December 2, 2019

"Do you think the Democrats need to rush impeachment (as they’re currently doing)? I don't."

Says Mickey Kaus. He observes that Democrats say they need to rush to get out of the way of the primaries, to keep people from getting tired of it, and — assuming it's hurting the Democratic Party — to limit the damage. But too bad if the Senators in the race have a bit more trouble campaigning...
[R]eally, is it of utmost importance that Democrats give Sen. Klobuchar a fair shot at a last minute Iowa surge? If impeachment were a political winner, Dems would recognize Fairness for Ambitious Senators as the secondary concern it is....
It's funny to forefront Klobuchar, who's going nowhere and at best held in reserve. Elizabeth Warren is a bigger victim. There's also Booker and Harris.

As for people getting tired:
My god, if you weren't fatigued two months ago you're not going to be fatigued now... Isn't it more likely that voters will get fatigued, then reinterested, then refatigued, then reinterested?
Refatigued is a funny word.
Anger. Fatigue. Depression. Boredom. Acceptance. The Kubler-Ross stages of impeachment!
Yeah, I think this adds up to the opposite of the point Kaus is (ostensibly) making. We are tired, and we're going to get good and tired — angry tired.

About the damage control, the question is just how early must this thing end to give the party time to recover and change the subject?
[A]t some point Democrats need to cut off the inquiries and give their candidates time to talk about health care and crime and wages and the other issues the average swing voter cares about. And they have to leave the time for a McConnell-led Senate trial. But they can let their show run longer than Pelosi seems to think.
How do Democrats "leave the time for a McConnell-led Senate trial"? The time will, in the end (unless the Democrats can make themselves vote against impeachment), come under the control of the opposing party, which will be motivated to inflict as much damage as possible, within whatever time frame it likes.

On the question whether the impeachment process is or should be hurting the Democrats, Kaus says:
Democrats are taking what basically should be a very embarrassing front page newspaper story for Trump and working themselves up into thinking it's a "high crime." There was at least enough legitimate cause to investigate the Bidens — what did Joe’s son’s client get for all that money? — to take the case out of the “high crime” category....
I agree with that!

103 comments:

henry said...

They might want to establish a crime before proceeding. Granted it is 3 years too late for that (maybe 4 given when the FBI/CIA started all this). But still. A crime would help with the public. Nixon had the Watergate burglary coverup, Clinton had sex with that woman (and several more) and lied in court about it, Trump ???? That is the real problem. Not how fast or slow the Dems are going about it.

The Bergall said...

I've changed the channel on purpose. There are better things to do with one's time.

Shouting Thomas said...

The Democrats think they'll do better talking about "health care and crime and wages?"

Last time around, Democrats tripled my health insurance premiums for no apparent reason. Politicians don't provide health care.

The Dems want to let all the criminals out of jail. That's a rerun of the crack epidemic from the 70s.

Unemployment is near zero. One of Trump's great triumphs. What do Dems have to offer? Driving businesses into extinction with $15 minimum wage?

h said...

Two reasons to get an early vote. One If Dems in Trump districts vote FOR impeachment, they will have more time for their constituents to forget and calm down. (but this is a weak reason, because an on-going impeachment trial will keep impeachment in the news and a easy jump-off place for negative political ads.) Two (and this is less remarked upon) if Congressional Dems fail to vote out a bill of impeachment, many Dems will need to combat a feeling of betrayal among their supporters (and supporters of impeachment). ("What is the point of having a Dem House if they can't even give us this one simple thing we demanded?") In m opinion, this second outcome is the one that more likely to propel an early impeachment vote. (And someone noted in late October that the Clinton impeachment time line started about the same time, and had a bill of impeachment by Christmas.)

Mike Sylwester said...

As far as I know, there is no enforceable rule that a Senator must be physically present on the Senate floor during the entire "trial".

Any Senator who wants to campaign in Iowa while the "trial" is proceeding may do so and still vote on the verdict.

gspencer said...

"Refatigued is a funny word"

Not as funny as Schiff or Nadler the Waddler.

Mike Sylwester said...

After the Senate "trial" ends in an acquittal, President Trump will crow that he was exonerated.

That prediction is as certain as the prediction that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

Hagar said...

The sun may rise tomorrow morning, but we may not be here to see it.

gilbar said...

Our Beloved Professor Althouse said... It's funny to forefront Klobuchar

Klob was in the news Yesterday, saying that she would vote GUILTY. Here's a direct quote:
"OF COURSE TRUMP IS GUILTY! HE'S A REPUBLICAN! AND HE STOLE FROM HILARY!"

AllenS said...

"Do you think the Democrats need to rush impeachment"

Democrats need to do what they always do, go with their feelings.

rehajm said...

Democrats are taking what basically should be a very embarrassing front page newspaper story for Trump...

More of that second order we all know what it was bullshit. What is the embarrassing part we're all supposed to recognize?

rhhardin said...

Impeachment is being run like the MSM, for entertainment. For the MSM it's for eyeballs sold to advertisers; for the dems it for voter entertainment leading to power in the next election.

Half the country is entertained, so it will continue as long as possible, to solidify the narrative they want to live in.

Look for law professor entertainment next. It's a courtroom drama.

rhhardin said...

All comes down to a taste for soap opera.

Skylark said...

No one is above the law except powerful Democrats like Joe Biden.

rhhardin said...

They need a lawyer in a wheelchair testifying. Ironsides. Notes handed to him by his 40ish lady legal secretary from time to time.

rhhardin said...

The flaw in the entertainment is that the prosecutors are all manifestly stupid. This is hard to overlook, unless it's a TV drama about a rogue prosecutor.

rhhardin said...

It could run as a comedy, like Kafka.

Skylark said...

Hickenlooper is probably kicking himself that he didn’t find a way to stay in.

rehajm said...

You have to keep the fantasy going so you can continue to write this kind of stuff. Otherwise it was all for naught...

It's telling how important the political strategy and the resulting ramifications of the whole thing are to these people. It;s like the whole thing is a political stunt rather than an investigation of wrongdoing...

Skylark said...

"he flaw in the entertainment is that the prosecutors are all manifestly stupid.”

Hamilton Berger?

rhhardin said...

Speaking of courtroom dramas, Sharon Small, great in Inspector Lynley, turns into something of an sour bitch in London Kills. I take it that her marriage didn't work out or something, in whatever intervening show that must have happened in.

She could play a part in the impeachment, though. Bring in some new audience.

rehajm said...

They need a lawyer in a wheelchair testifying.

They need the big guns: Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer!

Your world frightens and confuses me...

Skylark said...

This case does call out for a few Perry Mason like “Isn’t it true” moments from the defense. But the MSM couldn’t report them or the whole case would fall apart while Hillary sobbed and admitted that it was really she who was digging up dirt on political opponents using the powers of the Obama Administration.

Skylark said...

We do need a leggy blonde like Fawn Hall, or whatever her name was. Why couldn’t Schiff arrange that?

rhhardin said...

All the characters in British police series are cheating on their marriages or with witnesses or something, because they're basically Hollywood movies with a huge need for additional sub-plots as the show goes on. It's a lot like politicians.

Michael McNeil said...

After the Senate "trial" ends in an acquittal, President Trump will crow that he was exonerated.

After the Senate trial further demonstrates what a farce the House impeachment prosecution has been, he will be exonerated.

Krumhorn said...

It seems pretty clearly to be a train wreck. I can’t imagine what the loopy lefties think they are going to gain by any of this. If our hostess is the reliable political weather vane I believe her to be, they could lose the House in the process. Even worse, if they pay no real price for this circus today, there will be a brutal tomorrow when the House inevitably shifts and a leftie sits very uncomfortably in the White House.

Their vicious fecklessness is what brought Trump to power. Anyone who fails to credit the possibility of another civil war is not paying attention.

- Krumhorn

Michael K said...

Have you read the White House letter to Nadler ? I assume it was in an asbestos envelope.

Michael K said...

Here is the letter. Still smoking.

John henry said...

Blogger Michael McNeil said...

After the Senate trial further demonstrates what a farce the House impeachment prosecution has been, he will be exonerated.

I think impeachment, let alone a Senate trial is looking iffier each day. Even Schiff is refusing to say he supports impeachment by the House.

If the House does not impeach, PDJT IS exonerated. If after all this, for 3 years, they can't come up with anything, it would seem like PDJT is snow white, misbehaviorwise.

I said that in another thread here last week. After all this, they can't not impeach. Failure to do so means that they have examined him minutely and found absolutely nothing. He will be perhaps the most innocent man on Earth.

John Henry

Tom said...

I have a feeling the “trial” will last from mid January until Feb 29th. Feb 3rd is Iowa and Feb 29th is SC, with NH in the middle. That ties up 5 senators and, potentially, Biden as a witness.

Freed up will be Tulsi and Pete... and Hillary.

Krumhorn said...

Of course, there is always the option of dropping the matter with a splashy and grandiose show of self-congratulation for their good judgement and simple fairness liberally mixed with rancid contempt for Trump who brought this inquiry on himself because. Evil Orangeman Bad.

- Krumhorn

pacwest said...

"He will be perhaps the most innocent man on Earth."

That appears to be the final takeaway. I think all future Presidents should be investigated and impeachment proceedings started from day one to prove they are as clean as Trump who as set a new standard that all elected officials should live up to. It's a mad mad world.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

The Mueller-dope hoax lasted 2.8 years. The point is not to impeach him, it's to mire him down.

They don't have the goods for high crimes and misdemeanors. They have a hack press who breathlessly reports DEVASTATING TESTIMONY! on q. (formerly THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN!)

+Adam Schitt has zero credibility. He is a lying liar who lies. He is the exhaustion factor.

rehajm said...

I think impeachment, let alone a Senate trial is looking iffier each day

As others have noted here it would give Republicans an opportunity to subpoena the bad actors on the leftie's side and there are a bunch of 'em. More of the keep the fantasy going stuff could be as far as it goes...

rehajm said...

December 9th could give the left an out as attention moves to spinning the report.

Michael McNeil said...

If the House does not impeach, PDJT IS exonerated. If after all this, for 3 years, they can't come up with anything, it would seem like PDJT is snow white, misbehaviorwise.

I said that in another thread here last week. After all this, they can't not impeach. Failure to do so means that they have examined him minutely and found absolutely nothing. He will be perhaps the most innocent man on Earth.


It is mind-boggling on the face of it — but something like that now strongly appears to be the case.

In this regard I'd like to point to a posting by Volokh Conspiracist and George Mason University law professor David Bernstein (who is far from personally being a Trump supporter, more a “NeverTrumper” in fact, though he's no leftist), who put it up on Facebook earlier this year — following Trump ex-attorney Michael Cohen's testimony (but before release of the Mueller Report). As he said: [quoting…]

Donald Trump is a man of low character. But he’s apparently quite careful in avoiding doing things that are obviously illegal. Or, at least, that’s what I surmise from the fact that his personal lawyer of 10 years really can’t come up with anything he did that was obviously illegal.

[/unQuote]

I think this fact is almost jaw-droppingly noteworthy. For how many millionaire/billionaire businessmen and -women — working for half a century in (say) building construction (with all the political compromises which must be made in that line of work) — as seen, furthermore, from the vantage point of a decade-long relationship with his [turned] personal attorney! — could this be said? Not many at all, I suggest.

I'd say it's extremely doubtful, therefore, that Trump could really be the flagrant criminal, corrupt to the core, that so on the left have managed to utterly convince themselves of, despite the even more striking lack of evidence (not even to speak of the malicious prosecution and persecution being wielded against him).

Browndog said...

They'd love nothing more than to impeach Trump on Christmas Eve. As a gift.

But, they won't. They need to get out of town to stuff their own stockings with gifts and cash from donors.

The Crack Emcee said...

The Democrats have always needed to fix what's wrong with their party more than what they see as wrong with Republicans or Trump.

But they persisted....

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Your laundered tax dollars hard at work.
Barismama!

Amadeus 48 said...

Mickey is missing the big picture. Let me try:

Democrats are taking what at most should be a very embarrassing front page newspaper story for Trump...

or

Democrats are taking what at least should be a very embarrassing front page newspaper story for Biden...


tim maguire said...

What's interesting me these days is the disconnect between the Real Clear Politics poll averages for impeachment and the way both parties are behaving.

One recent poll shows a 2 pt plurality against impeachment, the rest show a 5-7 point plurality (and one majority) in support. But both Dems and Reps are acting like the public is turning against impeachment.

I'd like to see some internal polls. Any leakers out there care to help?

Chuck said...

This is a serious question for you, Althouse:

What is it that you don't get, about the current allegation -- backed by overwhelming evidence at this point -- that Donald Trump personally directed actions resulting in the withholding of vital aid to Ukraine in order to pressure the newly-elected president to announce (not conduct, but merely announce) a Ukrainian corruption investigation that Trump could use in his own campaign, to attack Joe Biden?

I don't think I've ever heard any direct answer from you on this point.

If you want to posit the now-current defense that Trump was seriously concerned about foreign corruption, I'd like to hear that from you directly. I don't believe it, and I cannot imagine you believing it.

If you want to say that you adhere to a kind of Unitary Executive theory where Trump is actually free to conduct foreign affairs in that way, you can say that too but I think you ought to address the fact(s) that in doing so Trump was violating one of more federal budgetary laws including the the Impoundment Control Act.

Or maybe you don't have an answer; perhaps you just don't care about such matters. I recall you saying a couple of weeks ago that you just don't care to follow the details of impeachment. You might simply be unaware of all of these particulars.

tim maguire said...

rehajm said...More of that second order we all know what it was bullshit. What is the embarrassing part we're all supposed to recognize?

Granted, this is an issue only if the politician in question is Republican, but it's weird that Trump made the request personally. Requesting an investigation is low-level stuff that you would normally expect to have been handed off to someone lower down the totem pole (yes, I know that's not how Indians used totem poles, but it's still a useful image).

AMDG said...

The Democrats are showing their lack of seriousness by not going all out to hall Giuliani in to testify. Why is that?

Michael K said...

Browndog said...
They'd love nothing more than to impeach Trump on Christmas Eve. As a gift.


Remember "Fitzmas?"

tim maguire said...

Chuck said...
This is a serious question for you, Althouse:

What is it that you don't get, about the current allegation -- backed by overwhelming evidence at this point -- that Donald Trump personally directed actions resulting in the withholding of vital aid to Ukraine in order to pressure the newly-elected president to announce (not conduct, but merely announce) a Ukrainian corruption investigation that Trump could use in his own campaign, to attack Joe Biden?


If you want to claim that your facts are unassailable, that they are the starting point of a discussion and not under discussion themselves, then you need better evidence for your facts. Saying the evidence is overwhelming doesn't make the evidence overwhelming.

Ralph L said...

All the characters in British police series are cheating

And haunted by trauma.

gilbar said...

Krumhorn said...
Of course, there is always the option of dropping the matter with a splashy and grandiose show


PRESS RELEASE
Orange Man is vile, and undeniably EVIL....
Since the foul Senate is IN LEAGUE with Orange Man... NO JUSTICE CAN BE FOUND
We, the considerate, and patriotic members of the US House therefore Choose Not to inflict more of him on the Free Peoples of the United States. We Censure him with these words:
ORANGE MAN BAD!!!

Beasts of England said...

’backed by overwhelming evidence at this point’

😂

Michael K said...


I think impeachment, let alone a Senate trial is looking iffier each day. Even Schiff is refusing to say he supports impeachment by the House.


Yup. I have been saying this for two weeks. The question is whether Nancy has the guts to defy the crazies.

Michael McNeil said...

it's weird that Trump…

IMPEACH!!

DeVere said...

Another imperative Nancy is facing is the imperative to not govern, both because the democrat platform is unpopular, and because governing would involve cooperating with Trump, which would lend him legitimacy.

She's gotten through an entire year, with one more to go, and she certainly has the skills.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Chuck -

The new president of Ukraine was not bribed, in any way. Asking about corruption is illegal now? Why? Why is Joe Biden in a protective bubble?

The old Ukrainian regime WAS corrupt and they did help Hillary. Politico so reported.
Joe Biden's son DID pocket millions from a Ukrainian company while his dad was VP.

When did you become a democratic talking point repeating boot licking prick?

Why are democrats allowed to dig for dirt and even create and manufacture false dirt - using foreign actors?

Why are democrats allowed to set up and use Private Servers to run the entire State Dept business in secret while family coffers are filled with speech-money from places like Ukraine and Russia?

Vet66 said...

Democrats are known to overplay their hand to gleefully put their pie-in-the-sky utopian dreams on display. It didn't work before and does not work now. It is pathetically amusing to witness but sadly reminds us of why Hillary lost.

Shouting Thomas said...

The real problem for the Democrats is that Trump has been an extraordinarily effective president.

gilbar said...

For how many millionaire/billionaire businessmen and -women — working for half a century in (say) building construction (with all the political compromises which must be made in that line of work)

that's the thing. The Demo's are convinced that there' Gotta be a Pony in there, somewhere
If they keep digging, it's Gotta show up. But, instead; they're digging their own graves

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

VITAL AID!

BRIBERY!

WITCHCRAFT!

JOE BIDEN IS UNTOUCHABLE!

Chuck said...

Althouse, on November 8, 2019:

"ADDED: I'm not following the details[of impeachment], but it's not because I 'know in advance how [I] plan to interpret' the evidence. I'm not following this because I believe the people who are shaping it and presenting and hyperventilating about it decided in advance the interpretation they wanted to manipulate people into having. I'm not going to sit around getting spoon fed this stuff on a daily basis, week after week."


There are of course "low information voters." Then, it seems, there are "information-resistant voters." And bloggers. You missed quite a lot since November 8.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Chuck -
If you pay attention to the witnesses, Chuck - as many of us have, there is nothing there to impeach. There is no high crime or misdemeanor. Impressions and hearsay are not impeachable.

Asking the leader of Ukraine to look into the supposed corruption of 2016 - which I thought you left-wingers cared about - is not illegal.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

We do need a leggy blonde like Fawn Hall, or whatever her name was. Why couldn’t Schiff arrange that?

Because liberal women are ugly on the inside and outside.

rhhardin said...

I'd like to see a detective inspector sergeant in a British police show take up astrology and begin solving lots of cases. Also would work in impeachment. Call in astrologers to testify. Or climate scientists.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Blogger Michael K said...
Browndog said...
They'd love nothing more than to impeach Trump on Christmas Eve. As a gift.

Remember "Fitzmas?"


Remember ObamaCare?

Shouting Thomas said...

Trump has been very successful in exposing the Democrats major selling points as false, too:

1. A successful president doesn't need to be harvested from an identity politics victim class.

2. Identity politics considerations are not really what should drive our politics and economy.

If you want an accountable president, you must vote for a straight white man. Everybody else belongs to an identity politics victim class. Criticizing and ridiculing these victims is, of course, bigotry.

Trump has won the ideological battle and he's been an exemplary, successful president. That's the Dem's problem.

Chuck said...

I'm not sure it ever occurred to me until this morning, just how much we need to have this impeachment fight. A hard, detailed fight to the end. A Gettysburg of political rhetoric. In public; on the record; with rules of evidence; with a conclusion. (As a McConnell-loving Republican myself, it concerns me that a party-line vote in the Senate that results in no conviction of Trump will result in the loss of a handful of Republican losses in swing-state Senate races, and McConnell will lose his majority. And that it will allow Democrats to fill Article 3 judgeships the way that Obama did in his last three years, and how McConnell has for the last couple of years.

I'm thinking of how much I want to take on each and every Trump supporter, and each and every argument/question/claim that they have. But from past experience -- and the wishes of the blog hostess -- that sort of argumentation is just not possible here.

God, I want this fight. I really would not care if it lasted for a year.

gilbar said...

our Poor Chuck said...
God, I want this fight. I really would not care if it lasted for a year.


is that just because you're a drunken idiot? Or because you're getting paid ?

Beasts of England said...

’I'm thinking of how much I want to take on each and every Trump supporter...’

Visions of titty twisters dancing through your head?

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Trump-hate trumps fact or reason.

Turns formerly rational people into totalitarian fuckwads.

daskol said...

Chuck is Elaine Chao!

Michael said...

Biden’s son and Biden himself did not have to “do” anything. The executives at the company paying Biden were doing so so they could point to their new board member and not say a word. He is the son of the Vice President of the US. Get it? The Bidens are too dumb to see they were being used and too dumb to know they were too dumb.

Francisco D said...

The question is whether Nancy has the guts to defy the crazies.

Nancy knows how to play the game.

There will NOT be an impeachment vote, but there will be continued attempts to sully Trump which culminate in a censure vote. That will somewhat mollify the crazies in the Media and the Democrat party, but then I repeat myself.

Nancy will then go on the propaganda outlets to explain that the Republicans obstructed a legitimate impeachment, so censure was the only option.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Biden is above the law.

"No one is above the law." - what a pant load from corruptocrats.

Brian said...

a party-line vote in the Senate that results in no conviction of Trump will result in the loss of a handful of Republican losses in swing-state Senate races

Assumes facts not in evidence. The longer the trial goes the more unlikely that will happen. As a lawyer should realize any side given enough time can muddy up the waters enough to make the process the issue and not the target.

The longer the trial goes on the more the underlying corruption of the DNC is exposed.

So far the Democrats have been allowed unfettered discovery. Once it goes to the Senate the other side gets their chance.

Best to settle this now. A big ol' censure vote that Trump will literally laugh at in his next rally.

Char Char Binks said...

Democrats need to keep up the pretense.

Iman said...

“I got a lot of — I got hairy legs that turn blonde in the sun...and the kids used to come up and reach in the pool and rub my leg down so it was straight and then watch the hair come back up again. They’d look at it...so I learned about roaches. I learned about kids jumping on my lap. And I love kids jumping on my lap. And I tell you what, the men are now all men. The guys I work with down here, and they’re all guys at the time, they’re all good men.”

—- Joe Biden

Mike Sylwester said...

Chuck at 8:05 AM
Donald Trump personally directed actions resulting in the withholding of vital aid to Ukraine in order to pressure the newly-elected president to announce (not conduct, but merely announce) a Ukrainian corruption investigation that Trump could use in his own campaign, to attack Joe Biden?

What's your proof that this (the bold) was Trump's motive?

I think that the foreign bribing of any Vice President should be investigated. Don't you?

Birkel said...

I'm loving impeachment,
Go unAmerican Democratics, go!

Mike Sylwester said...

Chuck at 8:39 AM
a party-line vote in the Senate that results in no conviction of Trump will result in the loss of a handful of Republican losses in swing-state Senate races

I don't agree with you about that.

You seem to assume that everyone agrees with your idea that Trump wanted the foreign bribing of the Biden family to be investigated only so that Trump could use in his own campaign, to attack Joe Biden. In fact, few Republicans do agree with you about that.

The foreign bribing of any Vice President should be investigated.

My name goes here. said...

Chuck,

This is a serious question.

Even if everything you claim was true, how is it a crime? Really I want you to explain it to me like I am five. I really want to understand. To help this conversation I need to put out here some things that I think really are egregious (and impeachable) and if you can tell me either how I am wrong about previous egregious actions by presidents, or how Trump's actions here (if true) are worse I would be all ears.

The Obama administration ordered a drone strike on a terrorist who was with his 16 year old son who held American citizenship, the 16 year old was killed. There was no due process. This seems more impeachable than Trump asking for a corruption investigation.

The Obama administration told Middle Eastern leaders that they would get the person responsible for the protests that lead to the 11 SEP 2012 attacks including Benghazi. The Secretary of State at the time stood in front of the caskets of dead Americans and told the American people and the world that it was caused by a video on YouTube. Emails after the fact show that they knew this was not the case. The administraton jailed an American because of this. These actions, lying to the American people, and jailing an American to placate foreign leaders seems far more egregious that what you claim trump did.

The Clinton White House held subpoenaed material in the residence of the White House until it was "found". Also the same White House held FBI files on people it should not have. Neither of these violations of Congress (supoena) or the civil rights of American citizens (FBI files) rose to the level of impeachment.

Given that President routinely use Quid Pro Quo in diplomatic dealings, that cannot be impeachable. How many times have Presidents put conditions on Israeli settlements (internal Israeli politics) tied to American aid? Lots of times. Without a peep of impeachment.

So, it must be Joe Biden that is so special. Why is that?

Look if Hillary won and there was a call between her and the President of Argentina and she was caught saying "Look I need to know if Marco Rubio is corrupt. He stopped your predecessor from completing a corruption investigation and now that you are the new Presidente I really gotta know if Rubio is on the take." I might think it was a tacky thing for her to do, but you know what I would want more? I would want to know if Rubio is corrupt.

So, Chuck, if you can, please explain to me how previous administrations ignoring due process of American citizens, assassinating them, ignoring subpoenas, and violating civil rights are not impeachable, then why is it when someone asks about Joe Biden, it is impeachable?

And before you say its because he is a political opponent, Biden is not a political opponent, not yet. Because according to that logic all 23 of the democrats running for the Presidency must also be immune from ever being looked at by a federal administration. I can see it now legalzoom.com will set up the paperwork for a person to declare themselves a candidate for president inoculating them from investigation, and for 50% more you can declare yourself a candidate for Governor of all 50 states preventing them from ever investigating you as well.

Please Chuck, it is an honest request.

Mark O said...

If we look at Hunter from Burisma's perspective, the company offered him a $3 million bribe to sit on his board and use his name. Hunter took the bribe. When the Ukraine prosecutor was interested in the bribe, Joe used US money to stop the investigation.

A quote from Stain springs to mind: “The press must grow day in and day out – it is the sharpest and the strongest weapon of our party.”

Michael K said...

I think that the foreign bribing of any Vice President should be investigated. Don't you?

Only Republicans because Hillary voters like Chuck want Biden protected from himself.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

If no one is above the law - where is the investigation into Adam Schitt's grooming of the whistleblower?

Bob Boyd said...

I think that the foreign bribing of any Vice President should be investigated. Don't you?

Not if it means running afoul of the Impoundment Control Act!

Mike Sylwester said...

Chuck at 8:39 AM
we need to have this impeachment fight. A hard, detailed fight to the end.

The details will include the Ukrainian bribing of Vice President Joe Biden through his son Hunter Biden.

The details will include Joe Biden's use of $1 billion of US taxpayers' money to extort the Ukrainian Government to fire the General-Prosecutor.

The debate will include those subjects.

Browndog said...

Impeachment hearings;

Morning session/Democrats

Q: How did this make you feel?

A: I felt like..you know... QUID QUO BRIBERY EXTORTION TRAITOR ABUSE OF POWER IMPEACH.

Afternoon session/Republicans

Q: Do you actually know anything?

A: No.

Q: Did Trump actually do anything wrong?

A: No.

Howard said...

Yes, but will Nancy take heed?

Char Char Binks said...

I heard it from a Dem who heard it from a Dem who heard it from another Trump's colluding around...

Amadeus 48 said...

As some of you may know, to celebrate this Impeachment Season I have come up with a playlist for the roll-out album by a garage band called The Little Vindmans. The album is called "Orange Man Bad--Meet The Little Vindmans". It takes the form of a rock opera the like of which has not been seen since The Who's "Tommy". Presented for your consideration, the playlist for a two-disc set:

Disc 1: Orange Man Bad

1. Election night (Wisconsin Rag/Pennsylvania 44,000)
2. Pussy Riot
3. DC Badboys
4. How can I miss Hillary (when she won't go away)
5. Our homey Comey
6. Muellergate
7. Hands up/don't #MeToo
8. Melania, mon amour
9. Yummy mummy (Ivanka!)
10. Try my Trump Grill tacos
11. Somethin' ain't right
12. Badass Brennan (you dope)
13. Trumpodelic 2020
14. Grab 'em by the pussy
15. Orange Man Bad



Disc 2: Kill Shot (we missed)

1. Resistance will get ya
2. Whistleblower! (Don't need no missile/Got me a whistle)
3. Lieutenant Colonel
4. Moonset over Kiev
5. Don't touch that
6. Purple heart bleeding
7. Got the old dress blues
8. Oil and water
9. Not my chief
10. Hearsay whoopee
11. Swalwell gas meter (who cut the cheese?)
12. Not much charisma/ lotsa Burisma
13. Kill shot (we missed)
14. Ukraine girls (really knock me out)
15. Epstein didn't kill himself

The Little Vindmans--up from the Swamp.

Jersey Fled said...

The national polls showing support for impeachment are completely meaningless if they are based on big margins in NY and CA. They don't represent a swing of even one vote in the Electoral College.

To the extent that you can believe any of them, look at the swing state polls.

Beasts of England said...

’Orange Man Bad--Meet The Little Vindmans’

Love it!! And I’m available if you need a bass player...

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Recall when Vindman was about to reveal the whistle blower - Schitt stopped him!

But we are told that Schitt does not know the identity of said whistle-blower.

The media and the democrats treat us like dummies.

Skylark said...

If you want to posit the now-current defense that Trump was seriously concerned about foreign corruption, I'd like to hear that from you directly. I don't believe it, and I cannot imagine you believing it.

A: That’s been the defense all along, it just doesn’t get circulated in the press you read.

B: Althouse answered your question.

There was at least enough legitimate cause to investigate the Bidens — what did Joe’s son’s client get for all that money? — to take the case out of the “high crime” category....
"I agree with that!” - Althouse


The reason this defense is never reported is because it exonerates Trump and implicates Biden. The exact reason that you are. deaf to it, Chuck.

"What's your proof that this (the bold) was Trump's motive?” - Mike Sylvester

He can’t believe it. That’s is “proof” and piling on to this, he can’t imagine Althouse believes it. That’s even more proof. The rest of us see that all of this extra stuff is a mishmash of red herrings like in some murder mystery designed to throw off the reader. Trump had a motive, to investigate 2016 election meddling on the part of Ukraine on behalf of Hillary. It’s enough to blow the whole “case” apart. Which, as I say, is why Chuck is blind to it. Deliberately or not, IDK.

Martin said...

There is no way to square all their 2 weeks ago pontificating about their solemn Constitutional responsibility with the Democrats' now obviously making electoral politics drive their schedule and decisions.

As usual, they lie, and the lies just compound each other.

Skylark said...

They conflated investigating Biden, which only came up secondarily, with investigating Ukraine’s widely known partisan actions to try to help Hillary in the election.

It’s a tried and true gambit, BTW. With Clinton, they made an impeachment about lying and suborning perjury (Actual obstruction of justice, BTW) in a sexual harrassment lawsuit into a kerfuffle about a consensual blowjob.

This is what Chuck is running with. Zelensky brought up the Bidens first. Was the first to say “Burisma” which made Ciaramella, who worked extensively with Biden on Ukraine freak out. The impeachment is the cover up. Change my mind.

Wince said...

The Kubler-Ross stages of impeachment!

More like the Kobayashi Maru.

The Kobayashi Maru is a training exercise in the fictional Star Trek universe designed to test the character of Starfleet Academy cadets in a no-win scenario.

Howard said...

Kobayashi was Verbal Kint

narciso said...

I called it the schrodinger's impeachment, because of the bizarre nature, so you have the fact Pelosi, Nadler, Clinton, Schiff, all have ties to the Ukrainian arms exporter igor Pasternak,

narciso said...


https://apelbaum.wordpress.com/2019/09/29/how-to-finance-your-congressional-campaign-with-arms-sales/

Rusty said...

This is blowing up in their faces bigly.
It takes a special kind of cognitive disassociation to believe that the impeachment proceedings are successful for the democrats.

Steven said...

The fundamental problem with the Democrat's impeachment effort is the American people consider politicians using their power to push for investigations of their political opponents completely normal and expected. If the law was violated in the process, they don't really care. Accordingly, the only people (to a first approximation) who want Trump removed from office for doing it are the people who opposed him in the 2016 election.

It is, in fact, the exact same thing that happened in the Clinton impeachment. However much Republicans pointed to the blatantly clear violations of perjury and obstruction of justice laws, those crimes were viewed by the American people as a politician simply doing the normal and expected thing of trying to cover up an affair. Accordingly, the only people (to a first approximation) who wanted him removed from office for doing it were those who wanted him defeated in the 1996 election.

If people think the President should be held to a higher standard, that's fine. They can show they're honest about it by demanding that the members of Congress who voted against the impeachment or removal of Clinton resign, to make way for members of the House and Senate who will uphold such a standard. Anything short of that is just pretense from partisan hacks.

narciso said...

I know it's early,


https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/02/exclusive-poll-john-james-gary-peters-michigan-senate/

Joan said...

Mickey Kaus is still alive? I had no idea.