October 31, 2019

"The vote is on a resolution that would set rules for the public phase of an impeachment inquiry that has so far been conducted exclusively behind closed doors."

"It would authorize the House Intelligence Committee — the panel that has been leading the investigation and conducting private depositions — to convene public hearings and produce a report that will guide the Judiciary Committee as it considers whether to draft articles of impeachment against President Trump. The measure would also give the president rights in the Judiciary Committee, allowing his lawyers to participate in hearings and giving Republicans the chance to request subpoenas for witnesses and documents. But the White House says it still does not provide 'basic due process rights,' and Republicans complain that their ability to issue subpoenas is limited. They would need the consent of Democrats, or a vote of a majority of members. That has been standard in previous modern impeachments. The majority has the final say over how the proceedings unfold."

The NYT reports.

This is not the vote the Republicans have been demanding — that is not "a formal vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry," which is what happened in the cases of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon. So the Democrats are doing some theater of voting out in the open today, but it's not the vote that accords with historical practice. It's not the vote the Republicans have been talking about. It's a vote about what the rules will be.

Of course, the House gets to make its own rules — that's in the Constitution — and the majority will win and get what rules they want and can get away with claiming for themselves. Apparently, the idea is to give the President's supporters nothing until the Intelligence Committee has finished its work. The Democrats apparently want the Intelligence Committee to produce a one-sided report, with any balance on the side of the President to come only after the matter is referred to the Judiciary Committee.

So the Democrats will be out in the open today, explaining to us Americans why that is fair and why that is about getting to the truth? How will that work out? Here's how the NYT puts it:
But Thursday’s vote indicates that Democrats, once wary of holding a vote on the issue, have now united solidly behind the idea.
Or they've heard enough criticism about their partisan, secretive ways and they're yielding to pressure to legitimatize themselves. The NYT's use of the phrase "a vote on the issue" hides the just-admitted reality that it's not a vote on the issue the Republicans demanded — the issue of whether to authorize the impeachment inquiry. It's a vote on procedural rules for continuing the inquiry. The difference in issues is obvious if you think of the consequences of a "no" vote. What would happen if there's a "no" vote on these rules? Things would continue as they've been going, right?
They believe it adds an air of legitimacy to the inquiry and gives them practical tools they will need to effectively — and quickly — make their case to the public. It is also meant to call the bluff of Republicans who have been arguing for weeks that the process lacks legitimacy because the full House hasn’t voted on it.
But it doesn't call the bluff because it's not a vote on authorizing the inquiry. The Democrats are trying to get something while playing it safe. They're trying to get our opinion of their legitimacy.

We'll see how that works out.

ADDED: The NYT gives a lot away in saying "They believe it adds an air of legitimacy..." Democrats are only trying for an air of legitimacy, not actual legitimacy. And right now, they see themselves as lacking even an air of legitimacy.

IN THE COMMENTS: Jake said:
Call the bluff?

How were the republicans bluffing?

200 comments:

Birkel said...

Democratics took the bus of constitutional republic as far as they wanted.
Now they are getting off (Sorry Katie Hill.) at their preferred stop.
--Things Erdogan might have said

daskol said...

They still think we're, enough of us anyway, stupid.

daskol said...

Having the explicit and dogged support of the media makes you flabby. You don't get real-world signals when you start believing your own bullshit. Most of the leading Dems are just not that convincing when it comes to slinging their own BS. I guess they got where they are because they're good at the "back office" politics stuff.

tim in vermont said...

Skull and Bones Society impeachment continues. As long as it’s a roll call vote, the Republicans get something. They get 30 or so red district Democrats on record that the most important piece of business to the country right now is punishing Trump for mentioning a Joe Biden public statement re Ukraine in a phone call, and looking into election interference that the Ukrainian’s themselves have officially admitted to in 2016.

The arguments against the Democrat/media complex are so powerful and obvious they cannot be allowed to be spoken in a way that would force them to be reported. As long as it’s not reported by the Washington Post, it’s not real. Lots of their followers believe that. New York Times retains a slight semblance of shame, not the WaPo, which has gone full Brietbart.

Of course they have the tiger by the tail and if they lose this, they feel they will lose the election, and maybe the house, so there is no going back for them. They have "struck at the king."

gilbar said...

They believe it adds an air of legitimacy

They believe it adds an pseudo-air of legitimacy?
They believe it adds an veneer of legitimacy?
They believe it adds an facade of legitimacy?


Here's MY $0.02 worth
IF the democrats WANT to get rid of Trump, they should:
A) Authorize an Official Impeachment Inquiry
B) Get things out in the open
C) Have the Official Impeachment Inquiry find that;
While Trump is EVIL, and WICKED, and TERRIBLE....
We do NOT find that what he did, THIS TIME, rises to the level of an Impeachable Offense
D) Vote to Censure, and remind people that
E) (in their minds) Trump is EVIL, and WICKED, and TERRIBLE
F) Work on getting him voted out of office

This would piss off the democratic base; BUT! what is that base going to do?
Vote for Trump now? NO.
The Democratic base (including illegals and graveyard residents) will STILL vote democrat
The question is, like it ALWAYS is; what will the middle independents do?

IF the democrats WANT to get rid of Trump, they should Act Like they aren't partisan loonies
That's MY $0.02. But, it assumes that the Dems aren't Crazy*

Crazy* ALL THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TO DO IS NOT BE CRAZY — AND THEY CAN'T EVEN DO THAT.

Jake said...

Call the bluff?

How were the republicans bluffing?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Elections have consequences. The American people obviously did not trust Trump or the house Republicans to act in an ethical manner and they gave the house Democrats oversight. This is what oversight in a democracy looks like - gather information, share that information with the public, vote.

wendybar said...

They REALLY think Americans are ignorant. I hope they aren't proven right.

tim in vermont said...

Votes have consequences too.

The American people were lied to about Russian collusion, and the truth was kept from them until after the election. The Democrats explicitly did not run on impeachment. So we will see what happens.

tim in vermont said...

Schiff’s problem is that he is not really going to be able to keep as tight a lid on what goes on in his committee as he needs to get away with this fraud, even if they have co-opted Drudge, because there are just too many ways around the “gatekeepers.”

The problem with the internet for Democrats is, as Hillary Clinton once said, that "there are no gatekeepers.” Getting to a now fat and happy Drudge doesn’t change that.

AllenS said...

And right now, they see themselves as lacking even an air of legitimacy. -- AA

I don't think that they care.

daskol said...

Meanwhile, in news that strikes me as significant, but is getting zero play: respected coroner concludes his investigation and determines that Epstein's injuries are indicative of homicide, as the broken neck bones among other signs are inconsistent with suicide. "They," and I don't mean a trans individual here but the plural, think we're really, really stupid. At least remarkably distractible and incurious. And so far, they're not wrong.

Howard said...

It's an ongoing investigation...l could not possibly comment

Equipment Maintenance said...

Impeachment, along with everything else Democrats do nowadays, is intended to help them calibrate how far they can go before igniting Civil War 2.0. They would prefer not to get into something they would assuredly lose, and badly, but they simply cannot allow next year's elections to happen, not if we're going to re-elect Trump.

AllenS said...

Since the Democrats run the process, they can do whatever they want. Remember this? It's not who votes that counts, but who counts the vote.

Big Mike said...

And right now, they see themselves as lacking even an air of legitimacy.

True

cyrus83 said...

Considering this is the party that trotted out "deem and pass" years ago when they were looking for procedural loopholes, I half expect Pelosi to claim this vote is actual impeachment in a few weeks and try to get the press to carry their water and blame the Senate for not acting on it.

I'm pretty sure Democrats were expecting at least some Republicans to support them so they could hide under the bi-partisan mantle, but so far it seems they're going the Obamacare route of being so dismissive of the Republicans and the need for due process that they may end up getting 0 Republican votes despite the fact that a lot of DC Republicans don't really like Trump either.

Pelosi apparently has learned nothing from the last time the Democrats went down this road, and this time there isn't even a massive government boondoggle as a reward at the end of the road for the effort. A repeat of 2010 may be the result, and honestly it should be so that Impeachment Theater cannot continue after Democrats re-elect Trump in no small part because they never accepted the 2016 results - and really, if you think about it, Democrats never really came to terms with 2004 or 2000 either, it's just that they were able to destroy W's presidency (with a major assist by W's passivity and the press) and now think they can do the same this time to Trump.

stevew said...

Political theater that will add an air of legitimacy to this proceeding for the Americans that aren't paying close attention. If Pelosi and Hoyer are able to convince the Red/Purple state Democrats that few of their district voters are paying attention they will get their 'yes' votes.

tim in vermont said...

It’s kind of strange how Democrats don’t have the confidence to just do a vote of censure and move on in a bid for the middle. They seem to be allowing themselves to be goaded into a difficult and risky position by their base.

Amadeus 48 said...

The NYT: bogus news for lefties.

My friend who emigrated from Poland at age 17 in the 70s says reading the NYT is like reading Pravda.

Marek said...

After reading this blog for some time, I've come to the conclusion that far too much credit it given to journalists for understanding what they themselves write. If it sounds good for the preferred side they write it, if it sounds bad for the other side they write it. Rather than applying a keen legal professors eye, just assume they are buffoons that don't fully parse what they write.

Bob Boyd said...

Seems like this has become kind of a tortoise and the hare race between Barr and Schiff.

Limited blogger said...

A vote to put Trump on double secret probation.

Birkel said...

ARM intones that elections have consequences while his preferred party continues its work to ignore the 2016 election.

The death of irony is an underreported story.

Phil 314 said...

It will be interesting to see how House Dems in purple districts and/or Trump supporting districts vote.

Do you want a primary challenge from the left or do you want to risk moderate and independent votes in the general?

rhhardin said...

I've forgotten what Trump's crime was.

Seeing Red said...

House Intelligence Committee

Oxymoron.

Phil 314 said...

This approach seems to string the whole process out. So if ultimately there is a House vote to impeach will Biden be all alone out on the campaign trail while Sanders and Warren are stuck in the Senate chambers.

(I assume Booker and Harris will be irrelevant by then)

This is Mayor Pete’s big opportunity!!

rhhardin said...

The thing seems sort of like health care, a monster which passed as another bill since it couldn't pass legitimately.

Tank said...

rhhardin said...
I've forgotten what Trump's crime was


Pretty sure the crime is investigating Dem corruption.

tim in vermont said...

If the whistleblower really was involved, as it looks like, in pressuring the Ukraine to do things like denouncing Manafort and dumping their intelligence files onto the front page of the New York Time then Trump has every right to bring that to the fore and Schiff is hiding exculpatory evidence and trying to bury it.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

I've forgotten what Trump's crime was.

Getting elected as a Republican

Browndog said...

It's very odd to watch a President of the United States get railroaded for crimes he didn't commit twice in 3 years.

Banana Republic.

rehajm said...

So more theater as expected. Not sure how this would change the White House strategy of demanding a formal vote
for inquiry...

gilbar said...

Skylark said, in just 2 sentences, what i tried to say in 4 paragraphs...
It’s kind of strange how Democrats don’t have the confidence to just do a vote of censure and move on in a bid for the middle. They seem to be allowing themselves to be goaded into a difficult and risky position by their base.


You write much better than i do Skylark! But, YES; why don't they vote to censure and move on?

GatorNavy said...

Ya want more Trump!?! This is how you get more Trump!

tim in vermont said...

In war there are different kinds of battles, set piece battles are planned, and skirmishes just happen. Sometimes skirmishes cascade into full blown wars, like George Washington at Fort Duquesne. I think this started out as a skirmish that has gotten out of control for the Democrats. They are keeping a lid on this blunder as best they can, but I think it’s a blunder, and once the facts are forced onto the American consciousness, it’s not going to be a good look for them

I don’t even think this is what Trump did, and I have been faithfully reading Drudge and the New York Times to find out, but only a percentage of voters in the low thirties think that this is an impeach and remove “crime” even if it’s as bad as the Democrats say.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

So the best arguments in the game of what would you argue if you had to argue Donald Trump is innocent is that this is not the vote that Republicans have been demanding and Democrats don’t yet even have an air of legitimacy. Weak.

As for how it will work out, odds are that it will work out that Donald Trump is impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate. If Democrats judge this to be a mortal sin while Republicans consider it merely another of Donald Trump’s venial sins, that is the right result, isn’t it? That’s the Bill Clinton impeachment precedent, for those keen to follow precedent.

I am interested in the question of who Republicans might want to call as a witness who would neeed to be subpoenaed and Democrats would not want to testify. They could call the Ukrainian prosecutor who Joe Biden got fired, but he is likely to be a bad witness. They could call Joe Biden and Hunter Biden and subpoena their financial records. Maybe those walls are paper thin too. That opens the door, though, doesn’t it?

Seeing Red said...

It's very odd to watch a President of the United States get railroaded for crimes he didn't commit twice in 3 years.

Banana Republic.

While watching one of the biggest economy’s in the world (California) go down because it acts like one.

Olde World diseases, can’t keep the lights on, can’t keep the water flowing and poop is tolerated.

tim in vermont said...

Media jobs are so precious and hard to get that almost nobody is willing to get shunted into the Greenwald wilderness for bucking the party line. In France they co-opt the press by getting them apartments in fashionable arrondissements. Here, just having a media job is something few are willing to risk losing, just because someties they smell a rat and need to keep their mouths shut.

Brokaw is rich enough that he can speak the truth, but you know he just kissed any relevance to the modern media good by for apostasy.

Qwinn said...

Republicans wanted to add an amendment to the rules that exculpatory evidence must be forwarded to the Judiciary Committee.

Democrats rejected it.

According to ARM, "this is what oversight in a democracy looks like".

tim in vermont said...

" am interested in the question of who Republicans might want to call as a witness who would neeed to be subpoenaed and Democrats would not want to testify. “

No you are not, or you would have noticed the comments about it. The whistleblower seems up to his neck in soliciting foreign interference in 2016. Why is that out of bounds? Because reasons, right?

“Weak”

Straw men usually are, that’s their point.

tim in vermont said...

Picket ordered his charge because he thought the good guys "must be out of ammo by now.” Not sure why this comes to mind. Maybe Democrats think that there overwhelming air cover from the media will carry the day.

John henry said...

Currently about 80% of the way through John LeCarre's latest book "Running Agents in the Field" Excellent as always and I highly recommend.

LeCarre has always had an underlying thread of antipathy for the US that comes across as jealousy. "We should be foam finger number 1, not those upstart Americans!!" It was never enough to really bother me.

In this book he still has this thread but now he is very explicitly against Donald Trump (and Brexit) on pretty much every other page. I think it might even be considered a plot point as it seems to be what is motivating the bad guy (though I am still not clear on what the bad guy is up to or even who it is.)

The nerve of PDJT not picking up the tab for NATO!!! The nerve of him making England pay its share of NATO funding?

Anyway, great book as always. Just found this a bit startling.

John Henry

tim maguire said...

But it doesn't call the bluff because it's not a vote on authorizing the inquiry.

You're right, but at least as importantly, the NYT doesn't seem to know what the word "bluff" means.

jaydub said...

Sometimes I think ARM is just a troll, sometimes I think he's just gaslighting us, and sometimes I think he may (as Obama once said) actually believe his own bull shit. Regardless, an Althouse poll on those possibilities could be entertaining while giving him an idea of how he's doing.

wendybar said...

The whistle blower is a KNOWN WH leaker. He is named on the internet now...although good liberal progressive papers and news outlets are trying to keep his name secret. He got FIRED for leaking at the WH in 2017...Democracy dies in the DARKNESS.....

AllenS said...

Great idea, jaydub @ 8:09 AM. We all need to be judged. I would find that interesting.

Mike Sylwester said...

The proposed procedure is a valid method of coming to an impeachment vote in the House.

As long as the procedure still is conducted in secret by just a small, partisan group in the Intelligence Committee, the House still does not have standing, however, to obtain grand-jury materials, tax documents, White House testimony and other normally protected information.

Once the procedure is conducted in public -- approved by a House vote -- then there will be some legal standing to demand such information.

------

If the House prevents cross-examination and other disputes, then the Senate will do them. In the Senate, all the witnesses will be cross-examined in public. All the evidence will be exposed and disputed.

Then the Senates Republicans and probably some Democrats will vote to acquit President Trump.

And during the election campaign, Trump will say that he has been exonerated.

-----

In the Senate trial, the Bidens' corruption will be exposed. All the State Department's and CIA's documents about the Bidens' actions in Ukraine will be made public.

* the position papers, reports, memoranda about Viktor Shokin

* the position papers, reports, memoranda about Burisma and Hunter Biden

* the position papers, reports, memoranda about Joe Biden's demand that Shokin be fired

* the position papers, reports, memoranda about opinions of foreign and international organizations about Joe Biden's demand that Shokin be fired

I expect these documents will show that the initiative to fire Shokin came essentially only from Joe Biden.

Bob Boyd said...

Seems like this has become kind of a tortoise and the hare race between Barr and Schiff.

Except in this case it looks more like a race between a crocodile and a pug that survived intra-uterine Parvo.

Francisco D said...

I've forgotten what Trump's crime was.

Bushman: Getting elected as a Republican.

More importantly, defeating Hillary and uncovering the Russia hoax. The Clinton legacy will be a lot of indicted and fired Deep Staters. Obama and his closest people will skate, but there will be blood.

Bay Area Guy said...

The Farce continues.

Michael K said...

The American people obviously did not trust Trump or the house Republicans to act in an ethical manner and they gave the house Democrats oversight.

ARM is believing his own BS here or trolling. The 2018 election saw lots of fraud, especially in CA and AZ (Phoenix) with ballot harvesting. Plus those Dims who got elected in red districts were promising sanity. Their base is crazy andkis pushing them to destruction. 1972, here we come.

paminwi said...

Why are people still using the word whistleblower?
His name is Eric Ciaramella.
Let’s name names.
He doesn’t have a right to be anonymous.
He has the right to his job and not be fired.
Follow @gregrubini on twitter for good information.

iowan2 said...

Elections have consequences. The American people obviously did not trust Trump or the house Republicans to act in an ethical manner and they gave the house Democrats oversight. This is what oversight in a democracy looks like - gather information, share that information with the public, vote.

Another cut and paste of material that the poster fundamentally fails to comprehend.

If the people don't trust President Trump, they get to go the polls almost exactly 1 year from now and vote him out of office. A true reading of the will of the People. Democrats have no intention of following the will of the people. Democrats have been trying to Impeach the President since before the Inauguration. The Idiocy of impeaching a President with just months left to serve, gives proof to the lie the Democrats are pushing. Impeachment is an emergency action used when the immediacy of the situation, cannot wait for the next election. The last 2 modern day impeachments took 100's of days to get to a vote in the Senate. Nixon, the Senate opened investigations in February of 1973, articles of Impeachment, written in July, 1974

Todays Democrats have told us why this must be rushed forward, before the People exercise their will. Democrats are failing to win the battle of ideas. Democrats are acutely aware of this fact. Acutely aware they have no hope of winning an election, where they make the bogus claim, that the people hate the current Republican President.

Sebastian said...

"It adds an air of legitimacy"

See, they don't think the Althouses of America are all that serious about drawing the line against Congress trying to undo election results.

It's almost as if Dems believe that nice liberal women don't believe what they profess to believe--or at any rate, are too timid to #Resist for real.

Mike Sylwester said...

A main idea in the accusation against President Trump is that an investigation of the bribing of former Vice President Biden would be a benefit only for Trump as an individual.

In other words, the only reason why Trump would want the bribing of Biden to be investigated is that the investigation would help Trump win the 2020 election.

However, the bribing of the US Vice President should be a matter of concern for the entire US Government and electorate -- not merely for Trump as one individual.

* Exactly who bribed Vice President Biden (through his son Hunter)?

* What was the value of the bribe?

* What did Vice President Biden provide in return for the bribe (beyond getting Shokin fired)?

* What other bribes did Biden accept while he was Vice President?

The House Democrats are arguing that the bribing of Vice President Biden was and still is in the interest only of President Trump, because he might use the issue to help him win the 2020 election.

Mike Sylwester said...

Quinn at 8:01 AM
Republicans wanted to add an amendment to the rules that exculpatory evidence must be forwarded to the Judiciary Committee.

Democrats rejected it.


I did not know that.

That's a very important criticism of the Democrats' procedures.

Browndog said...

Blogger Mike Sylwester said...

If the House prevents cross-examination and other disputes, then the Senate will do them. In the Senate, all the witnesses will be cross-examined in public. All the

In the Senate trial, the Bidens' corruption will be exposed. All the State Department's and CIA's documents about the Bidens' actions in Ukraine will be made public.


You have far more faith in Senate republicans and the rule of law than I ever could.

The Senate has not only been silent, and refuses to defend Trump publicly, but haven't even so much as held a single hearing on the FISA/Mueller/ Russian Collusion Impeachment attempt.

tim in vermont said...

" expect these documents will show that the initiative to fire Shokin came essentially only from Joe Biden.”

Democrats in general, and Biden in particular had a huge self interest in quashing that investigation. When Biden says “There is no conflict of interest” he is either lying or profoundly ignorant for a man who fancies himself POTUS material. Why it’s not in the national interest to investigate a corrupt scheme that involved the use of the office of the vice presidency and Air Force 2 is something only a Democrat can explain I guess. The United States should not be projecting an image of corruption abroad, this image is a problem for any POTUS, who has the responsibility to conduct foreign policy.

Were it Trump and his son, the cries of “emoluments” would show up on seismographs worldwide.

tim in vermont said...

Biden is Spiro Agnew without the sharp wit.

Beasts of England said...

I’m going to laugh my ass off if any Dems vote against the ‘air of legitimacy’ act!! 👻

Bay Area Guy said...

I guess Nadler at the House Judiciary Committee was so clueless, ineffectual and untelegenic that Nancy-Pants removed him from all proceedings.

Schiff is the more devious, dishonest little weenie, and, behind closed doors, can get a lot done.

Compared to these dishonest clowns, Mueller doesn't look so bad!

Wince said...

IN THE COMMENTS: Jake said:

"Forget it, Althouse, it's Schiff's town."

Mike Sylwester said...

Joe Biden's defenders say that the international community -- not merely Biden -- demanded that Victor Shokin be fired.

That claim should be examined and proved.

Let's see all the documents proving that the international community demanded the firing before Biden pressured the Ukrainian Government -- and also all the documents proving that the international community approved the firing.

There must be many, many such documents. After all, the fact that Shokin was a prosecutor in Ukraine was a huge concern of the international community.

The international community has many disagreements, but the international community agreed unanimously that Victor Shokin should not be a prosecutor in Ukraine. That's why Vice President Biden demanded that the Ukraine Government fire Shokin.

Let's see all those documents. The US State Department must have a big pile of them.

tim in vermont said...

"The Senate has not only been silent, and refuses to defend Trump publicly,”

No, they got 50 signatures plus Pence on a resolution that this was a kangaroo court. Obviously all the Democrats are purporting to do here is to codify their star chamber with a vote of the House, but that puts Democrat members on record as voting for impeachment, however finely many of them try to explain to to voters back in their Trump leaning districts.

This vote is a victory for Republicans and a bitter pill for Democrats, however Democrats try to paint it. They could have done this any time.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

2018 - we went to bed with R's still in control of the house. Next day - the left stole it.

The left know how to steal elections.

Owen said...

Skylark: what gilbar said. Great comments, thanks.

Just me venting here as a response to the outrageous hugger-mugger of the Schiff Faux Investigation theater, which I guess he will run in parallel to 2020 Dem campaigns, dialing it up and down to suit an agenda of distracting and discrediting Trump and the GOP right through Election Day: my question to y’all is, if you were a GOP member of the one House committee (Intel?) that Schiff will use to conduct this farce, why would you feel any compunction about following his rules? Why would you not at least leak madly whatever went through that committee? We are at war, we need to think like warriors.

Browndog said...

The Senate is an 'Ol Boys Club.

I suspect McConnell will do the bare minimum to acquit Trump, but I do not believe he will put a former life-long colleague on trial to defend Trump.

Not in a million years.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The "air of legitimacy" act.

Indeed.

Bob Boyd said...

the ‘air of legitimacy’ act

I'm stealing that.

Browndog said...

LIVE: U.S. House Debate & Vote on Impeachment Inquiry Resolution

CSPAN/Youtube link

Kevin said...

Shorter resolution: You can fool some of them people all of the time.

Kevin said...

Its the Seinfeld Resolution.

It’s about nothing.

narayanan said...

If President Trump can secrets (kill strikes against ISIS etc.) from House D's why not House D's keep secret from President?

and Trump announced after the deed was accomplished fact!

FAIR IS FAIR - I TOTES GET IT

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

"How were the republicans bluffing?"

In the way Fake News can claim they were bluffing, or claim anything they want. Maybe Cannibal Cortez should convene hearings on the matter.

Bay Area Guy said...

So, Schiff and his Lawfare buddies are gonna produce a new Report (Mueller 2.0) with all this one-sided Ukranian garbage, focusing on 1 telephone call) and this "Report" will be soberly analyzed by the NYT and WaPost, lamenting and highlighting all the impeachable offenses committed by the President in this 1 nefarious phone call, and based on said Report, a large number of House Democrats will vote Yea on Articles of Impeachment, stating soberly and sincerely, that "Nobody is above the Law!"

What a joke.

Xmas said...

"The Senate has not only been silent, and refuses to defend Trump publicly, but haven't even so much as held a single hearing on the FISA/Mueller/ Russian Collusion Impeachment attempt."

I believe they are holding to the maxim, 'Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself.'

Until the House Democrats get a grasp on a concrete, impeachable issue, there is no reason to investigate anything. The actions of the House are helping their fundraising while weakening Democratic support in 'purple' states. Plus, some of them may be in the loop on the Durham investigation, as may Nadler and the Dems on the House side.

Michael K said...

The Senate has not only been silent, and refuses to defend Trump publicly, but haven't even so much as held a single hearing on the FISA/Mueller/ Russian Collusion Impeachment attempt.

Correct. Burr has been doing a ventriloquist act with Warner doing the talking. Senate Intel has been useless.

The Democrats just want to get an impeachment vote as revenge for Clinton. I think they would have done so if they had the votes. This is more show.

hombre said...

ARM: “This is what oversight in a democracy looks like - gather information, share that information with the public, vote.”

Here’s ARM sharing the delusional perspective of the useful idiots.

Here’s what really happened: Schiff gathered witnesses in the dark, conducted proceedings in secret, coached witnesses, limited cross-examination of witnesses, leaked hearsay testimony of witnesses that favored his cause, permitted testimony inadmissible in any court of law, declined to share the testimony (information) with House members in violation of house rules.

It really makes no difference whether the ARMs are stupid or evil or both. They are tools of the seditious Democrats.

tcrosse said...

If nothing else, they got Althouse to admit she voted for Hillary.

robother said...

Why drain the Swamp when you can cover the stench with Schiff's patented Air o' Legitimacy? Coming soon to a Deep State safe house or corporate board room near you.

Pookie Number 2 said...

They believe it adds an air of legitimacy

The Democrats’ major problem is that they’re transparently using their political power for partisan purposes, which completely undermines the hysterical shrieking about Trump using his political power for partisan purposes.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

This is all for Hillary.

All corruption and lies and government-whore revenge ...for Hillary.

Bay Area Guy said...

Silent Senators shall not be tolerated. Sen. Burr - get off your ass.

On the other hand, Sen. Pierre Delecto should probably just shut up.

rhhardin said...

The bluffers vs the fluffers

rhhardin said...

You can't fool all the people all of the time, but if you can do it just once it lasts for four years. - Roger Price, 1950s. apparently out of date.

I'm Full of Soup said...

I think it is fair to say the two-year Russian collusion charade against Trump's presidency contributed to the Dems taking back the House in 2018. So the Dems are following that playbook again with their MSM cohorts.

rhhardin said...

Unlawful use of farce.

MountainMan said...

Watch the video of Rep. Deb Lasko discussing some of the details of the resolution..

We transitioned in the Soviet Union so quickly I almost didn’t notice.

Francisco D said...

The Democrats just want to get an impeachment vote as revenge for Clinton. I think they would have done so if they had the votes. This is more show.

It is primarily to keep suburban Mom/moderate Democrats in the fold. The Media plays to that partially attentive audience and Schiff is running things to create media fodder.

Everyone knows there are no grounds for impeachment, but there needs to be a bit of mayhem to distract people from the Horowitz report and the Durham investigation.

I think this sham is more about the survival of the Democrat party than it is about Clinton.

Susan said...

"What an incredible smell you've discovered!"

It's the air of legitimacy!

rightguy said...

The republicans should call every witness that has testified already to Schiff- otherwise we'll never have any idea what exactly they said.

sTony said...

It seems to me that the Republicans called the Democrats' bluff and the Democrats are about to put their cards on the table: the 2, 3 and 7 of hearts, 10 of diamonds and the Queen of Spades.

Too bad the Democrats went all in on their losing hand.

Birkel said...

Senator Burr is on the other team.
His own corruption guarantees how he votes.
That is why he is retiring.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The Adam Schiff Empowerment Act

Ken B said...

Is “behind closed doors” related to that darkness the WaPo is always going on about?

cubanbob said...

Fellow followers of the Cult of Althouse let's petition our Goddess to inform us what level of venality on the part of the Democrats has to be reached for her to inform her followers that she will vote for: A-third party as protest vote against the Democrats, B-vote for Trump.

The Democrats must be truly insane if they think a televised impeachment trial in the Senate is going to help their cause. By the time this goes to the Senate and if Biden is still the front runner, they will have their probable nominee being called to testify on his criminal behavior along with a number of former Democrat officials. Back during the Nixon affair Nixon had already won his second election and was half way through his second term and the whole thing was televised for a year before he resigned. The Democrat loons haven't figured out that spending the next year trying to depose Trump via this impeachment sham while Trump is running for reelection will appear to a considerable percentage of independent voters as blatantly trying rig an election.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Mike S.

Joe Biden's defenders say that the international community -- not merely Biden -- demanded that Victor Shokin be fired.

That claim should be examined and proved.


Let's see all the documents proving that the international community demanded the firing before Biden pressured the Ukrainian Government -- and also all the documents proving that the international community approved the firing.


Exactly. The media exonerated Biden - where/when was the investigation and the trial?
Also - Hillary never paid for her crimes and now she will run again. The media will cover for her. A lifetime of Clinton Crimes excused and exonerated. by the press.

Fernandinande said...

Leaving out a few extraneous words, the process sounds like a typical article in the Diné bi Naltsoos -

authorize public hearings and produce a report to draft articles that will guide lawyers to participate in other hearings and request documents

Iman said...

“They believe it adds an air of legitimacy.”

I believe it adds to the stink of the Democrats... who already have a world-class stench about their entire operation.

Dave Begley said...

If the Articles of Impeachment are for "abuse of power" regarding the Ukraine phone call, the Senate should just dismiss on a 12b6 motion.

Even if everything the Dems say is true, the actions of the President do not amount to a high crime and misdemeanor within the meaning of the constitution.

Ken B said...

“If nothing else, they got Althouse to admit she voted for Hillary.”

Her calling for Trump to withdraw shortly before the election was a tip off.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The wicked witch who calls Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard - "Russian assets" or "Russian agents" - who are being "groomed by Russians" ..wants power over you.

Think hard on that.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

This is all to damage Trump at any cost.
The corrupt left know they have the media in their pocket - so any BS will do.

Gk1 said...

It struck me that the democrats really don't want a quick vote on this and be done by Christmas the way this is structured (regardless of what Nancy says). This is really about dragging this into next year to damage Trump. I increasingly think they will drag this out for a few months and then settle on censuring in the spring as the Senate has made it abundantly clear Impeachment is DOA. Also the last thing they want is a trial that exposes Biden's and Obama era Ukrainian influence corruption. Since the media is there to carry water for the democrats this seems totally workable to me. There will be no impeachment just empty jesturing and posturing into the new year.

tim in vermont said...

"The Democrats must be truly insane if they think a televised impeachment trial in the Senate is going to help their cause. “

I think Nancy is trying to avoid that, and if the Republicans dismiss an impeachment out of hand without a public trial they will be playing into Democrats’ hand. She might be telling her caucus that the more outrageous they are, the more likely they are to avoid the scrutiny of a Senate trial. It depends on whether Trump has the pull with McConnell to get him to do the trial. If the investigation into the origins of the collusion charge turn up enough dirt, this whole thing may occupy the nation next summer.

Ukraine is looking like Teapot Dome.

I also think that the Clinton machine forced Biden onto Obama, because, as Gary Trudeau once put it in Doonesbury, when it was funny, “You’ve gotta dip your beak once in a while or nobody trusts you.” It’s like those gangs that make sure you are guilty of murder before they let you in.

DarkHelmet said...

Remember when Obama said "Don't call my bluff." Democrats in general really don't seem to understand the concept of bluff. Even when they do it.

Republicans very much want to get swing state/district Democrats on the record regarding impeachment.

Democrats, as usual, are pre-announcing that they have a busted flush, all the while counting on the media to spin it as a winning hand.

MadTownGuy said...

Mike Sylwester said...

"A main idea in the accusation against President Trump is that an investigation of the bribing of former Vice President Biden would be a benefit only for Trump as an individual....[snip]

"However, the bribing of the US Vice President should be a matter of concern for the entire US Government and electorate -- not merely for Trump as one individual."

Let's take it a step further. The withholding of oppo research (Bush tape, Stormy Daniels, etc.) until after Trump's nomination was a lock, as evidence of collusion between the DNCC and the news media - but I repeat myself - should be a matter of concern for the entire US Government and the electorate, bay all the citizenry.

Beasts of England said...

’It depends on whether Trump has the pull with McConnell...’

Mitch is up for re-election in 2020, meaning he’d like to continue wielding his power for six more years. He can’t risk the wrath of Don.

tim in vermont said...

Go to MountainMan’s link, BTW.

You have to be a blind partisan not to see what is going on. Alcee Hastings, the impeached and convicted bribe taker being on the committee is a nice touch. “Loose lips sink ships.” Alcee “Tried and Convicted”* Hastings. What ship are they worried about sinking? The ship of impeachment, or more accurately, the ship of fools.

That Republican Congresswoman from AZ is great too. She’s on the judiciary committee, good luck stifling her when the hearings go public.

*Hastings’ campaign motto, and I don’t blame you if you doubt this on account of the extreme irony, is “Tried and True."

tim in vermont said...

"Democrats, as usual, are pre-announcing that they have a busted flush, “

No, it’s just obvious that they are four flushing, they don’t know that because they are so cosseted by the media.

tim in vermont said...

Two Democrat nos and one Republican yes.

BTW, it’s a “bluff” because Democrats believe that the Republicans “know” Trump is guilty.

Marc said...

Two Democrats have voted against the resolution, or so reports the Times: Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey.

gerry said...

share that information with the public

Dear Lord. You are bucking for a job in the new socialist order Central Committee, right?

gilbar said...

No Republicans voted for the measure on Thursday. And, as Marc pointed out, two Dems voted against it

You DO NOT GET MORE BIPARTISAN, than having a vote where Only your side votes for it, and Not Even everyone on your side votes for it

Wait a minute; maybe BIPARTISAN isn't the word i'm looking for...

gerry said...

Collin Peterson, a Democrat from Minnesota, and Jeff Van Drew, a Democrat from New Jersey, are the two Democrats who voted against the impeachment resolution. The resolution was adopted by the Democratic majority in the House. The final tally was 232-196. This means that rules for an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump will go forward.

Clyde said...

Most Americans have an innate sense of fairness. Well, not the Democrats in Congress, who have already shown up holding the nooses for their erstwhile lynching of the President, but the rest of us. But for those who will be the swing voters in the next election, seeing televised hearings with Inquisitor Shifty Schiff running things would not appeal to that sense of fairness at all. The more people like Nadler and Schiff are on television, the more repulsed anyone who is not a partisan Democrat will be. This thing is likely to blow up in the Democrats' faces.

Yancey Ward said...

The only question you really have to ask yourself is this- why didn't the Democrats take the open path right from the start? It isn't that hard to give the minority the right to call witnesses to testify so that the public has as much information as possible to make a judgment- there really is no defense for not doing so.

Let me put to the lefty trolls here- what if the House were controlled by the Republicans today and they held hearings that only called witnesses friendly to Trump and refused to allow the Democrats to call witnesses that were unfriendly to Trump? Wouldn't you call it a sham impeachment inquiry- or, if it were Hillary being investigated by a Republican House? Impeaching a president is a major thing, and it needs to be seen as legitimate at every stage. This isn't a grand jury investigation, and calling it such is just fucking dishonest int he extreme. What are you going to do if the Senate just dismisses this with a peremptory vote- claim that it is unfair?

Marc said...

Judging solely on the basis of their photographs at Wikipedia, Messers Van Drew and Peterson seem to be Democrats who have very little, very little indeed, in common with the Squad.

Roughcoat said...

If Trump is impeached it will have the same effect on those who voted for him (as well as those who are leaning in that direction) as Lincoln's election had on the South.

I'm a Union man through and through, Midwest born and raised, so I'm not entirely comfortable with that analogy. But still. If Trump is impeached, I say it's time to take up arms. I mean that literally. Enough is enough.

As it is, I think I will hate and detest the Democrat Party until I draw my final breath. I never felt that way before -- on occasion I have voted for Democrat candidates for president and other offices. Never again. Never again. Never again.

tim in vermont said...

It’s “Bi Partisan” because two Democrats voted against it.

Nichevo said...

See, they don't think the Althouses of America are all that serious about drawing the line against Congress trying to undo election results.

If AA (and the millions of wine moms she epitomizes) were serious, she would have to not only vote for Trump in 2020, but vote for Republican Senators and Representatives.

If the message clung to by such as the piece of shit ARM (AA, piece of shit is OK, right? You objected to "human scum" from PDT, but not "piece of shit" from Samantha Power or Susan Rice or whoever it was, right?) is that electing a D House endorses the D coup attempts and general mania, surely she must oppose a D House?

If.

Yancey Ward said...

And when the Senate acquits along partisan lines, Trump is going to beat the Democrats over the head with his "exoneration". This is why you don't impeach on partisan lines to begin with- you are setting yourself up for rhetorica and political defeat. Republicans learned that lesson in 1998, though the acquittal part followed the elections in 1998, the public made its judgment at the polls. The best the Democrats can do here is to drag this right through the election next November, but that won't save them either since a year long impeachment investigation is just another political loser.

readering said...

I think it's fair to say Dems called GOP bluff when at start of week folks like AA were predicting this would not go through.

Mike Sylwester said...

The Bidens' defenders argue that Joe Biden does not promote his son Hunter's career and is even largely ignorant of it.

In relation to this argument, the Senate should examine publicly the commission of Hunter Biden into the Navy Reserve. Hunter was commissioned when he was 43 years old -- three years older than the maximum age. Furthermore, Hunter was commissioned despite a history of cocaine abuse.

The Senate should examine publicly whether Joe Biden played any role in getting his son Hunter commissioned as a Navy officer in these circumstances.

The Navy people who decided to commission Hunter should be called to testify publicly about their decision and about Joe Biden's influence on the decision.

If Joe Biden indeed did get his son Hunter commissioned as a Navy officer, then that action indicates that Joe Biden has continued to promote Hunter's business career to the present.

Iman said...

a haiku for the occasion...

something is rotten
the stench is making me clench
not Denmark it’s Schiff

Bay Area Guy said...

First principles: In Watergate, there was a burglary. That's a crime. The folks were caught, indicted, tried and convicted.

Where's the crime here?

Beasts of England said...

Amash votes yea, but he left the party earlier this year, so zero Republicans votes for this farce.

Rosalyn C. said...

What I understand the "big crime" is Trump asking the new Ukrainian president to proceed with an investigation into the corruption of Burisma and the Bidens' connection to it. According to Democrats that was wrong. In addition, US financial aid to Ukraine had been delayed perhaps as leverage or perhaps to pressure the EU to contribute more to Ukraine. Apparently the Ukrainians weren't aware that there was any hold so any leverage would be hypothetical. Rudy was running point on the conversation as the career diplomats alledgedly are above this sort of horsetrading. Honestly I don't know what to make of it -- I personally would like an accounting of the corruption in Ukraine, all the lost US aid which went to their corrupt politicians and how much our government officials and family members were involved. Was there a better channel to obtain that info? IDK.

Drago said...

Birkel: "Senator Burr is on the other team.
His own corruption guarantees how he votes.
That is why he is retiring."

Burr has no doubt been promised a lucrative payoff by Warner to hand control of his committee to Warner.

Warner running the Senate Intel committee is not an arguable proposition.

Yancey Ward said...

readering wrote:

"I think it's fair to say Dems called GOP bluff when at start of week folks like AA were predicting this would not go through."

I don't remember anyone predicting that- I even wrote that Pelosi wouldn't have scheduled if she didn't already have the votes to pass it, and I wasn't the only who did that. I do remember some, including Althouse, thinking Pelosi might hope it loses, but that isn't the same thing you described.

TreeJoe said...

Was that NYT article written by members of the DNC?

The prejudicial viewpoints and wordings are staggering.

effinayright said...

"Of course, the House gets to make its own rules — that's in the Constitution.."

**********

OK, how about this:

"The constitutional requirement of Due Process shall not apply during this session of the House."

Would that be a valid rule?

Gusty Winds said...

It's a race. Trump and Barr's investigation into Obama weaponizing of government agencies to spy on the Trump campaign, and the FBI and CIA in full, false witness assistance.... vs. the Impeachment Farce.

At some point the truth of the spying and Deep State will be clear, and they'll say "We had to break all these laws because of TRUMP..."

It's obvious. Just not to the rabid Clinton / Sanders / AOC supporter. They're are being duped into giving up freedoms and protections they don't even know they have.

M Jordan said...

It saddens me that so many have fallen for this entire faux drama. Trump will not be removed from office because it benefits no one, not Rs, not D’s. It would release a kind of chaos not seen since 1860.

The purpose here has always been to smear Trump going into 2020. This is all the Dems have. Will it be enough? I say no but when it’s the only card you’re holding, what else are you going to do? Fold?

Michael K said...

I'm kind of interested in that Ukrainian immigrant army officer who is more concerned with the welfare of Ukraine that that of the US.

Yancey Ward said...

I was looking for the so-called cracks in Republican support for Trump in that vote- it turned out the Republicans held unanimously against the resolution 194-0. More cracks on the Democrat side. This also shows the Democrats would have been better off offering a real resoltution with complete openess and power of subpoena- it might have gotten some Republican support. The path the Democrats are on is purely partisan, and that has consequences that I don't think they really understand.

Yancey Ward said...

M Jordan,

Sure, that is their goal, but here is the thing- the people you have to convince aren't Democrats or Republicans at their core. These are people who detest partisan politics- I would even count Althouse in that number at this point in time. This is the thing the Republicans didn't understand in 1998, and they had a much stronger case for impeachment than the Democrats have today. The key is what the middle of the road, non-partisan voter things about the grounds for impeaching- they weren't for impeaching Clinton for perjury in the 1998, and they are certainly not going to be for impeaching Trump for noting that the Bidens' might well have taken bribes while Joe was Vice President.

Basically, it should be a warning to the Democrats how people like Althouse are viewing this- if you are losing her, then you are losing most people who aren't pretty left of center to begin with.

DarkHelmet said...

"I think it's fair to say Dems called GOP bluff when at start of week folks like AA were predicting this would not go through."

What was the bluff? The Republicans wanted the Democrats to go on record with a vote. Now they have, and the ones from purple districts are vulnerable.

Rick said...

People are already aware Dems are indiscriminately ruling all Republican questions out of order thus preventing anyone from learning all the facts. Revealingly this is how they approached Title IX as well. They set themselves up as investigator, judge, and jury. Then they control the outcome by refusing to investigate exculpatory evidence or ask questions the defendant submits.

I wonder where the American left learned how to run show trials.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

"If Trump is impeached it will have the same effect on those who voted for him (as well as those who are leaning in that direction) as Lincoln's election had on the South.

I'm a Union man through and through, Midwest born and raised, so I'm not entirely comfortable with that analogy..."

There's absolutely no reason this should break along the same geographical and demographic lines as in 1860, which don't exist in anything like that form anymore. You won't have to give up your Yankee card.

Democrats seem to have forgotten that people can lean, or be swayed, the same way that Hillary thought that voters were either with her, or in the basket of Deplorables, with no reason to try to win voters from Trump - "I'm With H->er" or Against H<-er. In fact, she thought she was taking the moral high ground by NOT trying to appeal to them. She virtue-signaled her way to defeat. Schiff and the Squad are just taking things to their illogical conclusion.

daskol said...

readering, I think the anticipation for today was that the Dems would hold a vote authorizing impeachment, House-wide. That was the implication of Pelosi's announcement, which Steny Hoyer quickly walked back. Instead we got a vote on affirming the current process, more or less, which is Seinfeldian vote. They went for a patina of process, a dash of defendability, to give Schiff in the SCIF a whiff of legitimacy without actually taking a House-wide vote authorizing impeachment proceedings. They can do whatever they want as the majority, but they did not do what I understood AA looked forward to their doing today. Of course they didn't not do it, either.

purplepenquin said...

it turned out the Republicans held unanimously against the resolution 194-0

...with three Republicans (compared to one Democratic) refusing to cast a vote.

Francisco D said...

The path the Democrats are on is purely partisan, and that has consequences that I don't think they really understand.

Nonsense. The Democrats are on a path to saving the Constitution. At least that is what I hear in the media.

If two Republicans had voted for the resolution, the press would call it "bipartisan." As it was, two Democrats voted against it, so the press will call the opposition "bipartisan." Well, maybe not.

cubanbob said...

I think Nancy is trying to avoid that, and if the Republicans dismiss an impeachment out of hand without a public trial they will be playing into Democrats’ hand. She might be telling her caucus that the more outrageous they are, the more likely they are to avoid the scrutiny of a Senate trial. It depends on whether Trump has the pull with McConnell to get him to do the trial. If the investigation into the origins of the collusion charge turn up enough dirt, this whole thing may occupy the nation next summer."

Skylark, Mitch McConnell is a very sharp guy. He knows that the Republican Party is now glued to Trump and he is also up for reelection. Egging the Democrats in the house to go full crazy and impeach Trump would be a godsend for the GOP. The subpoenas for documents especially any exculpating ones plus all of the witnesses all exposed on live TV under oath all the while the DoJ is conducting criminal investigations on a number of those very same witnesses is something only certified crazies would risk. If nothing else just picture Joe Biden being cross examined on live TV and every Senate Democrat running for President tied down in the Senate during the procedure and objecting to almost everything Trump's defense team questions the witness or failing to object and looking like cowards or dupes to the Dimwit base. The Democrats might be on the verge of creating a marvel; a mobius stripe firing squad.

Lewis Wetzel said...

No Republican voted for the rules resolution. Two dems, from districts won by Trump in 2016, voted against it.
This is a sign that Schiff & Pelosi have no interest in a bipartisan impeachment effort that might get through the senate.
Which is weird, because #nevertrumper Republicans are saying that senators and congressman are always telling them, privately, of course, that they want Trump impeached.

Yancey Ward said...

Purplepenguin,

So what? The four not voting might not have even been in the House today? Most abstentions are due to cause, not an actual vote. In any case, they aren't a vote for or against, so the Republican side was unanimous against.

Michael K said...

...with three Republicans (compared to one Democratic) refusing to cast a vote.

PP grasping at those straws that are illegal in CA.

I tend to agree with cubanbob about the D Senators being tied up. McConnell may yet just dismiss it depending on polls.

I am seeing today that a GOP member of Judiciary may call Schiff as a witness before Judiciary as an "accuser" as Ken Starr was in 1998. Starr was cross examined by the White House counsel. That would be an interesting open hearing.

Yancey Ward said...

If the House does vote out impeachment articles, I want a full trial in the Senate, and I suspect Trump does, too. What I believe, though, is that the the leaderships of both parties in the legislature don't want a full trial- both have a lot to lose given that I think the Russian Hoax has a lot of Republican fingerprints on it of people still in the House and the Senate- especially the Senate. A trial would give Trump and his lawyers the perfect forum for outing all of this corruption.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Gk1 said...

It struck me that the democrats really don't want a quick vote on this and be done by Christmas the way this is structured (regardless of what Nancy says). This is really about dragging this into next year to damage Trump.

Exactly! They want to spend as much of next year as they can constantly "discovering" new bits of perfidy to lay at Trump's door. They know they have no candidate that can beat Trump.

Anonymous said...

Just for fun I fact checked purplepenguin's "refused to vote" bullshit.

Timmons is on fulltime military duty in the Guard from 10-21 to 11-22, and unable to vote.

Jody Hice is at his dad's funeral, and posted "I cannot be present to vote against Pelosi's sham."

I can't quickly find why John Rose didn't vote, but he's been vocal in his opposition to the process, so make of that what you will.

Not that it would be relevant anyway, but the attempt to imply something - anything - was weak sauce. I'd say you can do better but I've never seen evidence of it.

gahrie said...

I look forward to the Republicans harassing and impeaching the next Democratic president, whoever he or she may be.


Ken B said...

The Democrats have called Althouse. We will see if she was bluffing.

Francisco D said...

Comrade Schiff, call your first witness.

Yes Kommissar.

My first witness cannot reveal their true identity because right-wing hit squads are on the prowl. Therefore I will read the written testimony. There will be no questions allowed.

Media. Please focus your cameras on me.

narciso said...

about that,


https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/31/nsc-official-tim-morrison-to-schiff-i-was-not-concerned-that-anything-illegal-was-discussed-in-trump-ukraine-phone-call/#.XbsSjuj-feE.twitter

Owen said...

So here we go:
(1) Assemble all D's in full clown costumes
(2) Pack them into the tiny clown car of Impeachment inquiry vote
(3) Close and lock door
(4) Light car on fire
(5) Fix accelerator in full-forward position
(6) Launch off the cliff

Beasts of England said...

Good point, Lewis Wetzel. We were even gaslighted last night from a DNC operative’s comment claiming that all Republicans in DC were asking if Trump was worth the fight. I guess not a single House R got that memo!!

tim in vermont said...

"I think it's fair to say Dems called GOP bluff when at start of week folks like AA were predicting this would not go through.”

Yes, Pelosi called the bluff of bloggers and their commenters! What else you got?

We have a lot of Democrats from districts Trump won on record. That’s a good thing for everybody, isn’t it? Voters have more information to work with next election.

I think that the Democrats know that they can’t give up now, because exoneration of Trump means certain defeat for their candidate. It almost looks like they feel that failure to impeach and remove will lead to certain defeat, given the record low unemployment, etc.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Nets Tout ‘Damning’, ‘Bombshell’…Closed-Door Testimony Against Trump

We're back to:
"Damning"... "Nail in the coffin" "walls are closing in" D-talking points/spin-opinion as news.

Iman said...

Byron York dubs today’s vote “The Adam Schiff Empowerment Act”.

tim in vermont said...

It’s desperation from the Democrats

Rasmussen

Bruce Hayden said...

“The republicans should call every witness that has testified already to Schiff- otherwise we'll never have any idea what exactly they said.”

And I would start with the “whistleblower”. His identity appears to be becoming fairly well known. He is, of course CIA, and had worked in the Obama WH at the NSC. But he also appears to have other highly partisan connections to Biden, Schifty, and the Dems. Obvious question- did you meet with Schifty and his Lawfare attorneys before filing your “whistleblower” complaint? Who did you hear about the contents of the phone call from (implicating them for violating the Espionage Act for that leaking)? Wadler will, of course deny that request, as he will for any other inconvenient witnesses that Trump or the Republicans try to call, proving in open session that the entire proceeding is a sham. He has no choice there. The Republicans should try to call each one of Schifty’s witnesses who were interviewed in secret and the transcript of their interview hidden by Schifty. The more of this, the better, esp with Trump keeping his base informed of the travesty through his tweets, in his rallies, etc.

Timing is going to be interesting. Supposedly, their goal is to have this next phase wrapped up by the end of the year. I don’t think that, absent some really bad evidence popping up, they want the spectacle of a House impeachment circus in a Presidential election year. And the really don’t want to force their new Trump district Dem Members to vote for impeachment too late in the year. So, I expect Schifty to spend a couple more weeks in the basement running his Star Chamber investigation, then to throw it over the wall to Wadler before Thanksgiving. And then Wadler trying to hide his hearing with the holidays. Usually Congress is out for much of December. Should be interesting how they do this. But with the investigation complete, he can probably argue that there isn’t much need for much of a hearing before the full House (which is, of course, where the Dems have purportedly provided some due process to the President and Trump) before the impeachment vote. The Republicans will, of course, try to drag this out as long as they can, by calling all the witnesses that they weren’t allowed to call, or if called by Schifty, weren’t allowed to question. And Wadler will probably try to shut this down as unnecessary delay. And, thanks to these rules, will likely succeed.

One of the other aspects of this is that the House Dems need a formal impeachment inquiry, voted upon by the entire House, in order to have a chance at overcoming Executive Privilege in the courts in order to legally acquire the bulk of the Mueller “evidence”. Remember, Mueller’s prosecutors very likely had a mountain of information and documents dating back, probably, to the illegal 2016 FISA 702 searching, use of National Security letters to acquire telephone and banking records, and all of the wiretapping and email surveillance acquired by the FBI through their fraudulently acquired Title I FISA warrants (indeed, the 3rd renewal of the Carter Page warrant was specifically for their benefit). Millions of pages of documents, and hundreds of FBI interviews and National Security letters. Schifty very likely has much of the juicy stuff already, but to use it would be admission of Espionage Act felonies. They need legal provenance for having and using it.

One of the big reasons for the formal vote today was to give Schifty better grounds to argue in court that the House’s Article I Section 2 Impeachment power has now been formally invoked by the House, and that means, thanks to the Nixon precedent, that they can override Executive Privilege. But I don’t see that being satisfactorily resolved by the courts before the end of the year. And Schifty running his investigation as a star chamber witch hunt isn’t going to help his case. I really don’t think that they have worked out the timing very well, especially given all of the judges Trump has had confirmed.


Murph said...

Gk1 said...
It struck me that the democrats really don't want a quick vote on this and be done by Christmas the way this is structured (regardless of what Nancy says). This is really about dragging this into next year to damage Trump.


This is what I, too, believe is going on.
The Dems absolutely don't want exposure in the Senate of evidence that contradicts their fictional narrative. They will drag this "investigation" out..., and out..., and out..., until the election (or so close to the election as to deny the Senate time to try it.)
...leaving the public with nothing but the Dem story to influence their votes.

Nichevo said...

readering said...
I think it's fair to say Dems called GOP bluff when at start of week folks like AA were predicting this would not go through.

I think it's odd to see that an Englishman doesn't know how to play cards. The GOP raised, and now to call, the Democrats have had to throw the 40 or so typically Republican House seats they harvested in 2018 into the pot. That will help the Rs regain the house in 2020.

Congratulations. Do it again.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

"I think it's fair to say Dems called GOP bluff when at start of week folks like AA were predicting this would not go through."

Yes, because AA is a lifelong Republican.

tim in vermont said...

Maybe they felt like time was running out to get impeachment done and Ukraine is all they had.

Their Special Counsel gambit blew up in their faces, so now they are setting up Schiff with all the powers of a special counsel because it’s un-American to see an accused person go free.

Bruce Hayden said...

Blogger Yancey Ward said...
“The only question you really have to ask yourself is this- why didn't the Democrats take the open path right from the start? It isn't that hard to give the minority the right to call witnesses to testify so that the public has as much information as possible to make a judgment- there really is no defense for not doing so.”

From you, I expect that was a rhetorical question. Schifty’s goal has been to build a narrative, and not a triable case. Recently he was instructing witnesses to not answer inconvenient questions posed by Republicans. He has no interest in fairness or justice here, but rather building, through omission of important contrary information, a narrative that he can sell to the Dem caucus and MSM as a factual inquiry (though, of course, it hasn’t been, and promises to be maybe even less factual, with the new rules).

Yancey Ward said...

Narciso pointed out:

Morrison's testimony

Now, after you have this information, I ask anyone to go and read CNN and Politico's promises from prior to the testimony about what Morrison would say. Try to reconcile those stories with what Morrison did say. Good luck with that impossible task.

Michael K said...

Wadler will, of course deny that request, as he will for any other inconvenient witnesses that Trump or the Republicans try to call, proving in open session that the entire proceeding is a sham.

My information is that there will be NO open hearings in Judiciary.

A possible explanation of army officers like the Ukrainian.

W]hat has happened to our officer corps since President Obama took office is viewed in many quarters as unprecedented, baffling and even harmful to our national security posture. We have commented on some of the higher profile cases, such as Gen. Carter Ham. He was relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.

Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to “assist and provide intelligence for” military forces ordered into action by Gen. Ham.


I have previously posted my conviction that Carter Ham was relieved for planning to go to the rescue of the guys in Benghazi.

With the revelations about female Navy officers and West Point cadets, the military is full of incompetent SJWs.

Hagar said...

If the House "leadership" persist in running the House on the basis of all Democrats against all Republicans, I do not think that 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. Running against and trying to punish the voters is going to end well for them either.

Francisco D said...

But I don’t see that being satisfactorily resolved by the courts before the end of the year. And Schifty running his investigation as a star chamber witch hunt isn’t going to help his case. I really don’t think that they have worked out the timing very well, especially given all of the judges Trump has had confirmed.

The plan is to interview "witnesses" hostile to Trump so that the Media arm of the DNC can make a case for impeachment to the public. They also want to tie up Trump as much as possible from appointing judges. Of course, the most important part of the plan is to deflect from the Durham investigation and possibly the Horowitz report. Dragging it out serves their purpose.

Without active collusion of the mainstream media, this COUP attempt would go nowhere. It is, like the Kavanaugh hearings, a test of wills. Will the RINOs balk? If they do, it is the end of the Republican Party.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Who counts the vote? See secretary of state initiative for the answer.

Anonymous said...

Yancey Ward @ 11:55 - I doubt there's much Republican influence on the Russia hoax. That smells like Clintonland from top to bottom. But I suspect that there's an awful lot of them who don't want to see Biden's corruption exposed too thoroughly for fear that their own grift will be exposed.

DarkHelmet said...


"I think it's odd to see that an Englishman doesn't know how to play cards. The GOP raised, and now to call, the Democrats have had to throw the 40 or so typically Republican House seats they harvested in 2018 into the pot. That will help the Rs regain the house in 2020.

Congratulations. Do it again."


Bingo.

purplepenquin said...

PP grasping at those straws that are illegal in CA.

You managed to put two incorrect concepts in one short little statement.

I ain't grasping at anything - simply pointing out that a small handful of congress-critters decided (for whatever reasons) to sit this vote out. This is reminiscent of the time you accused me of wanting to assassinate President Bush and rape his twin daughters...something that was completely made up by you rather than anything I ever said or even hinted at.

And straws aren't illegal in California. Do you honestly beleive they are or are you intentionally telling lies yet again?

Jim at said...

The American people obviously did not trust Trump or the house Republicans to act in an ethical manner and they gave the house Democrats oversight. - ARM/Chuck

Did the American people not trust Bill Clinton or the House Democrats in 1994? Or Barack Obama and the House Democrats in 2010? In even larger numbers?

My god, you're dumb.

Rabel said...

"I can't quickly find why John Rose didn't vote, but he's been vocal in his opposition to the process, so make of that what you will."

John Rose
‏Verified account @RepJohnRose
1h1 hour ago

I was unable to vote on the day’s legislation due to a personal, family emergency. Had I been present to vote on H. Res. 660, I would have voted "No."

Anonymous said...

Thanks Rabel.

According to PP they "refused to vote". But watch him walk it back now - now they "decided for whatever reason".

Truly pathetic. Incidentally, PP, if they "refused to vote" they have this option to vote "present". I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were merely ignorant of that fact.

tim in vermont said...

"In the here and now, we are keeping the republic from a president who says Article II, says I can do whatever I want.” - Nancy Pelosi

Who says that the impeachment power means she can do whatever she wants to.

Rabel said...

1. "it turned out the Republicans held unanimously against the resolution 194-0
...with three Republicans (compared to one Democratic) refusing to cast a vote."

2. "I ain't grasping at anything - simply pointing out that a small handful of congress-critters decided (for whatever reasons) to sit this vote out."

How do you do that? I don't think I could tell an easily refuted lie right in front of everyone and expect to get away with it. It makes you look silly.

Quaestor said...

They believe it adds an air of legitimacy...

An air of legitimacy, the holy grail of organized crime.

Bruce Hayden said...

Also posted on the next ImpeachmentGate thread.

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

gahrie said...

In the here and now, we are keeping the republic from a president who says Article II, says I can do whatever I want.” - Nancy Pelosi

1) You aren't "keeping" the republic from anything. Trump is our president, and will be re-elected.

2) His Highness King Barak I perfected the idea of "I'm president so I can do what I want."

Drago said...

Uh oh.

There's trouble in lefty land.

Again.

Apparently, the 4 actual transcribers of the Ukrainian call all testify there was nothing wrong with the call AND the transcript as released is the accurate work product of their 4 combined efforts SND that the hack Colonel who testified otherwise kept trying to add additional commentary to the work product even though he wasnt on the call!!

AND it is likely that the hack Col's efforts to "FusionGPS-esque" the report is one reason the transcript was placed in a more secure location!!!

LOLOLOLOL

No wonder the dems wont allow republicans to ask probing questions or call witnesses!!

Lindsay Graham should call Morrison and the other 3 transcribers to testify in public immediately.

Browndog said...

It was well known ahead of the 2018 mid-terms that if democrats took the House, impeachment would be their number one priority.

What did republicans do?

Not much, other that 53 retired, many distances themselves from Trump in their re-election campaign, and sat back and watched as the entire Orange County delegation was wiped clean through fraud without so much as voicing a concern.

Yet, we sit here and complain about the merits of impeachment, and the process being unfair--

YOU ELECTED DEMOCRATS. What did you think would happen?

Somehow, many are certain republican Senators will save Trump. One, once in a lifetime vote, and Trump is gone. What are voters going to do? Vote for all democrats because their mad republicans voted with democrats to remove Trump?

purplepenquin said...

Actually, voting "present" is a vote..a vote to not vote. Not appearing for a vote is refusing to cast a vote.

I ain't lying about anything nor is anything being "walked back". I noticed that the vote total didn't add up to the number of Republicans in the House so I looked-up why that was & added the info to the convo.

Why ya'll took it as some sort of personal attack is kinda weird.

JackOfClubs said...

Jake said... How were the republicans bluffing? 10/31/19, 6:57 AM

The suggestion is that the Republicans were only complaining about the illegitimacy of the process because they wanted to distract from the substance. Voting to bring the discussion into the open will force Republicans to deal with the credibility of the charges against Trump. On the whole I think that's probably correct, but the risk to the Dems is that this will show a much more flimsy case than the media has been portraying.

Drago said...

I can see penguin is not responding well to this latest dem/lefty hoax collapse.

Anonymous said...

It takes a peculiar sort of "intellect" to claim that "refused to vote" has no implicative content, but you do you.

Susan said...

We have gone from the Appearance of Impropriety to the Air of Legitimacy.

Wonder what's next?

Francisco D said...

Actually, voting "present" is a vote..a vote to not vote. Not appearing for a vote is refusing to cast a vote.

Good point.

Elijah Cummings was able to vote despite his circumstances because he is a core Democrat constituency (I'm from iCook County).

Why weren't those three Republicans so motivated? They must be passively pro-impeachment.

Purple Penguin has once again shown me the error of my ways.

Michael K said...

And straws aren't illegal in California. Do you honestly beleive they are or are you intentionally telling lies yet again?

It's only illegal to offer them to anyone who has not asked, dipshit. Glad to see you defending the left with your usual logic.

PP loves the California that is burning down due to your teams's policies.

Browndog said...

On the House floor today-

Dem: The other side is complaining about process. You know what they say if you're reduced to complaining about process-you're trying to avoid the facts!

Repub: This vote is about process, and only about process. This is a vote on process.

Dem: I yield the rest of my time.

purplepenquin said...

Fade in to a small group of neighbors talking on a front lawn in a suburban neighborhood.

Benny: I gotta refuse the invite to your bbq, but thanks
Philip: What you trying to say about my party? That a pretty mean thing to say.
Mitch: Benny is smearing himself with that margarine that is illegal in Wisconsin.
Benny: Just saying I got other things to do instead. And margarine isn't illegal in Wisconsin.
Philip: Now you're walking it back? Pffft...that's pathetic.
Rachael: How can you lie like that? First you say you can't attend, then you say you can't be there. We all heard you say those two totally different things. Why you so silly?
Benny: Why you freaking out? You're acting weird. Just pointed out I can't be there.
Philip: What are you implying when you say that? You're crossing the line, mister!
Dan: Ha! Benny is throwing a tantrum.

Close up to Benny with a confused look on his face, and fade to black

purplepenquin said...

Elijah Cummings was able to vote despite his circumstances

First I am hearing about this and don't see anything elsewhere about a dead man being allowed to vote. Why isn't the right-wing media pitching a fit about it? 'cause that's pretty f'ed up and there is no excuse for it.

purplepenquin said...

It's only illegal to offer them to anyone who has not asked
Exactly. Did you know that before I called you out on your previous incorrect statement or did my comment prompt you to look it up?

And please explain, if you can, how the heck I am "defending the left"?

Sam L. said...

Dems are NOT legit. YMMV.

Iman said...

“We have gone from the Appearance of Impropriety to the Air of Legitimacy.

Wonder what's next?”

the Bitter Taste of Defeat?

Francisco D said...

First I am hearing about this and don't see anything elsewhere about a dead man being allowed to vote. Why isn't the right-wing media pitching a fit about it? 'cause that's pretty f'ed up and there is no excuse for it.

You are obviously not from Chicago or any major metropolitan area controlled by Democrats.