrats know that Van Drew and Peterson are right, but there was strong pressure to keep the Democratic partisans together. They've committed themselves so heavily, that they keep plunging forward, unable to say they are wrong and they are hurting the country and interfering with the election process. They've walked out to the precipice and they don't see a reason to turn back. Turn back because you are on the precipice! No, the precipice is why they must do it. They cannot concede this thing they are dangling over is a precipice. That would ruin everything... in the dreamworld that I call Democratic Party in Trumpland.
“If anyone thinks a partisan impeachment process would constrain President Trump, they are fooling themselves. Without significant bipartisan support, impeachment proceedings will be a lengthy and divisive action with no resolution,” Peterson said in the statement.
"I believe it will be a failed process that will end up even further dividing our country and weakening our ability to act together on issues like passing USMCA (United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement), containing foreign threats and growing our economy," he added.
Posts
80 comments:
The decorated war hero from nowhere is getting the dazzle treatment from the hack press.
His testimony doesn't line up - but the hack press are on board with their options.
Hooray for bipartisanship.
The coyote runs for a bit before he realizes there’s nothing under his feet.
Some Senate Democrats will vote to acquit President Trump.
I like those 2 guys Petersen & Van Drew. It's good to know there are at least two elected Democrat officials who aren't entirely batshit crazy.
This is one of those dividing-line public issues, where staying silent won't cut it. Either one opposes this ludicrous, Soviet-style power grab by Pelosi & Schff or one enables it. No middle ground.
To impeach one's political opponent: (1) on flimsy grounds and (2) during the midst of a Presidential campaign season is just disgraceful. It's like a Banana Republic, which is where the Democrat Party wants to take us.
We are almost exactly 1 year til the election. Let's Roll.
""Today's vote is both unnecessary, and widely misrepresented in the media and by Republicans as a vote on impeachment.”
That’s their story, the 30 doomed Democrats, and they are sticking to it.
I might have told this joke already, but it comes to mind. A couple of guys are in a bar in the old west and one of them bets the other a drink he wouldn’t drink the spittoon. The other guy starts to drink and the first guy says “Stop! Stop! If you need a drink that bad I’ll buy you one!” The second guy keeps drinking until the spittoon is empty. “Why’d you keep drinking!?!?” “It was all one string."
Two Democrats that are correct on the merits and the politics, IMHO. I can imagine that many others are, as you say, in agreement with these two but going along because Nancy demands it. She may even have given these two permission to dissent. The others can vote no on bringing impeachment later when the Report is released and shows nothing warranting impeachment was done by Trump.
In the meantime the Schiff Farce and Follies roll on.
You'd hope that what finally slips and falls on the banana peel here is the indended audience for this procedure.
I am from Southern New Jersey, and like most states, it is divided. North Jersey LARGELY Democratic and they have a LOT more people....Central and Southern NJ is turning red because they are driving the middle class out because of the high taxes. Van Drew is doing the right thing, but he will pay for it being a Democrat and all.
"unable to say they are wrong and they are hurting the country and interfering with the election process"
What do you mean by "unable"? What evidence do you have that any of them might possibly think they are wrong? Which Dems would care about "hurting the country" or consider impeachment "interfering with the election process"?
You aren't assuming that, just because you voted for Hill and have voted mostly Dem and support abortion, deep down many Dems are like you, do you? I can't believe that you would! That would be terrible!
Colin Peterson is in a district in west central Minnesota. It went overwhelmingly for Trump in 2016.
He had to vote "No" or he would be toast in 2020.
So... the number of sober and responsible Democrats in the house is 2.
Anyhow there have been two votes testing where the House and Senate are. House Republicans and Senate Republicans are behind Trump. Without House Republicans the impeachment will be an obvious partisan effort to overthrow an election. Without Senate Republicans the whole thing will be waste of time. Without a real media it will take time for understanding that this is a partisan charade substituting for a real legislative agenda, to creep out into the country. But it will silently accumulate there like water stains in the ceiling after rain and water creeping down basement walls. The hard left is not able to believe that a constant propaganda drumbeat isn't a good idea so they'll keep all this up, ignoring the dank smell from the basement. And - possibly before the next election - Americans will come to see the hard left as a presence in Congress and the media which is a destructive force. In this respect the burning of California and the lights out there and the refusal to come to grips with the true cause is very significant.
When I commented in a previous post that "President Trump is compelling CNN to report the Project Veritas videos", I was categorized as "living in your fantasy Trumpland".
I assume that my fantasy Trumpland is similar to the Democrats' Trumpland dreamworld.
I can't wait to see the Articles of Impeachment. It will all be vague "abuse of power" stuff. A total joke.
The Democrats have no intention of this ever going to the Senate. After Shiff drags his feet forever,guess what happens next. It goes to Nadler's committee and we start all over again. The only reason we got the Mueller report is that Barr put his foot down. It's all about the 2020 election. The economy is booming, unemployment is at record lows, and Trump has gotten us out of bad trade agreements and pointless foreign entanglements. The Democrats have nothing else to run on and a clown car of bad candidates. This is all they have.
Thanks prof.
Today's Democrats remind me of the Jacobins in 1793, or the southern states before the Civil War. They've worked themselves into a corner but they can't imagine alternative courses of action.
They were permitted to vote no. I've no idea if it'll save them in their respective districts though.
The farce must go on, in public this time. In this newest iteration, Republicans won't be allowed to call their own witnesses. No doubt that we'll be assured that this is somehow "fair" by our betters in the media.
Some Senate Democrats will vote to acquit President Trump.
It will never get to the Senate. That event would require a generally fair and open trial.
Do you think even the Media want a fair and open trial?
It will really help Democrats in the industrial Midwest to focus on this instead of getting the trade deals with Mexico and Canada approved. It’s about priorities and the Democrats have theirs in order. Trump has to go! A year is too long to wait!
Colin Peterson is in a district in west central Minnesota. It went overwhelmingly for Trump in 2016.
He had to vote "No" or he would be toast in 2020.
He's toast already. He voted for Nancy Pelosi as speaker and he's going to wear that vote all the way to election day.
Blogger Mike Sylwester said...
Some Senate Democrats will vote to acquit President Trump.
Manchin, sure ... Sinema? Tester? That's all I can think of.
She may even have given these two permission to dissent
Most likely, she did exactly that.
On the other hand, it is obvious that Trump granted no such waivers to his party-members...eh?
zipity said...
Colin Peterson is in a district in west central Minnesota. It went overwhelmingly for Trump in 2016.
He had to vote "No" or he would be toast in 2020.
Rep. Peterson has served Minnesota's 7th District since 1991. I can't find authoritative data, but according to Wikipedia that district has voted Republican in every presidential election since at least 2000.
I'm not sure Peterson feels he has to oppose partisan impeachment in order to keep his seat. His "nay" vote may in fact be a sincere rejection of the Pelosi/Schiff "investigation".
The left: ‘It’s was bipartisan!!’
Oh, wait - you mean the no votes? Never mind... 😂
This short argument should be required reading on this topic:
Partisan / Bipartisan
It's an important point, and delightfully obvious in hindsight.
If the House "leadership" persist in running the House on the basis of all Democrats against all Republicans, I do not think this is a system that can "long endure," as Lincoln put it.
A lot of this seems to be sort of a class war with the chattering classes being very resentful of the deplorables out there rejecting their leadership. Responding by running against and trying to punish the voters is not going to end well for them.
(Edited and more apt under this post.)
Re: Skylark @ 1:11PM
If you have any similar "jokes" please keep them to yourself. Retching is no fun.
Phil said...
Blogger Mike Sylwester said...
Some Senate Democrats will vote to acquit President Trump.
Manchin, sure ... Sinema? Tester? That's all I can think of.
---------
I would think Doug Jones-AL might be a candidate.
Judge Andrew Napolitano absolutely convicts Trump on Fox News.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-hiding-plain-sight
Doug Jones (D-Ala) is up for re-election in 2020. I won’t predict which way he’d vote on impeachment, but I don’t believe it would be an automatic yea.
I found this interesting: Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella: Is this the best they've got?
Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia "collusion" investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election
...
A CIA officer specializing in Russia and Ukraine, Ciaramella was detailed over to the National Security Council from the agency in the summer of 2015, working under Susan Rice, President Obama's national security adviser. He also worked closely with the former vice president.
Federal records show that Biden's office invited Ciaramella to an October 2016 state luncheon the vice president hosted for Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. Other invited guests included Brennan, as well as then-FBI Director James Comey and then-National Intelligence Director James Clapper.
Several U.S. officials told RealClearInvestigations that the invitation that was extended to Ciaramella, a relatively low-level GS-13 federal employee, was unusual and signaled he was politically connected inside the Obama White House.
Former White House officials said Ciaramella worked on Ukrainian policy issues for Biden in 2015 and 2016, when the vice president was President Obama's "point man" for Ukraine. A Yale graduate, Ciaramella is said to speak Russian and Ukrainian, as well as Arabic. He had been assigned to the NSC by Brennan.
...
The whistleblower filed his "urgent" report against Trump with the I.C. inspector general on Aug. 12, but it was not publicly released until Sept. 26.
Prior to filing, he had met with Schiff's Democratic staff for "guidance." At first, the California lawmaker denied the contacts, but later admitted that his office did, in fact, meet with the whistleblower early on.
Earlier this year, Schiff recruited two of Ciaramella's closest allies at the NSC — both whom were also Obama holdovers — to join his committee staff. He hired one, Sean Misko, in August — the same month the whistleblower complaint was filed
Here in Virginia I hope Abigail Spanberger is getting her resume ready the second week of November next year. The 7th is not a purple district, and the voters will turn her out of office, now that they know she's not really the moderate Democrat she tried to portray herself as.
Can we trade Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski for Joe Manchin and a can of cream corn?
This is all being done for political advantage. Trump isn't going to be removed by anyone but the voters, and the Democrats know it. The key for them is to keep the process in the House for as long as possible, where they can control it. A vote here, a vote there ... Schiff and Nadler doing the rounds at CNN and MSNBC ... more anonymous sources and "bombshell" reports from the NYT and WaPo ... just keep the idea of impeachment looming in the headlines ... and do not pass the ball to the Senate until absolutely necessary.
wendybar said .Central and Southern NJ is turning red because they are driving the middle class out because of the high taxes.
I'd like to believe this is the case, but I have my doubts. In my region of the third district we've seen a significant influx of folks fleeing the northern part of the state, accepting a longer commute for a bit more land and a larger home given the same expenditure. Unfortunately, they bring their politics with them. Friends in Florida tell me the exact same thing is happening, and family in Colorado tell me the state has been ruined by the tremendous influx of people who fled from CA but brought their politics with them. Cancer doesn't know its cancer, it just looks for fresh tissue to consume. Much like liberals who have no clue why the world is seemingly falling apart about them no matter where they go.
@Phil, that's all you need. But it wouldn't surprise me to see Doug Jones vote to acquit, since he has no chance otherwise in November of next year. Gary Peters might be in a similar fix, but I wouldn't bet next week's lunch money on it. Still, James is showing a lot of strength and a pissed off electorate won't help his reelection chances in November. If Casey to Younger was up in 2020 I'd put even money on a vote to acquit, but he's not up for reelection until 2024.
Hey, former Republican Justin Amash voted with the Democrats. Does that count as bipartisan?
So we know the Democrats who voted no. And it's not hard to find out that Justin Amash voted yes. But who were the three who didn't vote?
Impeachment is an emergency measure to remove a President because the people cannot get to the polls quick enough to avert disaster. Our elected representatives stand in for the people. The people are perfectly capable handling this bit of nothingness. Democrats are squelching the will of the people, in order to serve their persona agenda High Crimes and misdemeanors. How do we define High Crimes and Misdemeanors? It's so evident, major Bi-partisan agreement readily passed by both Houses. Anything less than that is a political difference of opinion.
That's where we are now. Political scrum. To believe anything else is self delusion.
I share Beast's feeling. Jones will lose for sure if he votes to impeach but might win if he does not because of divided Republican voters. Roy Moore says he is running again and Sessions is toying with it.
I am surprised those retiring anti-Trump Republicans didn't take revenge on Trump by voting yes to make the sham look bipartisan and "legit".
The next move by the democrats re impeachment will depend on what Barr and Durham come up with.
Minnesota 7 borders North Dakota. The Dakotas have always been strongly Republican in presidential elections, but for long stretches they sent Democrats to Washington, maybe because the Democrats would fight harder for the spending they wanted. Memories of the Depression and New Deal were a factor, and those memories have faded over time.
Four NJ seats flipped Democrat in 2019. Three had been carried by Trump in 2016 and the presidential race was close in all four that year. Van Drew's is the most rural seat and one of the two where Trump did best and Clinton the worst.
Schift for Brains went full Banana Republic on his kangaroo court. You should never go full Banana Republic.
Cummings didn't vote, I hope.
On the other hand, it is obvious that Trump granted no such waivers to his party-members...eh?
I wasn't aware Trump was House Minority Leader.
When did this happen?
I wasn't aware Trump was House Minority Leader.
When did this happen?
I wasn't aware anyone claimed he was.
Who said such a thing?
I feel like I didn't read the middle of the book but know how it began and how it ends. (somehow Hillary shows up and the end...)
"Theyve committed themselves so heavily, that they keep plunging forward, unable to say they are wrong and they are hurting the country and interfering with the election process. They've walked out to the precipice and they don't see a reason to turn back"
You've misspelled Republicans, Professor. The further the Republicans go out on a precipice supporting this disgusting, corrupt, abusive President who uses the office for profit and politics and is feeding the Constitution into a meat grinder, the more they will pay for it electorally. We brought impeachment charges against Clinton -- rightfully so -- for far less.
You've misspelled Republicans, Professor. The further the Republicans go out on a precipice supporting this disgusting, corrupt, abusive President who uses the office for profit and politics and is feeding the Constitution into a meat grinder, the more they will pay for it electorally. We brought impeachment charges against Clinton -- rightfully so -- for far less.
The DNC is obviously reading your blog, Althouse.
On the other hand, it is obvious that Trump granted no such waivers to his party-members...eh?
PP has no idea of how things go. Why would anyone on the winning side of an argument choose to say "I want to lose !"?
The further the Republicans go out on a precipice supporting this disgusting,
Oh. A new troll. How's astronomy, Mike ? Still seeing stars ?
"We brought impeachment charges against Clinton -- rightfully so -- for far less.”
LLR strikes again!
HaHa! Now I understand why the Professor was searching her "lemmings" tag! Trump will be a great big snowy (orange-y?) owl with his nest made of hapless Democrats once this farce is over.
Who said such a thing?
Don't play coy.
You did by implying House members vote according to Trump's directions.
doug jones from hellboy, who wrongly detained Richard jewell, and as such let eric rudoph go on murdering people,
@Mike (the little one), we brought impeachment charges against William Jefferson Clinton for committing felony perjury. Which felony has Trump committed? And he is clearly not profiting from the Presidency (unlike a former community organizer who was able to buy a $15M mansion on Martha's Vineyard).
This will go down in the history books as an impeachment investigation, at this time, 60/40 that the House never votes out articles of impeachment.
Back to history, this will be listed as the 4th impeachment attempt. But it is not impeachment. This does not sound like impeachment in any of the nation, excluding the beltway. I don't hear any impeachment discussion. None. Only the media is talking about it. The people are not. It carries the label, lacks any defining characteristics. It will carry an asterisk, a non-impeachment, impeachment.
They've walked out to the precipice and they don't see a reason to turn back. Turn back because you are on the precipice!
My wife visited Niagara Falls as a child. The sight was so mesmerizing, she has told me, that when she stood at the railing, she felt a nearly overwhelming urge to throw herself over the edge into the churning waters.
Pee Pee Tapes! Ha ha ha!
He wanted Trump impeached for fictionally disrespecting the bed Obama once slept on!
I listen to the opening of Nicole Wallace? on msnbc. She was giddy. She reported todays democrat interrogation victim dropped a bombshell that sealed President Trumps fate. Reporting from left leaning sources say he backed up President Trumps explanation, and found nothing suspect in the call at the time it happened
The point is, the media is using leaked information from a secret interview delivered by an anonymous source to advance their "news". This is all so stupid
"President who uses the office for profit and politics and is feeding the Constitution into a meat grinder, “
I would love to see the reasons behind that little string of nonsense... not.
I have another joke about Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Adam Schiff, but I will keep it to myself. But it is funny.
My wife visited Niagara Falls as a child. The sight was so mesmerizing, she has told me, that when she stood at the railing, she felt a nearly overwhelming urge to throw herself over the edge into the churning waters.
This happens to me anytime I am at a precipice. Plus my testicles start tingling and want to creep back into my body.
I dubbed her norma desmond, because she spoke of things, she had no way of knowing, when she was on the huntress campaign, of course she was probably following the dictates of her mentor, katie Couric, or perhaps following the company dictates, when she was their spokesman,
Doug Jones is not getting elected under any other circumstances, other than Roy Moore getting nominated again and he knows it. If no Moore in the race he cotes to remove. He’s Gonna need a job. If Moore is in, he votes to acquit. I base this on a trial will
Happen that late in the election!
Please God let Tuberville win this thing.
"Cancer doesn't know its cancer, it just looks for fresh tissue to consume."
Rit, I'm stealing this.
Doug Jones is not getting elected under any other circumstances, other than Roy Moore getting nominated again and he knows it. If no Moore in the race he cotes to remove. He’s Gonna need a job. If Moore is in, he votes to acquit. I base this on a trial will
Happen that late in the election!
Please God let Tuberville win this thing.
You've misspelled Republicans, Professor. The further the Republicans go out on a precipice supporting this disgusting, corrupt, abusive President who uses the office for profit and politics and is feeding the Constitution into a meat grinder, the more they will pay for it electorally. We brought impeachment charges against Clinton -- rightfully so -- for far less.
Bwaaaaa it’s Halloween, not April Fools Day.
President who uses the office for profit and politics ...
A President using his office for politics? Why, I never.
Impeach!
Van Drew's is an honest assessment of the process and the facts.
Yes, I am quite sure there are a number of Democrats who know all of this, but they are hostage to the media and the extreme left of the caucus.
seems like this will be the scenario:
A) more muckraking and snooping; hoping and Praying to find something, Anything
B) after coming up dry, the Dems will say: "Well, we're Not going to Impeach, but Yuk! he's EVIL!
C) The Dems will Then say:
..a: Well, we Had to look, because he was just SO repulsive
..b: Even though we, "for the Good of the Country" didn't Impeach; Ugg! we need a President that is above reproach, a man that is Good, and Clean, and Pure: We NEED Jo Biden!
This is the last you will ever hear of those two Democrats. If two Republicans had broken ranks, however, they would have gotten the full Flakey-Ford treatment. Endless discussions of their courage and integrity, book deals, movies, lasting fame. It could have been theirs for the asking.....A lot of these double standards are playing out in real time and are way too blatant. Are people in the media even aware of how bad they look?....I think the Stormy Daniels thing rises to the level of an election issue, but it's far from an impeachable offense. This Ukraine thing doesn't even rise to the level of a worthy election issue.
“If anyone thinks a partisan impeachment process would constrain President Trump, they are fooling themselves. Without significant bipartisan support, impeachment proceedings will be a lengthy and divisive action with no resolution,” Peterson said in the statement.
Undoubtedly echoing what someone must have said long ago about Andy Johnson.
Impeachment proceedings, you're tearing me apart! Oh hi Donald.
“A President using his office for politics? Why, I never.
Impeach!”
I love the projection of the left. His opponent in 2016 monetized her position of Secretary of State, selling access and American foreign policy for cash to her, her family, and her family’s private foundation/slush fund. Overall, maybe a billion and a half or so dollars, for a couple claiming to have been broke when they left the White House.
Had to say it is pointless (and offer that faux concern of Democrats "divisive") instead of more forthrightly saying it is baseless. What a sissy. He deserves to lose anyway. Trump with a huge House majority is going to be interesting to observe. How will those Republicans thwart him without Dem barking dogs to pretend to oppose?
What is he charged with?
Post a Comment