Congressman Al Green is censured — for yelling and waving his cane at Trump — and House Democrats respond by singing "We Shall Overcome."

“Democrats burst out singing “We Shall Overcome” after Rep Al Green was censured pic.twitter.com/bCJ0SWWm7U

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 6, 2025

ADDED: I remember when Democrats sang "We Shall Overcome" to protest the pro-war platform at the National Convention in 1968. Here's Norman Mailer's description, from "Miami and the Siege of Chicago" (commission earned):

"Trump reverses on coronavirus stimulus deal, signs package he called a 'disgrace.'"

 USA Today headline.

Is that a "reversal"? 

After weeks of negotiation and bipartisan votes of approval in the House and Senate, Trump on Tuesday unexpectedly slammed the COVID stimulus legislation but stopped short of saying he would veto it. The message upended Washington, drew bipartisan condemnation and threatened to end a chaotic year with a government shutdown. 

Unexpectedly? 

But after a growing number of Republicans pushed back on Trump's reticence – and Democrats quickly embraced Trump's idea of larger direct payments and used it as a cudgel against GOP lawmakers – Trump relented. The president, who has been spending the holidays at his Florida resort, hinted he had won concessions from lawmakers but it was not clear if that was actually the case.

"Senate Democrats on Wednesday blocked a Republican-drafted bill aimed at overhauling the nation’s policing practices..."

"... spelling a potential death knell to efforts at revisions at the federal level in an election year. In a 55-to-45 vote, the legislation written primarily by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) failed to advance in the Senate, where it needed 60 votes to proceed. Most Democratic senators said the bill fell far short of what was needed to meaningfully change policing tactics and was beyond the point of salvaging. ‘The Republican majority proposed the legislative equivalent of a fig leaf — something that provides a little cover but no real change,' Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a floor speech Wednesday morning. 'The harsh fact of the matter is, the bill is so deeply, fundamentally and irrevocably flawed, it cannot serve as a useful starting point for meaningful reform.'... On one major point of dissension between the parties, the Republican bill leaves intact the 'qualified immunity' standard that Democrats want to erode to make it easier for law enforcement officials to be sued for misconduct.... In its veto threat, the Trump administration called the Democratic legislation an 'overbroad bill' that 'would deter good people from pursuing careers in law enforcement, weaken the ability of law enforcement agencies to reduce crime and keep our communities safe, and fail to bring law enforcement and the communities they serve closer together.'"

WaPo reports.

Whose slush?

$35 million for the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. ?

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH FIGHTING THE CORONAVIRUS?!?

Show this to anyone dares question if @SpeakerPelosi is playing politics. pic.twitter.com/syx0QHdhcA

— Scott Walker (@ScottWalker) March 24, 2020

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has an advantage McConnell lacks. She can pass a bill through her chamber..."

"... without any votes from the opposing party. McConnell cannot — his Senate bills need 60 votes. McConnell is trying to depict his bill as the only alternative, pressuring Democrats to support it. But Pelosi can turn this trick back on McConnell easily by passing a Democratic bill and demanding he do the same. It is odd she has yet to exert this source of leverage, instead waiting for McConnell’s Senate to take the lead."

Writes Jonathan Chait in "Democrats Should Vote Down Trump’s Corrupt Stimulus Slush Fund" (in New York Magazine).

It is odd, so find an interpretation of the facts that makes it not odd. I'm thinking the Democrats want distance from the McConnell bill. They want to say they opposed it, but they also need it to go through. The opposition is political theater. Pelosi is standing back, allowing that to play out quickly, because they all do know what a dire emergency this is, and there's the practical need to get some solution in the place as well as a political need not to look as though you put your politics above the the welfare of the people.

Back to Chait:

It is imperative that [Democrats] offer good-faith proposals to alleviate the economic emergency, rather than hoping to tank the economy and profit from the ruin.

Hoping to tank the economy and profit from the ruin!? I think, in context, Chait means that he thinks that's "what McConnell would do, were the circumstances reversed." He points to the way congressional Republicans behaved during the 2008 financial crisis.

Chait calls Democrats to "a higher standard of patriotism." He then proceeds to observe that the Republicans will deserve all the blame for "economic collapse," so the Democrats have leverage that they can use to get a bill balanced more toward Democratic Party ideology.

I think this kind of pressure on Pelosi can work. Quite recently, she opposed impeaching the President. She knew it was a bad idea, but she gave into pressure and allowed impeachment to go forward.

"More Americans approve of the job congressional Republicans are doing than of congressional Democrats' performance — 40% vs. 35%."

"The rating for Republicans in Congress has risen six percentage points since late October, before the impeachment of President Donald Trump in the U.S. House of Representatives. Over the same period, congressional Democrats' approval rating has edged down three points and disapproval has climbed five points, from 57% to 62%."

Gallup reports.

"The House on Tuesday approved a $1.4 trillion spending package... acting in a burst of bipartisanship just a day before Democrats plan to impeach President Trump...."

"The package passed in two pieces, one focused on GOP national security priorities including the Pentagon, the other on domestic agencies dear to Democrats such as the Department of Health and Human Services.... The year-end legislative frenzy, which came ahead of the divisive impeachment vote in the House, showed how far both parties have moved since last year, when a spending fight led to a 35-day government shutdown. This time, both parties reverted to a hallowed congressional tradition of embracing an enormous year-end spending bill. Each side made concessions to secure long-sought funding.... The spending binge generated predictable finger-pointing, with Republicans defending their demands for increased Pentagon budgets while accusing Democrats of profligacy in funding domestic agencies. Democrats argued the reverse, contending that more money for health and education programs was justified and blaming Republicans for making defense spending the price to pay. Few if any voices could be heard defending Congress’ overall addiction to growing the federal budget, and with it the nation’s debt, which now exceeds $23 trillion."

WaPo reports.

"I have a problem with this whole damn place. If you can figure out an exit strategy for me I’d appreciate that. This is crazy. The whole thing is crazy. It will take some time to get over."

Ken Buck, a Republican congressman from Colorado (and member of the Judiciary Committee), quoted in "Icy silence, frayed connections: Impeachment takes a toll" (AP).

"A group of House Republicans barged into a secure room at the Capitol on Wednesday where the latest witness in the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry was set to testify..."

"... temporarily shutting down the proceedings. The disruption delayed closed-door testimony from Laura Cooper, the Pentagon official who oversees Ukraine policy, whom lawmakers planned to ask about the White House’s decision to withhold military aid for several months over the summer.... Republicans involved in storming the secure room have begun tweeting updates about their activities and about how Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) has responded. 'BREAKING: I led over 30 of my colleagues into the SCIF where Adam Schiff is holding secret impeachment depositions. Still inside - more details to come,' tweeted Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.). Reporting from Adam Schiff’s secret chamber....' Republican lawmakers on the three committees involved in the inquiry have been permitted to attend and ask questions during depositions of witnesses. The lawmakers who have been asked to leave are not members of those committees...."

From "Live updates: House Republicans barge into secure room, disrupt planned testimony in Trump impeachment inquiry" (WaPo).

"Trump's burn-down-the-House plan.... Trump really only trusts his own instincts. And his instincts here are the same as they were with the Mueller investigation: Fight like hell."

Axios outlines Trump's plan for the all-out fight:

• No nuance or apology — not a hint of it.
• Turn the leader of the investigation (in this case, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff) into a conservative media villain.
• Condemn Trump enemies in the most incendiary and exaggerated language possible (treason, traitors, coup, etc.).

There's a second set of bullet points, for "Why it matters," which are followed by the announcement of the "bottom line" that these are not "helpful signals for Trump":

• Republicans close to leadership and the White House tell Axios they're concerned by trend lines in a Washington Post poll showing 49% of Americans think Trump should be removed from office.
• Top Republicans don’t believe the numbers in the Post poll, which found support for an impeachment inquiry rising among Republicans by 21 points since July.
• Trump’s abrupt announcement that he would withdraw from Syria and clear the way for the Turks to charge in (and perhaps massacre the Kurds) has added to this anxiety about Trump weakening the support he needs among Republican lawmakers.

So Trump will fight like hell and his fighting matters because there are some confusing polls and Trump did something in Syria that has nothing to do with the grounds for impeachment. I don't really understand that other than to see that Axios has a template and it may satisfy some readers who are looking for a visual that looks like order. The term "helpful signals for Trump" strikes me as completely silly. Won't Axios always tend to assure us that Trump's in trouble? Would they ever find any "helpful signals" for him? Why not say Trump's plan to fight like hell isn't a "helpful signal" for the members of Congress who imagine that if they express enough outrage about Trump, he'll lay down and die?

"Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to announce on Tuesday that the House will begin a formal impeachment inquiry of President Trump, Democrats close to her said..."

"... taking decisive action in response to startling allegations that the president sought to enlist a foreign power for his own political gain," the NYT says.

After months of caution, Ms. Pelosi has become convinced that Mr. Trump’s reported actions, and his administration’s refusal to share details about the matter with Congress, left the House no alternative but to move forward with an inquiry that has the potential to reshape his presidency and cleave an already divided nation just a year before he plans to stand for re-election...

At issue are allegations that Mr. Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to open a corruption investigation of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, and his son. The conversation is said to be part of a whistle-blower complaint that the Trump administration has withheld from Congress....

Mr. Trump said on Tuesday that he would authorize the release of a transcript of the conversation, but Democrats want the full whistle-blower complaint.

Trump knows what's in the transcript, and I see here that's coming out tomorrow. I wonder why the Democrats want to decide today rather than after the transcript comes out. Maybe they learned a lesson from Mitt Romney, who let the mention of a transcript break his stride. Oh! There's a transcript, well, then....

ADDED: Trump reacts:

Such an important day at the United Nations, so much work and so much success, and the Democrats purposely had to ruin and demean it with more breaking news Witch Hunt garbage. So bad for our Country!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 24, 2019

Impeaching Trump now = conceding the 2020 election.

That's my working theory. I don't know if the Democrats in Congress will go so far as to impeach Trump, but I tend to think that if they do, it will be because they think they're going to lose the election and they need another route toward defeating Trump.

Of course, if Trump is impeached by the Democrats who have a majority in the House, he will not be removed from office, because the Republicans control the Senate. We'll be subjected to a horrific blend of legal mystification and political advantage seeking.

So why would the Democrats predict that it will advantage them? My answer is: because they feel sure they're losing the actual election, the straightforward political fight.

The timing is important. They could wait for the actual election, the normal process of American democracy, or — if they think that won't work — they can start delegitimatizing it now, while they think they have a decent shot at making us believe they're doing something righteous and noble. If they wait too long, the con will become more obvious.

Now, I'm going to read the Daniel W. Drezner column, "The strategic case for impeaching President Trump/Welcome to some zero-sum game theory" (WaPo), which I think may say something like what I wanted to jot down before being influenced:

Pelosi thinks that impeachment needs to be a bipartisan process, and without GOP support impeachment is a hollow threat that would harm Democrats in 2020....

So, as long the Democrats think they can win the actual election, they shouldn't hurt their chances by going for impeachment.

For most of 2019, Pelosi had put the brakes on impeachment. The Ukraine business seems to have tipped the scales, however.... The problem is that Pelosi’s risk-averse political calculus at the start of 2019 has not necessarily changed. Very few Senate Republicans beyond Mitt Romney have said anything about the recent revelations. It is entirely possible that impeachment will be viewed as simply an exercise in partisan politics.

And it's entirely certain that impeachment will be viewed as partly an exercise in partisan politics. And 80% likely that it will be viewed as mostly an exercise in partisan politics.

Drezner offers game theory analysis:

In zero-sum games, one actor’s gain is always the other actor’s loss. The optimal strategy to pursue in this instance is called “minimax.” A minimax strategy anticipates that the other actor will adopt the most punishing strategy possible — and, in response to that strategy, takes the course of action that minimizes the damage....

It is safe to assume that Trump will continue to abuse the powers of the presidency as long as he is in office.... Would impeachment stop any of that? No, not directly. What it would do, however, is distract the heck out of him....  [H]e will obsess about it... He will rant to his... 

He's inept and dangerous, so let's make his job twice as hard. You know, we are dependent on him to do his job well. I have never accepted the effort to distract and confuse him, which has gone on since before he took office. And why don't people see that the endless screwing with him energizes him? He's very creative at repurposing negativity. He seems to revel in the fight. And to many Americans, that's exciting entertainment, and they feel they're cheering the underdog.

He loves a fight.

Yeah, I agree with that. But Drezner stops at thinking Trump will be distracted and imagines this will help the country because distracted Trump won't pay so much attention to doing his job as President.

That's how Drezner wants the Democrats to help?! First, that's a disgusting approach to running the country, and it's utter disrespect for the people who used their normal democratic power of voting him into office. And second, the Democrats will be distracting themselves from what they really need to be doing — winning the 2020 election.

Which is why my working theory makes more sense. The Democrats would be deciding that they won't win the 2020 election — an affront to democracy.

I'm sticking to my theory, which — it turned out — isn't anything like what Drezner had to say.

"Don’t tell anybody I told you this: Trump is goading us to impeach him. That’s what he’s doing. Every single day, he’s just like, taunting and taunting and taunting."

Said Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi argued Trump is daring them to impeach him because he believes it would help him “solidify his base” ahead of his 2020 re-election. Pelosi said that puts Democrats in a dilemma.

“We can’t impeach him for political reasons, and we can’t not impeach him for political reasons,” Pelosi said. “We have to see where the facts take us."

There's also "The nightmare scenario for Democrats on Trump’s corruption" by Greg Sargent (at WaPo). Sargent is recommending impeachment proceedings in order to generate a legitimate purpose for the House to get Trump's tax returns. Without impeachment proceedings, there's a good chance that a court would reject "just rummaging through Trump’s returns to embarrass him and not for a legitimate legislative purpose." And that loss would make Democrats look bad right before the 2020 elections. Sargent says:

This would constitute an epic, disastrous failure. Not getting Trump’s returns would allow him to get away with one of his most blatant acts of contempt for transparency, for the separation of powers and for the notion that basic accountability should apply to him at all.

That's histrionic. If the courts took the position Sargent is afraid of, it would be because the court was enforcing separation of powers, limiting Congress to the legislative role and protecting the Executive power from encroachment. Trump isn't showing "contempt" for separation of powers. He's taking a position on separation of powers. That position would either win or lose in court, and the court would give the final answer on the meaning of separation of powers.

Sargent says that "if Democrats were to initiate an impeachment inquiry, it would create a legislative purpose for compelling release of the returns that is basically unassailable — that legislative purpose being impeachment." Sargent quotes a legal expert who says “I don’t see how any information can be withheld — the Mueller report, tax returns, anything. This would make it airtight.” The expert suggests that even without impeachment, Democrats could just say their legitimate legislative purpose for getting anything they want from Trump is to figure out whether to start impeachment proceedings. It seems to me that any of that would lead to the same resistance from Trump and need to resort to the courts, with the same potential for the "nightmare scenario" outcome for Democrats.

Sargent doesn't say that that Democrats "must launch an inquiry right this second." But they need to put it "on the table clearly as a point toward which they are converging out of necessity" and "more forthrightly engage with the argument that the failure to do this could end up with Democratic oversight mostly being neutered, with no remaining options." So... forthrightly admit that they are cornered?

I think Pelosi is taking another path. She knows they are cornered, and she's not going to admit that. Her idea is to shift attention to Trump: Look, he's trying to make us impeach him! She's trying to get Democrats to adjust to what she knows must happen. There won't be an impeachment. Start thinking that impeachment is what Trump wants.

"Steven Mnuchin Refuses to Release Trump’s Tax Returns to Congress."

The NYT reports.

Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, wrote in a letter to Representative Richard E. Neal, Democrat of Massachusetts and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that Mr. Neal’s request for the tax returns “lacks a legitimate legislative purpose” and that he was not authorized to disclose them.... "As you have recognized, the committee’s request is unprecedented, and it presents serious constitutional questions, the resolution of which may have lasting consequences for all taxpayers,” Mr. Mnuchin wrote in the one-page letter. He added that “the department may not lawfully fulfill the committee’s request.”...

Mr. Neal’s next move is not clear. He could file a lawsuit against the Treasury Department, accusing Mr. Mnuchin of not following the law, or he could try to access Mr. Trump’s returns with a subpoena. Both options would likely lead to a protracted fight through the court system....

To whose political advantage is a protracted fight through the court system? I would guess the President's and therefore that there will be no lawsuit, just loud and pesky argument against the President.

The NYT "Daily" podcast traps Jerry Nadler into an implicit confession that his investigation into Trump is biased and political.

I'm listening to today's episode of the NYT "Daily" podcast, which is the 3rd part in a series about what to expect from the Mueller report. It's an interview with Representative Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating President Trump and where an effort to impeach Trump would begin.

The NYT interviewer is the host of the "Daily" podcast, Michael Barbaro, and, at about 8 minutes into the conversation, he traps Nadler with this stunning question: "You said that you believed the President obstructed justice, and I wonder why you would... say that publicly before the release of the Mueller report? What's the value in doing that? Does it not kind of inherently portray whatever investigation..."

Those 2 ellipses are places where Nadler interrupts. On the second interruption, I believe Barbaro was about to say that the Judiciary Committee is going to look political and biased.

Nadler, seems to anticipate that accusation, and he says says, "Well, I believe in answering questions honestly. I was asked a question." There follows a snorty little laugh. The laugh might mean: Hey, it's your fault, Barbaro, for asking me. Or it might mean: Oh, I get how you boxed me in, Barbaro, you rascal.

Barbaro observes that when Nadler was asked if he thought Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice, he could have just said "Let's wait until the Mueller report comes out." That wouldn't have been dishonest. Nadler responds, "Well, maybe I should have." Which I interpret to mean: Yeah, I wish I'd thought of that.

Listen for yourself, and check my interpretation. Don't miss the snorty little laugh after he asserts "I believe in answering questions honestly." To my ear,  it's creepy and villainous.

"How would I describe my relationship to the president? My relationship toward him is respectful..."

"... respectful of the office that he holds. Straightforward, just tell him what I think. And I always say you’re not going to hear me saying anything publicly that I’m not saying here in the office. Hopeful that at some point we can find common ground that he’ll stick to. So, yeah, respectful, honest and hopeful.... I’m not for impeachment. This is news. I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it."

Says Nancy Pelosi, quoted in "Nancy Pelosi on Impeaching Trump: ‘He’s Just Not Worth It’ In a wide-ranging interview, the country’s most powerful Democrat says Trump is unfit to be president — 'ethically,' 'intellectually' and 'curiosity-wise' — but impeachment would be too divisive" (Politico).

"I see everything as an opportunity. This is an opportunity once again to declare as strongly as possible opposition to anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim statements [and] white supremacist attitudes."

Said Nancy Pelosi, quoted in "Pelosi Says House Will Condemn All Hate as Anti-Semitism Debate Overshadows Congress" (NYT).

She took a shot at President Trump and his equivocal statements after the deadly white supremacist march in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017: “The president may think there are good people on both sides, we don’t share that view.”

Democrats are confident that they can unite the caucus, and they want to get the fight over [Ilhan] Omar out of the way....  Ms. Omar, a Minnesota Democrat and one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, has been fending off accusations of anti-Semitism for weeks...

“It’s not about her, it’s about these forms of hatred,” Ms. Pelosi said about the resolution. Tensions boiled over in a closed-door meeting of House Democrats on Wednesday that pitted older Jewish Democrats who want a forthright statement condemning anti-Semitism against younger liberals....

For another perspective, here's "The Democratic Inquisition has come after Ilhan Omar/But strong popular resistance is foiling attempts to burn her at the political stake" by Richard Silverstein (Al Jazeera):

Axelrod isn't quite saying it's a witch hunt, but it too easily plays into the "witch-hunt" meme.

Maybe I’m missing something, but the hazard of an omnibus document demand by House judiciary versus discreet, serial ones is that, however legitimate the areas of inquiry, the wide-ranging nature of it is too easily plays into the “witch-hunt” meme.

— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) March 4, 2019

It's hard to think what anything really is or isn't anymore. It feels much better/smarter/safer to speak about whether things fit into memes. Or really not even that. It's more a matter of whether something can be used by somebody else to further their memes.

"Democrats, GOP find rare unity on Cohen: They see a liar who proves their point"/"Mr. Cohen’s testimony may push each party further into its corner...."

The Washington Post and The New York Times have the same takeaway. Here's how it looks on the front page (just under the news that Trump's Vietnam visit with Kim Jong-Un ended early).

WaPo:



NYT:



Click image to clarify and enlarge.

I'm interested in the similarities and differences between these presentations, but the headlines I put in the post title are especially similar and sum up yesterday's drama in a way that appeals to me, as one of the Americans who have distanced ourselves from the day-to-day agonies of the Trump administration.

Let's click into the 2 columns. "Democrats, GOP find rare unity on Cohen: They see a liar who proves their point" was on the WaPo front page (but isn't anymore). Clicked on, it becomes, "As a Trump insider describes a ‘con man’ president, both sides see a liar — who proves their point." I guess unity is so rare that it evanesced out of the headline. "Rare unity" couldn't survive even as a wisp of humor within the rancor.

The NYT front-page headline is gone now too. "Mr. Cohen’s testimony may push each party further into its corner" was a link that led to "Cohen’s Testimony Is a Test for Both Parties in the Year Ahead." The active role for "Mr. Cohen" is neutralized. On the front page I saw an hour ago, he was pushing — pushing both parties. Now, he's not there at all. His testimony remains and it's just sitting there, not pushing, just a test that the parties might need to take sometime maybe next year.

"McConnell Says Trump Plans to Declare National Emergency to Build Border Wall.'

The NYT reports.