December 12, 2019

"Apparently, the reason the quid pro quo and the bribery stuff was taken out of the articles of impeachment is that they could be used against Biden."

"That just tells you everything about how messed up the system is — that the primary problem they wanted to impeach the President for — they ended up taking it out because it would take out their primary candidate who's polling at the the top of the polls. That tells you everything, right? Is there anything else you need to know than they had to change their articles of impeachment so it didn't take out their own guy?"



I don't know what lies behind that "Apparently." Is Scott Adams just inferring? The whole impeachment drive is based on inference, so the House Democrats deserve to have furious processes of inference used against them, but I'm interested in knowing the facts. Is there some source with knowledge of actual discussions among the House leaders about dropping quid pro quo and bribery out of fear that these concepts would come around and get Biden?

120 comments:

Narayanan said...

Q: Professora - are you looking for testimonial or documentary evidence?

New to DC game?

rhhardin said...

Focus groups would be the obvious motivator. They're trying to entangle Trump in accusations without entangling themselves, and maximizing the audience is the goal.

rhhardin said...

The technique is to keep the accusations coming no matter what. It's not to see which ones will stick but just to always produce new ones.

rhhardin said...

Creeping with intent to mope, is the general crime. They got G Gordon Liddy on that.

h said...

Here is my inference. You can't say an action by a President (or VP) is impeachable because it involves a quid-pro-quo and it is personally or politically advantageous to the President. Because for every single President you could find scores of examples (even if you limit it to actions involving foreign countries). You must say it is impeachable because the action involves a quid-pro-quo, is advantageous, and it has no other legitimate policy objective . Laurence Tribe recognizes this. The pro-impeachment forces believe that Trump's actions had no other legitimate policy objective; but to make this argument in a court-like setting (Senate trial), you would have to permit testimony and evidence on what that legitimate policy objective is. The anti-impeachment forces would argue that seeking assistance in investigating corruption in US foreign aid (possibly including kickbacks to US politicians -- namely Biden) was and remains a legitimate policy objective; therefore Trump's action is not impeachable. The pro-impeachment forces do not want a drawn-out argument about this because it would (probably) entail testimony and evidence about Biden that would be politically deleterious to him. This is slightly different than saying the argument could be used to impeach Biden.

rehajm said...

If it isn't in the articles of impeachment you can't talk about it in the Senate

If Adams is so quick to accept this rule Democrats have invented the GOP in the Senate doesn't stand a chance...

Marcus said...

Wouldn't it be "implying" since his statement is meant for other's consumption? List all work and citations.

THEOLDMAN

Rory said...

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

lgv said...

Quid pro quo isn't really a charge unto itself. The charge of abuse of power is based on the Ukraine deal, so calling witnesses about the underlying crime he wanted investigated is still a real possibility. It was not abuse of power, but a legitimate use of power to investigate criminal acts by US citizens and government employees.

Kevin said...

Democrat position this week: It was perfectly acceptable to investigate Trump for being compromised by the Russians on hearsay, but it’s an impeachable offense to investigate Biden for being compromised by the Ukraine by his own statements.

wendybar said...

Apparently because it is TRUE!!! There is more truth in Joe Biden committed Quid Quo Pro, than there is that Donald Trump committed Quid Quo Pro. Joe even admitted it on tape.

Ann Althouse said...

"Wouldn't it be "implying" since his statement is meant for other's consumption?"

No. He stating something straightforwardly. I just don't know what it is based on. Is it only his (or somebody's) inference or is there some report that the House Democrats actually thought of this as their reason?

It was hard to look, but I couldn't find any article that said the House Democrats were thinking in terms of that risk. I don't even see anyone other than Scott Adams making that specific point. He said "Apparently," which is something that could mean "So, from what I'm reading" or it could mean "As I'm seeing it in my head..."

Which is it?

Quite aside from whether the asserted fact is true, I just want to know where the assertion came from.

Leland said...

So WaPo has this Democrats ditch 'bribery' and Mueller impeachment articles. It says this, which isn't what Scott said but is still pretty damning: "In the end, Democrats have decided that they would rather not debate specific crimes and will instead make a broader case about abuse of power and coverup."

There is more there, but the headline also offers another issue. Wasn't the inquiry started because of the 'quid pro quo' which was renamed 'bribery'? If bribery is out, then what is the initiating crime for impeachment? Pelosi has hinted several times it is about Mueller, but that was taken out too, and taken out prior to yesterday's Senate hearing on the IG report, which regardless of FBI bias or lack thereof, should forever end the notion of Trump/Russian collusion. Not only has there been no evidence discovered, but there the initiating evidence is now clearly recognized as being manufactured.

The closest I get to Scott Adams is the notion that debating bribery and quid pro quo does bring up the fact that this is a regular activity by Presidents in negotiation with foreign governments. And that this opens the door for the President to make that case by brining in other examples. But then the WaPo decides not to explore what the other examples might be.

For me, I'm having a difficult time finding Trump's abuse of power compared to Schiff obtaining the phone records of a journalist not even accused of a crime. That's prior to getting into the question of obtaining the records of a fellow member of Congress or White House counsel. If Trump did any of those things, then I could see grounds for impeachment. But Schiff did them, and its like no big deal.

tim in vermont said...

Supposedly they met with Lawrence Tribe over the past few days and he has been pushing the idea of a narrow impeachment for a while.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/harvard-laws-laurence-tribe-reveals-the-theme-for-impeachment-that-hes-going-to-help-write/

I can’t find the tweet or story where I read the part about the Judiciary committee meeting with him recently, so you only have my word on my recollection of that.

I am not 100% sure it gets Biden or even Hillary off the hook, either. The obvious defense is that Trump was protecting the national interest by looking into the corruption of US officials and the waste of foreign aide.

tim in vermont said...

Romney also has connections to Burisma, so they are depending a lot on his support. Pelosi’s son makes money in Ukraine energy. They can only use their complete domination of the press to keep this stuff out of the minds of the lumpenproletariat.

rhhardin said...

Adams is assuming the Dems are rational and have a goal of winning the election, and inferring from that what the possibilities are.

tim in vermont said...

"are you looking for testimonial or documentary evidence? “

My first thought.

tim in vermont said...

"Adams is assuming the Dems are rational and have a goal of winning the election”

And that he is largely aware of the facts at their disposal. I think the “will to power” bit is a safe bet though.

Browndog said...

Rush has been saying the same thing. Maybe that's where Adams got it. Or, Rush got it from Adams.

Personally, I believe the reason the dems didn't charge Trump with actual crimes is to make it impossible for him to defend himself against alleged criminal activity.

tim in vermont said...

When Rush said it, I believed it for about ten seconds, then I realized it didn’t make any sense. It opens up the corruption of Joe Biden as the only real defense.

Michael K said...

Quite aside from whether the asserted fact is true, I just want to know where the assertion came from.

Get a FISA warrant and wiretap them,

Annie C. said...

Michael K said...
Quite aside from whether the asserted fact is true, I just want to know where the assertion came from.

Get a FISA warrant and wiretap them.


Good one!

tim in vermont said...

The reason he’s not charged with a crime is because he hasn’t been shown to commit one.

tim in vermont said...

I don’t get the Scott Adams cult. He is right sometimes and wrong sometimes.

hombre said...

Why did they drop the “bribery?” Turley.

buwaya said...

This is the sort of ritual minutia where I cannot follow you people.
It looks to me like arguments about the procedure in some Roman religious rite.

Why does it constrain the rhetoric to be used in the noisy verbal melee everyone expects?

And it IS all rhetoric. That's the whole point. There are no actual limits, no laws of nature, and no armed men threatening to haul away any Senator who colors outside the lines or invents his own chess move. Anyone can do or say anything.

iowan2 said...

Bribery, Extortion, crimes, have definable black letter law that lay out the elements needed to prove a crime. Facts, not intent, are the standard.

Obstruction of Congress, has no definable elements, ditto for Abuse of power.

This gives vulnerable Democrats a fig leaf to hide behind. It is impossible to call a person a liar, for something as subjective as abuse of power. Getting lost in that debate, is the fact, there are reasonable reasons for a President to want an investigation into Americans involved in corruption in foreign lands.
I suspect Pelosi had a meeting with vulnerable Dems and negotiated these Articles, before she announced the House would go ahead with drafting articles of impeachment. Even these concessions from the loony left will not be enough to stop all the Democrat defectors.

This will be the first impeachment that is strictly partisan, in its vote to impeach, but bi-partisan in voting against impeachment.

This is the "Occams razor" explanation.

rehajm said...

This is the sort of ritual minutia where I cannot follow you people.
It looks to me like arguments about the procedure in some Roman religious rite.


Our people call it navel gazing...

hombre said...

This Senate trial will confirm Republicans as “The Stupid Party.”

Mittens will dominate the airwaves with his treacherous trash while the pussies wring their hands instead of delivering the knockout blow to the Dems set up by the hard charging young Repubs in the House. Ultimately, they will acquit without exposing Schiff’s corruption.

It’s unfortunate because some hard-nosed comments from Senate leaders would likely produce some Democrat apostates in the House vote.

MikeR said...

@Skylark "I don’t get the Scott Adams cult. He is right sometimes and wrong sometimes."
What in the world is the "Scott Adams cult"? He is right sometimes and wrong sometimes, and that's great. Most people are never right, except by accident. He contributes original ideas to the mix, and I retain the option to decide that he's wrong: win-win, very helpful.

For an example where he's wrong, btw, see what he says about "slippery slopes" being nonsense. He has misunderstood the whole point of a "slippery slope" (he thinks it only counts if it "goes on forever") and thus gets the wrong conclusions. The correct point is that a step now that seems in itself pretty innocuous will automatically lead to further steps which the person does not see as innocuous at all. Normalize homosexuality in American life and you perhaps cannot help ending up with decent people losing their livelihoods for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.

buwaya said...

If he is charged with vague crimes, which (on paper anyway, leave aside the actual clash of interests) amount to a generalized difference in judgement, then he can be defended just as vaguely, and his opponents vilified for whatever crimes any one cares to allege against them.

It seems to me this offers enormous scope for pouring out oceans of bile on any subject, should anyone care to.

Why must one follow the rules of ritual? Why sacrifice a bullock instead of a goat? Why must the haruspex rule exactly so on the conformation of the liver?

MayBee said...

After the hearing yesterday, isn't the reason Trump might not take the FBI's word for something- or many of the people in the bowels of government? He knew he wasn't corrupted by Russia. He listened to Comey, Brennan, and Clapper say he was. He listened to NBC, MSNBC, and CNN go on and on about how he was corrupted by Russia and how he was destroying America to criticize the press for saying so. He heard over and over that he was in cahoots with Russia, that Russia hacked the DNC server, and they worked with the Trump campaign. He heard Joe Biden brag about withholding funds while his son made millions on a corrupt company in Ukraine, and nobody did a thing about it. While people pushed emoluments clause accusations and lawsuits against *him*

So, you know, maybe it makes perfect sense for him to ask Zelensky for a few things that everyone else seems to be blocking him from.

traditionalguy said...

Of course "get Biden" is not what the Dem Criminal Syndicate fears. The fear and panic is that Biden's crimes are just the example that open pandora's box revealing Billions of dollars of Dem slush funds laundered through Ukraine and the Soros/Obama controlled Destroy America network. Those funds ended up in Dem and RINO politician's secret Bank Accounts. The crumbs thrown to their children were just extra. And the proof is coming out as fast as we can accept the unthinkableness of the scope of the thefts and crime run out of DC.

tim in vermont said...

"What in the world is the 'Scott Adams cult’?"

Feeling a little defensive? He just seems like warmed over Dale Carnegie to me. Michael Moore also called the election. So did Mick, and he was just “taking the piss” as the Brits say.

Dilbert on the other hand was genius.

tim in vermont said...

Maybee makes some solid points which you will never hear on your TV set.

MayBee said...

mean to say, isn't it reasonable that Trump wouldn't just take the word of the IC?

That's why we need to see our government take this FBI IG report seriously. When they look like they are actively working against political campaigns, the winner of those campaigns aren't going to respect them.
If the Democrats in the house don't have hearings and do something about this, it will just prove they know why it happened---Trump bad.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Ya think?

AllenS said...

"Scott Adams cult". What the fuck?

tim in vermont said...

"That's why we need to see our government take this FBI IG report seriously. “

You meant to say, “that’s why CNN and MSNBC all but refused to cover it.” They are mindguards of groupthink, not news organizations.

Shouting Thomas said...

The fact is that Joe Biden bragged on videotape about shaking down the Ukrainian government to protect his son from possible prosecution.

I did not glean this from a second hand source. I watched Biden bragging on videotape.

So, yeah, Adams is right.

Michael K said...

The fear and panic is that Biden's crimes are just the example that open pandora's box revealing Billions of dollars of Dem slush funds

Yes, I think this explains it. The next thing we might find out is how much the Mexican drug cartels are contributing to Democrats. Where does it stop?

Ray said...

"Yes, I think this explains it. The next thing we might find out is how much the Mexican drug cartels are contributing to Democrats."
The problem is it's just not Dems. Many Repubs have their hand in the cookie jar. Linsey was mentioned on the recent OAN interview. That's why he doesn't want a trial. Just a vote

Wince said...

Scott Adams in that freeze-frame looks like Pale Man from Pans Labyrinth.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Go to MSNBC's web site. It's a full-on Democrat Party Platform. It's also laughable.
It's not news. It's not news at all. It's 100% narrative, opinion and propaganda for The Party.

and yes - CNN and MSDNC refused to show actual news that didn't fit their propaganda narrative machine.

CNN, MSNBC Cut Away From Horowitz Hearing Into Obama FISA Abuses

The poll-tested "BRIBERY!" hack-press pimped narrative fell apart - yes - obviously - because of Biden's quid pro Quo peepee tape.

tim in vermont said...

""Scott Adams cult". What the fuck?”

My my my. The offense you guys take surely disproves my point!

MayBee said...

It will be interesting to see how reporters like Tapper and Scuitto start acting. They were used by the intelligence community to spread word about the dossier. They can say they only "broke" the story that it was briefed, but now they know the dossier was full of lies and any "briefing" should have been about how someone in the IC was out to smear the newly elected POTUS.

Will they do what we talk about in the other post here? Double down, because they know they are smart and they couldn't be misled? Or will they just continue on as if the past 3 years have been good solid intelligence work and news coverage?

MayBee said...

Scott Adams is interesting because he was one of the few brave people to early on go against the OMB Cult (Orange Man Bad).

MayBee said...

My NPR station did not carry the Horowitz hearing, after having carried the Impeachment "inquiry" hearings live.

Sebastian said...

"The whole impeachment drive is based on inference"

By contrast, the Horowitz "exoneration" is based on the studious avoidance of inference.

Jeff Brokaw said...

MayBee - Bet on the latter, and bet the mortgage.

The media is filled with prima donnas with zero accountability who think we are all idiots with no memories and internet access. 😂

Sebastian said...

"a broader case about abuse of power and coverup."

The president has the constitutional power to conduct foreign policy as he sees fit and nothing was covered up.

So what are they saying?

MayBee said...

Just heard a reading of the articles. They contain a lie: Trump pushed a discredited theory that Ukraine meddled in our election rather than Russia.

This is odd to me, that even the charge itself contains a lie.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

There is no IG report "exoneration"

All the ABC, FOX, NBC etc.. radio affiliates promoted a total lie.

The IG report contains zero exoneration.

Swede said...

Inferring that Trump did quid pro quo despite the transcripts, his denial, the Ukrainian denial, and no actual witnesses.

Joe Biden actually bragging about it captured on tape.

I wonder, with the passage of time and the perspective it brings, what history will say about House Dems.

I feel like we're witnessing a mass psychotic event.

MayBee said...

Sebastian: The president has the constitutional power to conduct foreign policy as he sees fit and nothing was covered up.-----

Exactly. During the Judiciary Committee "hearing", we were told that what Biden did was not Quid Pro Quo because it was official US government policy. But that could simply mean, it's what Obama told him he could do.

Quayle said...

Chris Wallace accusing Trump of the greatest assault on the freedom of the press is about as laughable as a buggy harness maker accusing Henry Ford of an assault on the nobility of horses.

The press has never been more free - free from the stranglehold of owners of the then-rare broadcast network technology and rights. Now, the network can't be "owned" so the press is unleashed. Wallace is either refusing or unable to see the truth.

Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Zrimsek said...

I want nothing.
I want nothing.
I want no quid pro quo.
Tell Schiff to do the right thing.
This is the final word from the Speaker of the House.

Big Mike said...

Adams could be partly right, but it's also true that every President going back to Washington did quid pro quos -- it's a natural part of politics. And most people understand that.

(And there have also been hints that other children of important Democrats are involved besides just Hunter Biden. This is something that would necessarily come out in any defense to a charge of improperly arranging a quid pro quo.)

Seeing Red said...

It’s that the Quid Pro Quo could be used against them.

tim in vermont said...

Wrong Quayle. At leas the buggy harness people had a sliver of a point.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Hillary is trying to take out Biden.

The Crack Emcee said...

"I'm interested in knowing the facts."

She's really lost it this time.

CJinPA said...

Earlier this week Adams did a segment ("I Hate My Government") in which F-bombs flew and he called Pelosi a c-nt. Wow.

Then he made some interesting, sober points: The FBI acted incompetently and perhaps with bias in investigating Trump-Russia, and that it would be understandable given the threat Russia's activities posed.

Then said Trump acted the same way, pushing Ukraine to probe Biden because Biden had a real shot at becoming U.S. president and he might be beholden to a foreign country.

Pretty interesting, given how the segment started.

AllenS said...

... and what point would that be, Skylark?

Curious George said...

Althouse, if you can't figure out Adams' "apparently" you have no chance with this kid.

Michael K said...

The problem is it's just not Dems. Many Repubs have their hand in the cookie jar. Linsey was mentioned on the recent OAN interview. That's why he doesn't want a trial. Just a vote

Oh yes. They are all dirty. Trump might be the only honest man in government. Wouldn't that be a rip.

Gojuplyr831@gmail.com said...

The wailing and lamentations are essentially the BS screen to stop the investigation into Biden. Not because anyone particularly likes or cares about what happens to him and his son. Rather, it's because Biden knows too much about the corruption of the Washington elites. And ol Joe ain't going to suffer nobly in silence.

rcocean said...

If Trump deserves to be impeached, then EVERY POTUS in the last 100 years deserved to be impeached. This is just boring partisan politics. An abuse of the House's Power by the Democrats. With the DNC-media lying and cheering them on.

The traitorous cucks in the Republican Senate could have stopped this in its tracks, but they've decided to help the D's by pretending to have a show trial. Disgusting.

rcocean said...

Of course Biden wouldn't be put on the stand. His still friends with all the Old Bulls in the Senate AND they're doing the same thing Biden did. Getting foreign $$$. Notice how the DNC-media is completely incurious about that Biden and Hunter did in China? Notice how we haven't heard of any other Senator doing the same thing? They ARE doing it, the DNC-media just doesn't want to talk about it.

mockturtle said...

In the future, High Crimes and Misdemeanors might include 'acting goofy' and 'silly walks'. No President is safe from a truly hostile Congress.

rcocean said...

Tucker carlson brought up how Paul Singer has bought off, Senator Ben Sasse, and some others, and you didn't hear much of anything from the DNC-media. They don't want to talk about the Big Donors running US Senators. Even though it hurts the R's. WHy? Because the Democrat Billionares are running US Senators too.

rcocean said...

Look, we know the R's will NEVER retaliate. They're too cucked. So from now on, any R president can look forward to being impeached.

tim in vermont said...

They have the corrupt Romney to protect them from bringing up Burisma. He doesn’t want ANY further looking under that rock.

tim in vermont said...

". and what point would that be, Skylark?”

I don’t know, what conclusion did you jump to?

AllenS said...

I didn't jump to any conclusion, that's why I asked you.

tim in vermont said...

Don’t worry about it, I wasn’t talking about you.

Bruce Hayden said...

“For me, I'm having a difficult time finding Trump's abuse of power compared to Schiff obtaining the phone records of a journalist not even accused of a crime. That's prior to getting into the question of obtaining the records of a fellow member of Congress or White House counsel. If Trump did any of those things, then I could see grounds for impeachment. But Schiff did them, and its like no big deal.”

As far as anyone has shown so far, there is no real legal justification for Congressional subpoenas to AT&T. The Executive, can issue subpoenas pursuant to duly enacted statutes, ad maybe it’s inherent police powers. What does the House have here? AT&T is a private company, so not part of the legislative process, and therefore not subject to A1S1 Oversight. And a similar argument can be made in regards to A1S2 Impeachment. So how, indeed, did Schifty legally justify the subpoenas for those phone records?

tim in vermont said...

"Then he made some interesting, sober points: The FBI acted incompetently and perhaps with bias in investigating Trump-Russia, and that it would be understandable given the threat Russia's activities posed.

Then said Trump acted the same way, pushing Ukraine to probe Biden because Biden had a real shot at becoming U.S. president and he might be beholden to a foreign country.”

Adams is feeling around in the dark, but seems to think that he has some kind of real hold on the truth here. Maybe it’s just the way Adams writes. He could have said that “Trump could easily claim...”

Personally I don’t claim to know what was in Trump’s mind, but my suspicion is that he was actually looking into election interference that was all over the press and the stink of the rotten corpse of Biden’s graft was impossible to miss.

Regarding Russia, I would say that the FBI and CIA were war mongering against Russia as a point of personal privilege and abusing their positions of trust in the intellegence “community."

tim in vermont said...

I think that when Trump suggested in his campaign that we ought to try to get along better with Russia, and understand their position, he scared the shit out of the war mongers and arms dealers who saw big money deals in Ukraine.

CStanley said...

I don’t think we’ll ever know other than by inference because knowledge would require journalists who have access to Democratic sources actually doing their jobs and asking the question, “Why was bribery not included in the articles of impeachment?”

Michael K said...

So how, indeed, did Schifty legally justify the subpoenas for those phone records?

"Nice little company you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it."

Michael K said...

“Why was bribery not included in the articles of impeachment?”

Too close to Biden.

tim in vermont said...

Adams take on the Russia investigation has been shown to be complete bullshit by the Horowitz probe. For instance, the FBI knew that the pee pee tapes thing came from a joking hypothetical in a bar. Comey knew it was all bullshit. Stzok said so in one of his texts, but they pushed it anyway.

Adams is too trusting of government. Maybe that’s why he went apeshit when the report showed him to be naive.

AllenS said...

If you weren't talking about me, Skylark, why did you quote me?

tim in vermont said...

Stzok texts showed that they booted up their jihad against Trump using the official powers of the US government after Trump made his joke about Hillary’s emails. A case that Strzok had worked so hard to cover up.

tim in vermont said...

Jeezum Alan, I meant in the original post you quoted. This is the end of this back and forth from me on this. I didn’t mean “cult” in a literal sense. I just meant that it seems like people take stuff to be true just because Adams says it. As if some new piece of hard evidence had been uncovered. “Seems like”

Mattman26 said...

Take a breath, everyone.

I enjoy Adams from time to time because he sometimes has unique and insightful takes on things. Other times he's kind of goofy. (I once pointed out to my son that Adams seemed somewhat prescient about Trump getting nominated and elected. My son reminded me that ahead of the 2012 election, Adams had been all aboard the Herman Cain train; makes you wonder if he just makes an outlier prediction so that if it happens, he'll look like a genius. Which seems like the kind of tactic that Adams would enjoy.)

On the original point: dropping potential impeachment charges to try to steer the proceedings away from the Biden boys, I will just say it has at least facial plausibility.

Yancey Ward said...

Ms. Althouse, it is the only reasonable explanation. The Democrats dropped it because, had they proceeded, Biden would have had to refuse to honor the sure subpoena coming his way during the trial. By dropping the bribery charge, the Democrats are hoping to foreclose any chance such a subpoena will be approved- the argument will be that such a subpoena is irrelevant to the charges in hand.

gilbar said...

they want to impeach the President for asking for investigation into a crime
they want to elect!! the person that Committed That crime

Qwinn said...

I don't get it... Article I of the impeachment names Biden and basically IS a bribery charge, they're just labeling it "Abuse of Power". Whether Biden was corrupt and Hunter Biden was a legitimate target of inquiry (of course he fucking was) is going to be central to any defense against impeachment one way or another.

Qwinn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mattman26 said...

Good point, Qwinn.

CJinPA said...

Adams take on the Russia investigation has been shown to be complete bullshit by the Horowitz probe. For instance, the FBI knew that the pee pee tapes thing came from a joking hypothetical in a bar. Comey knew it was all bullshit. Stzok said so in one of his texts, but they pushed it anyway.

Sorry I don't have the link, but his point was that, yes, they broke the rules because they thought there was enough non-pee stuff going on to merit a probe, and that, in Adams's view, people working in every big organization know you have to break some rules to get anything done. He was looking for a non-conspiratorial explanation.

Adams is too trusting of government. Maybe that’s why he went apeshit when the report showed him to be naive.

Yes, you can tell it's not his expertise. His anger was actually over the hearing itself, watching Dems perform as actors, playing doctored video and generally lying their asses off.

dbp said...

When this whole Ukraine imbroglio came out, I always assumed the goal was to take out Biden (as he is sure to lose to Trump), with the secondary benefit of roughing up Trump.

I think it got away from the adults in the room (I am looking at you Pelosi) and now Democrats have painted themselves into a corner: If they fail to pass articles of impeachment, they will be humiliated. If they pass articles, the Senate is going to make the responsible Democrats feel like Torquemada Coteaz would be a more pleasant alternative to what they are being put through.

phantommut said...

Getting back to the idea that impeachment is a political process, Trump's main pitch when running was that he was going to "Drain the Swamp." The whole Burisma/Biden thing seems very swampy. Hard to make a case that Trump wasn't doing what he promised to do in order to get elected.

Yancey Ward said...

Qwinn,

The Democrats feel they had to charge something after starting the inquiry. Their hope is that the Senate will now just dismiss the charges without a trial because there are no charges that fit under those listed in the Constitution. Had they actually charged Trump with bribery, the Senate might well have felt it had to conduct a real trial in which the Executive gets to present its defense.

A lot of people are not understanding the political optics here. This idea, that the Senate would be able to narrow the scope of Trump's defense in such a way as to preclude Trump's defense team from calling witnesses to address the various things discussed in the phone call, is just not reasonable in any way. To handicap the defense that way would be widely viewed as illegitimate. This is why the bribery charges had to be shelved- it is quite likely that McConnell told Pelosi that if they insisted on bribery charges, Trump would get wide latitude to defend against them, up to and including calling the Bidens and the Ukrainian prosecutors as witnesses. McConnell may well have told Pelosi that the charges they did level will just be dismissed summarily, thus no trial at all.

If the House passes the impeachment charges, I will predict the Senate just dismisses them on a majority vote.

Char Char Binks said...

There's nothing wrong with system except for how the Dems are abusing it.

viator said...

Impeachment is like a long, long dead whale washed up on a beach. It smells from a mile away and has become very tiresome.

Ray - SoCal said...

Senate seems to promise to shut down impeachment ASAP, so Trump can’t go on a fishing expedition that would show a lot of corruption in Congress.

Seems a lot of money was coming out of the Ukraine that ended up associated with US Politics.

phantommut said...

Trump might be the only honest man in government. Wouldn't that be a rip.

Change it to "might be the most honest man in government" and it would be more likely to be right, and also a rip.

Qwinn said...

Yancey, hmmm, ok, but if the Senate does that, that's going to be pretty damn bogus in my view. Article I is more than specific enough in alleging that there was no valid reason to investigate the Bidens. Whiffing on that when there's so much prima fascia evidence already in the public sphere (the bragging video, the utter lack of Hunter's qualifications for the job) would be pretty damn damaging, IMO.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Yancey - yes.
The dems pulled "BRIBERY!" - oh look - Scott Adams is corrupt.
and so are you.

It's all optics.

I say screw the dems anyway and have a huge show trial and put the corruptocrats on trial. All of them. From Hillary to Biden to Schitt.

mockturtle said...

Impeachment is like a long, long dead whale washed up on a beach. It smells from a mile away and has become very tiresome.

And blowing it up with dynamite isn't always the best solution, tempting though it may be: Exploding whale in Oregon video

Ray - SoCal said...

Kimberly Strassel of the wsj has the same theory on why bribery was left out...

Original Mike said...

Well, I just heard for the first time that audio recording of Biden threatening the Ukraine with the withholding of the billion dollars if they didn't fire the prosecutor. I knew about it, but My God!, listening to it makes an impression. There is no way the Dems could have gotten away with Biden not getting dragged into this more than he already is if they had charged bribery. No. Way.

Yancey Ward said...

At this point, I want the articles of impeachment passed and the Senate to hold an actual trial with a wide scope allowed for the defense. My second favorite thing would be to have the impeachment articles fail to get a majority in the House.

The one thing I don't want to see is for the articles to pass, then have the Senate dismiss it, or just refuse to take it up. Thus, I feel this latter is exactly what is going to happen.

Original Mike said...

"At this point, I want the articles of impeachment passed and the Senate to hold an actual trial with a wide scope allowed for the defense."

Me too, but it would be playing with fire.

Seeing Red said...

Via Lucianne:

Rep. Jim Jordan on Thursday proposed an amendment to strike the first article of impeachment against President Trump, asserting that evidence supporting the article does not prove the allegations of abuse of power.“This amendment strikes article one because article one ignores the truth,” said the Ohio Republican.Jordan, who’s been a star on the GOP side throughout the impeachment sham, cited a White House memorandum documenting Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, noting that contains no evidence....

Robert Cook said...

Well, then...the good news is that if Trump is impeached, we can impeach Biden as soon as he is inaugurated! The truth is, they're all shits! We should use impeachment more often to keep our miserable presidents answerable to us!

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

he scared the shit out of the war mongers and arms dealers who saw big money deals in Ukraine

Social justice, abortion fields, and immigration reform. In Ukraine, Iran, Libya, Syria, China, Mexico, Somalia, etc.

Francisco D said...

The one thing I don't want to see is for the articles to pass, then have the Senate dismiss it, or just refuse to take it up. Thus, I feel this latter is exactly what is going to happen.

In other words, the Senate Republicans will increase their vulnerability in 2020 (they defend a lot more seats) in order to protect their old buddy Biden as well as Schiff and the "whistleblower". If they do dismiss, McSally and Gardner will surely lose their seats.

It sounds pretty dumb to me, so it is very likely their true strategy.

Drago said...

Robert Cook: "We should use impeachment more often to keep our miserable presidents answerable to us!"

If you want a parliamentary system move to Canada or Britain or Australia or anywhere else in Europe.

(Note: I am certain you would never consider moving to one of those s***hole countries despite all the lefties pearl clutching and getting the vapors when those nations are called out for obvious reasons)

Original Mike said...

Robert Cook: "We should use impeachment more often to keep our miserable presidents answerable to us!"

Could we at least limit it to Presidents who do something illegal?

Nah, silly of me.

Michael K said...

We should use impeachment more often to keep our miserable presidents answerable to us!

Cook wants a Parliamentary system. There are plenty of those around. Venezuela for example.

Goodbye.

walter said...

Skylark said...
Romney also has connections to Burisma, so they are depending a lot on his support. Pelosi’s son makes money in Ukraine energy. They can only use their complete domination of the press to keep this stuff out of the minds of the lumpenproletariat.
--
How bout Cocaine Mitch?

walter said...

(Mitch seems to differ from a number of Senators on whether to pursue trial)

narciso said...

crazy notion, it's like a python sketch, the Hungarian phrasebook one, with the judge demanding a hanging, on his way to south Africa, (archie the ugly American twit ina fish called wanda had much the same attitude,) if the Stephen McIntyre link holds true, the game of telephone came from a Russian intel officer who worked for fusion gps, married to a Ukrainian, dezinforma all the way around,

mockturtle said...

If they do dismiss, McSally and Gardner will surely lose their seats.

Can vouch for McSally's precarious position. And she has no one to blame but herself. Not sure I've ever seen a candidate who is more clueless about campaign strategies.