Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.

Donate

What’s up with Pelosi’s post-impeachment remarks?

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
REUTERS/Tom Brenner
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, far right, speaking to the media following the voting on two articles of impeachment on Wednesday.

As you no doubt already know, during a long and significant but mostly unsurprising day of developments, the U.S. House of Representatives, on a mostly party line vote, made Donald J. Trump the third president in U.S. history to be impeached.

But almost immediately after the vote, Nancy Pelosi made unexpected (at least to me) remarks  that threw expectations about what happens next for a loop.

Without being clear or explicit, Pelosi implied that the House has, in a weird way, more leverage to play, including the possibility of not sending the matter to the Senate for trial, unless she has some kind of unstated assurances that the matter will be treated seriously.

If I follow that correctly (which I’m not at all confident I do), that raises an unprecedented possibility that Trump remain impeached, not removed but also not acquitted of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” on which the House has indicted/impeached him.


Did you see that coming? I didn’t.

Pending clarifications and developments that lay ahead, it sets up days, weeks and possibility a forever of wrangling. But the big deal, just to say it once more: Pelosi implied that she won’t forward the matter to the Senate without assurances that the next step will be something more than the witness-free trial, featuring total collusion between the Republican-controlled Senate led by Mitch McConnell and the defendant/president, that McConnell has been promising.

I base all on this on some murky Pelosian utterances that occurred during her brief press availability after the final House voted to impeach Trump on two counts, abuse of power (relating to the Ukraine-Biden stuff, and obstruction of Congress, for ordering everyone in his administration to refuse to testify or hand over evidence).

Floated by Laurence Tribe

It turned out the idea of the House refusing to forward the articles of impeachment to the Senate had started floating into public view over recent and hours and even days.

On Monday, the eminent (and liberal) Harvard law professors Laurence Tribe floated the idea in a Washington Post op-ed, which called it “another option seems vital to consider: voting for articles of impeachment but holding off for the time being on transmitting them to the Senate … now that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has announced his intention to conduct not a real trial but a whitewash, letting the president and his legal team call the shots.”

In fact, it turns out, Tribe has talked about this before. The Constitution doesn’t explicitly authorize such a maneuver. In fact, a fair reading of the text and history suggests that a Senate trial automatically follows a House impeachment. But, Tribe notes, the Constitution also doesn’t explicitly require the House to transfer its articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial.

Speaker leaves ambiguity

In a gaggle with reporters just after the final impeachment vote last night, Pelosi didn’t clarify anything much, but left enough ambiguity that it was totally possible to believe that such a plan is under discussion, or to believe that she might use it as a bargaining chip to pressure to guarantee a real trial.

The developments and possibilities alluded to above are pretty weird, and the legalities are above my pay grade. But failing the idea of using the referral as leverage to get a more thorough trial (in which, presumably, Trump goes into the re-election cycle charged but acquitted (albeit on a tainted party-line vote), it raises the possibility that Trump goes into his re-election campaign charged with impeachable offenses on which he has been neither convicted nor acquitted.

Trump, by the way, gave his reaction to the news of his impeachment to a rally in Battle Creek, Michigan, calling Pelosi and the Democrats in general “depraved,” their vote to him impeach him a “disgrace,” and House Intelligence Committee Chair Adams Schiff a “pathological liar” who has a strange condition that compels him to be on camera. Here, from the Michigan rally, is that quote:


“This guy Schiff, ‘I have absolute proof. I have this, I have that. This, that.’

“Anytime he sees a camera, and he’s stone-faced. Right? Stone-faced. He’s a pathological liar — he gets up, and I’ve never seen anything like it — even I was saying, ‘I wonder what he has?’ “

Comments (188)

  1. Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 12/19/2019 - 09:12 am.

    Pure electioneering. If Trump wins 2020 that will be the end of Pelosi, Schiff and Schumer leadership, and Clintonite centrism. Sun Tzu would not be impressed. Tactically, it is far too obvious a maneuver, cynical even. Dems have turned themselves into the anti-Trump party, whatever that means policy-wise.

    I think I will be voting for Bernie in the Primary and in the general election, no matter who Dems select as their standardbearer. Just for a change, because the current state of the party is stultified and otherwise dead-in-the-water. At least with Trump and Bernie, it is clear what they stand for.

    • Submitted by BK Anderson on 12/19/2019 - 10:03 am.

      And if Bernie himself urges you not to undertake such a (self-defeating) measure?

      You might do well to remember that the communists voted with the Nazis in the Reichstag to bring down the last Weimar government in Germany, 1933.

      • Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 12/19/2019 - 10:38 am.

        Methinks self-defeating would describe Dems leadership at this point, depending so heavily on an FBI/CIA clearly up to no good, flouting the law.

        Methinks too calling Bernie’s Green New Deal, or wiping out college debt, or drawing down the war profiteering complex “Communist”, is pretty much why I am done with corporate Democrats. I won’t be voting for Trump, Biden or Buttigeig no matter what.

        • Submitted by Roy Everson on 12/20/2019 - 03:56 am.

          A vote that essentially becomes a meaningless protest vote is an insult to Sen. Sanders and (hopefully) the vast majority of his supporters and non-supporting admirers who consider it meaningful that he’s running as a Democrat and not intent on dividing the loyal opposition.

        • Submitted by Jackson Cage on 12/20/2019 - 08:48 am.

          Don’t kid yourself. A vote for anyone but the Democratic nominee is a vote for Trump. All those 2016 voters who were too pure to vote for Clinton are directly responsible for where we are today. There’s a time for idealism and a time for pragmatism. There’s far too much at stake to waste a vote.

          • Submitted by Tom Crain on 12/21/2019 - 08:12 am.

            Who’s to say Sanders won’t be the nominee?

          • Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 12/21/2019 - 11:39 am.

            Blaming Hillary Clinton’s loss on 2016 on those who are too “pure” to vote for her, is one of the reasons why Dems are likely to lose the 2020 election as well.

            The Democratic party is perceived by tens of millions of working people to have abandoned the working class for all things corporate, bank, billionaire and perpetual war profiteering/total surveillance complex. It is perceived by many to have assumed the mantle of Imperial party, supporting all things regime change in Syria, Ukraine and Russia and anywhere else in the world (even here in America).

            The thing to do after 2016 would have been to ask, how have the economic and foreign policies of Democrats led to an opening for Trump to exploit? Instead, Dems have merely run with Sen Clinton’s “Deplorables” and “we are on the right side of history” sentiment, like Dems deserve to win because they are right, even acting as if the most prue truth in government comes out of the FBI/CIA/NSA, willing even to antagonize Russia as if that could have no consequence.

            • Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 12/22/2019 - 09:34 am.

              Here is a nice article from an independent journalist with experience in Ukraine, making more clear than I can, what I have been saying here in comments, that we have been in an undeclared war against Russia since 2014 at least, which ratcheted up in 2016 and is part of the reason Trump is so unacceptable to the Washington Consensus and the foreign policy/eternal war profiteering deep state. That is the one thing uniting both sides in these impeachment hearings, that Russia is the great enemy. Dems are being led along a path of war…

              https://yasha.substack.com/p/trumps-impeachment-ukraine-and-war

  2. Submitted by Mark Voorhees on 12/19/2019 - 09:20 am.

    My thought–good! Let Trump begin his hysterics without the benefit of exoneration of impeachment. Let McConnell suffer with impeachment hanging in the air and he can’t do anything about it. Until he starts to act like a lawmaker rather than a politician.

  3. Submitted by richard owens on 12/19/2019 - 09:25 am.

    As a practical matter, the Speaker did say managers need to be named and Senate Rules settled before passing along the Articles of Impeachment.

    It’s not clear how this ends, but the damage is extensive to all Americans and their ability to rule themselves through Constitutional means.

    • Submitted by Bob Petersen on 12/19/2019 - 12:35 pm.

      The Senate can institute the rules for the trial at any time – there is no requirement that be set up first.
      So the Senate can just sit tight until they receive the information from the House if they want.

      • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 12/19/2019 - 03:30 pm.

        It would be interesting if the House decides to sit on it until after the election, when there will be a new Senate; possibly with new leadership. If McConnell loses his seat, even if the Republicans keep the Senate, new leadership may be more accommodating.

        • Submitted by Pat Berg on 12/20/2019 - 11:05 am.

          That would be a PARTICULARLY interesting scenario if Trump loses re-election.

        • Submitted by Tom Crain on 12/21/2019 - 08:23 am.

          I hadn’t considered that fascinating possibility: holding the impeachment in the house as a ‘Trump’ card in the event of his reelection and a Senate flip (improbable). Sort of like the political jiu jitsu McConnell worked with Scalia’s SC seat. Clearly bending the ‘rules’ but a giving the R’s a dose of their own medicine.

  4. Submitted by BK Anderson on 12/19/2019 - 09:38 am.

    Given that McConnell has stated he and his (Trump-enabling) majority have no intention of treating the House’s articles seriously, with several “jurors” openly stating that they cannot and will not be impartial (as their impeachment oath demands), it is entirely reasonable for Pelosi to wait to forward the articles until some sort of assurance is made as to the senate’s trial procedure.

    McConnell and Lindsey Graham have brought this on themselves with their simply outrageous (and anti-constitutional) pronouncements, the most outrageous being that the Repub majority will “totally coordinate” defenses with the (now formally impeached) president. This statement openly violates any concept of due process and is quite obviously in conflict with what the Framers intended.

    Perhaps presiding Justice Roberts will likely be needed to resolve the impasse that McConnell has willfully created by working with the House and Senate to craft a trial procedure that will afford due process to both sides. The first step would be for the Dem managers to ask that Roberts formally exclude McConnell and Graham as “jurors”, since they now cannot take the senate oath. They cannot serve in any capacity as a result of their extreme (and unconstitutional) partisanship in favor of the impeached executive.

    Both Trump and McConnell’s Repub majority are on trial now.

    • Submitted by Jon Kingstad on 12/19/2019 - 10:32 am.

      What needs to be settled first is whether there even are any Senate Rules governing the Impeachment process. The U.S. Senate has a website which includes a link to a Senate Manual separate from the link to the “Standing Rules”. The Senate Manual includes a comprehensive set of rules governing an Impeachment trial. The trouble is, these rules were only adopted for the 113th Congress (2012-2015). In my mind, that very much raises the question whether this current edition of the U.S. Senate feels bound at all by these Rules. These Rules by the way vest a large power in the Chief Justice as the presiding officer to settle questions-e.g. about the oath (which is also prescribed in the Rules), issuing of subpoenas for witnesses and I suppose whether McConnell’s and Graham’s outbursts have disqualified them from acting as jurors- but only if the rules come into effect after the Articles of Impeachment are officially filed with the Senate.

    • Submitted by Bob Petersen on 12/19/2019 - 12:40 pm.

      McConnell has said he will take up the trial seriously. He never said he would not.
      As for ‘jurists’ not being ‘impartial,’ that’s what you get. It’s working both sides of the aisle in both parts of Congress. Remember, there were screams for impeachment by many Dems the day after Trump was elected.
      You call that impartial?

      • Submitted by BK Anderson on 12/19/2019 - 01:13 pm.

        House members are not charged with taking a (second) oath to do “impartial justice” as senators are required to do in an impeachment trial.

        McConnell and Graham (on behalf of the Repub “team”) have demonstrated contempt for the process and the charges, asserted there would not be “a bit of daylight between their position” and the (impeached) president, pledged “coordination” with the WH, and openly telegraphed the verdict ahead of the trial.

        Today’s conservatives may love this sort of inflammatory confrontation, but it is most definitely not what the Framers envisioned as proper behavior for US senators charged by the Constitution with conducting an impeachment trial.

      • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 12/19/2019 - 01:30 pm.

        Let’s say you are seriously injured in a car accident as the result of being rear ended. All efforts at a settlement have failed and you are going to a trial. The lead juror stands up and says to you:

        Just so you know we will be coordinating all of our actions with the defense

        Think that is a fair trial?

        Would you just go ahead and take your chances?

        Or fight for fair rules?

  5. Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 12/19/2019 - 09:39 am.

    Pathological liar? For Trump to call anyone a pathological liar, The guy with the what 13,435 lies/misstatements and counting 2 months ago! This is how banana republics are created, and Trump and the Republicans love it. Nothing better than an authoritarian rule where facts are BS and BS is facts, that will keep the not quite so scholarly confused and supportive of the dictatorship. You know it took basically the annihilation of Germany to shake the German people out of their Hitler cult, hopefully American doesn’t need to hit rock bottom before the Trump cult gets a sense of reality back. Maybe Nancy has something tucked up her sleeve to help get us there? Sent a note to a Judge friend of mine last night. Does he think the Chief Justice will want to be remembered as the Justice that presided over a Banana Republic, kangaroo court in the Senate? Especially when he claims there are no conservative or liberal judges. We will see what we will see, End of the day, its all about, you either agree or disagree that seeking foreign interference to win an election is OK for a president to do. Chose! If I like or dislike Trump has zero to do with that choice.

    • Submitted by BK Anderson on 12/19/2019 - 10:00 am.

      The cult of Trump now possesses a far greater slice of the American electorate in 2019 (42%) than the Hitler cult possessed in Germany, 1933.

      It is likely that national Gotterdammerung is the only possible outcome.

    • Submitted by Misty Martin on 12/19/2019 - 10:18 am.

      Mr. Wagner:

      I agree with everything you said 110%.

    • Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 12/19/2019 - 10:45 am.

      If a kangaroo court is a proceeding that has a pre-determined outcome, where only one side is allowed to call witnesses, when the accused is denied due process, does that not describe precisely what happened in these impeachment hearings?

      So where is the democracy in denying the Senate the same? Let there be a show trial in the Senate, and let the American people make their own determination about it.

      • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 12/19/2019 - 11:03 am.

        The impeachment hearing in the House was akin to a grand jury proceeding. The issue was whether there was cause to believe the President committed impeachable offenses. His ultimate guilt or innocence was not decided.

        Incidentally, “due process” generally refers to following the procedures set forth by law. The Constitution guarantees due process only with regard to the deprivation of “life, liberty, or property.” Specific processes are guaranteed only in criminal prosecutions.

        Frankly, it strikes me as disingenuous for Trump or any of his defenders (right or left) to clamor for “due process.” Those words didn’t resonate so strongly when it was African American and Latino teenagers accused of raping a white woman, did they?

        • Submitted by Bob Petersen on 12/19/2019 - 12:45 pm.

          This is not a criminal trial. It is a political process.
          The Senate leaders have not even met to form how they are going to do their part in this. After all, they don’t even have anything given to them from the House yet – and it looks like they may not for some time.
          Still, this being only a political event, each part of Congress gets to make up the rules as they want. Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler did themselves no favors in how the House investigation to impeachment was conducted. Rational people will consider what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
          So don’t just blame the Senate if that part is one-sided.

          • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 12/19/2019 - 01:31 pm.

            “This is not a criminal trial. It is a political process.”

            Yes, and that’s why the whining of Trump and the Gang about due process are so meaningless. Sound and fury, signifying nothing, and I leave you to fill in the rest.

            “Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler did themselves no favors in how the House investigation to impeachment was conducted.”

            I didn’t know they were trying to “do themselves favors.”

            “Rational people will consider what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

            What will Trump supporters think, and before you complain about that remark, I would point out that you walked right into it.

          • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 12/19/2019 - 03:54 pm.

            “Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler did themselves no favors in how the House investigation to impeachment was conducted”

            How about some specifics?

            We know who the first hand witnesses are that could have ended this if Trump was innocent: Trump declined to allow them to testify.

            Trump repeatedly declined to be represented in the process.

            Whistle blower ranting had no basis in the case, Trump released his confession in his call to Zalenski. The whistle blower is protected and the IG said the whistle blower followed the correct procedure.

            Hunter Biden, if guilty of a crime, can be prosecuted just like the other US citizens messed up in Ukraine corruption: Paul Manafort, Greg Craig, Vin Weber and Tad Devine. William Barr has globe trotted to clear Trump in Russia related activities. Why not just have Barr go after Hunter Biden? Easy, because he committed no crime, if he did, Barr would be all over him. Which is also why Trump only wanted an announcement of a Hunter Biden investigation and did not really care about actually doing because he knew it to be a nothing burger, especially when compared to Rudy Guiliani and Rick Perry money scams in the Ukraine.

            The only R witness Trump produced, Jon Turley, agree that if a quid pro quo could be decisively proven, an impeachable act was committed. And of course, as point 1 above described, Trump declined to allow the first hand witnesses who could clear him to testify.

            These are SPECIFICS. Can you tell me a few specifics that you believe de-legitimized the impeachment?

          • Submitted by Jon Kingstad on 12/19/2019 - 04:05 pm.

            “Still, this being only a political event, each part of Congress gets to make up the rules as they want.”

            “Making up rules as they want” doesn’t mean “cquittal first, then we’ll have the trial” any more than it means “first we’ll have the handing, then the trial.” I completely disagree with commenters that “due process” doesn’t apply to the House and Senate as much as it does to the courts. All government processes, especially the House and Senate, as bound by the requirement of ‘due process of law” which means following the rules in place for making a just determination.

            The House proceedings, judged by this standard, were fair and “due” given that the impeachment process is akin to a grand jury proceeding, except they were in public, rather than secret. The President stands accused of serious impeachable offenses, which are not technically crimes, do track the language of existing criminal statutes, like bribery-18 United States Code section 201. You can look that up and compare the language of the articles of impeachment with that law.

            As far as I know, the House has no standing rules” governing impeachment proceedings. The Senate has adopted detailed and comprehensive rules published in the “Senate Manual” .

            https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Rules_and_Procedure_vrd.htm

            Unlike the House or any other function performed by members of the the Senate, the Senators have a Constitutional duty to take a special oath for the impeachment trial that specifically states: “I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of ________, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God.” Rule XXV, No 194-3.

            Both McConnell and Graham have publicly stated that they will not be impartial in any impeachment trial and have proclaimed they will eb working with Trump and his defense team.
            In this case, rational people will not consider “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” but consider the facts as presented in a fair and open trial and whether they establish the charges pleaded for impeachment. They will also consider whether the proceedings have been fairly conducted according to pre-established rules not ad hoc rules made up to fit the purpose and occasion.

        • Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 12/20/2019 - 09:02 am.

          A grand jury proceeding is not packaged like theater for consumption by the masses.

          And that lurid false equivalent you used is emblematic of these last three years of RussiaRussiaRussia and now UkraineUkraineUkraine. Long on sophistry and short on evidence.

          • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 12/20/2019 - 03:09 pm.

            “A grand jury proceeding is not packaged like theater for consumption by the masses.”

            And what would you and your fellow Trumpsters think if the proceedings in the House had been non-public? “Howls of outrage” strikes me as an apt description.

            Frankly, the whole Trump administration has been theater. Yes, it’s a particularly lowbrow and vulgar form of theater (it make pro wrestling look like Shakespeare), but theater all the same. To whine because his impeachment hearing was “packaged like theater for consumption by the masses” is, at best, absurd.

            “And that lurid false equivalent you used is emblematic of these last three years of RussiaRussiaRussia and now UkraineUkraineUkraine. Long on sophistry and short on evidence.”

            Good Lord. There is just no excuse too feeble for you folks to insert a complaint about those investigations, is there?

            If I have to choose, I’ll accept sophistry over bombast.

            • Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 12/21/2019 - 12:13 pm.

              That is your’s and Dem’s mistake, acting as though anyone critical of Dem policy is a “Trumpster”, part of the cult of Trump, or a putin stooge. That is not effective electioneering. I’m not interested in sophistry or bombast, I prefer honest self reflection and integrity of intent. And I am ok if that makes me too pure an outlier.

              • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 12/23/2019 - 09:15 am.

                Anyone who spends so much time on deflection and crying about impeachment as a “coup” is a Trump supporter, whether he cares to acknowledge it or not.

                • Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 12/23/2019 - 10:31 am.

                  One does not have to be a Trump supporter to recognize FBI/CIA, corporate media and house Democrat undemocratic and unlawful behavior.

                  One doesn’t get to throw out the law and democratic principles to get rid of a guy one thinks is unlawful and undemocratic, and then act like one is lawful and defending democracy.

                  • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 12/23/2019 - 11:43 am.

                    What is unlawful about impeachment?

                    • Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/30/2019 - 12:54 pm.

                      In a sense. unlawful because unlike previously impeached Presidents (Johnson and Clinton), Trump is not charged with breaking a law. It seemed that the Democrats wanted to charge him with obstruction of justice, but due to not being able to prove it, had to water it down to obstruction of Congress. It seems, like every other President, he claimed executive privilege. Another unique feature of this impeachment is that it is strictly partisan; no House member of the President’s party voted in favor of it.

                      It’s not about the Constitution, there is clearly no urgency, it is unvarnished politics.

                    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 01/02/2020 - 09:47 am.

                      If you look at the Articles of Impeachment for President Johnson, you can see that they are pretty thin soup. At best, the charges are only arguably criminal.

                      “Another unique feature of this impeachment is that it is strictly partisan; no House member of the President’s party voted in favor of it.”

                      That says as much about the Republicans as it does about the Democrats. They are willing to tolerate his misconduct in exchange for judges and approvals from the many supporters who love his thuggish crudity.

                    • Submitted by Steve Rose on 01/02/2020 - 10:51 am.

                      According to the Washington Post in March, “‘I’m not for impeachment’ without bipartisan support, Pelosi says”

                      That was back when she believed she would have some crimes to charge.

                      Democrat Andrew Johnson was the only President that was close to removal by the Senate; he survived by one vote; a bipartisan affair. And yes, he was charged with a crime. Thicker soup than the Trump impeachment.

      • Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 12/19/2019 - 11:53 am.

        Mr Duncan, let’s not forget that Trump and his attorneys were formally invited to participate in the impeachment hearings before the House Judiciary Committee. That committee was willing to hear Trump.

        Trump and his legal team decided not to participate. That’s their choice.

        But then, Trump and his supporters can’t come back and cry No Fair!

        In like vein, Trump instructed his entire administration not to obey House subpeonas for testimony or documentation on the impeachment issues.

        Some brave folks disobeyed Trump’s order to testify and provide really damning evidence that Trump needed to be impeached.

        But, for the rest, Trump as P)resident can easily make Mulvaney and Bolton and Pompeo and Pence and other administration fact witnesses testify in the Senate if he wants to dare hearing what they might say, under oath (and penalties for perjury).

        “Under oath” is the Trump-era kicker.

        • Submitted by Pat Berg on 12/19/2019 - 12:31 pm.

          “But then, Trump and his supporters can’t come back and cry No Fair!”

          But the thing is, that’s exactly what they do.

          And what’s more frustrating is that their followers let them get away with it.

          Facts are very flexible things when you’re a Trump supporter.

      • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 12/20/2019 - 11:06 am.

        I believe the word of the season is “snowflake”…

        ….“I am the most fabulous whiner. I do whine because I want to win. And I’m not happy if I’m not winning,” [Trump] said. “I’m a whiner and I keep whining and whining until I win.”…

        It amusing to see people all in for the worlds biggest whiner.

    • Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/22/2019 - 06:28 am.

      It didn’t take long for Godwin’s Law to be demonstrated nor for Goebbels’ principle of repetition to be displayed. One comment, from a reliable source for that type of comment, followed by another, followed by a 110% endorsement.

      Just back in March, Speaker Pelosi said, “I’m not for impeachment’ without bipartisan support.”

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/im-not-for-impeachment-pelosi-says-potentially-roiling-fellow-democrats/2019/03/11/894b3f80-442d-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html

      Next, we learned from the Democrats that impeachment is a matter of urgent national interest. Considering the gravity of the charges, this President must not be allowed to continue in office. Or the alternate, “we are good for now”.

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-20/democrats-urgency-on-trump-s-impeachment-tested-by-pelosi-delay

      Speaker Pelosi claims she wants assurances of a fair Senate trial. She wants to control what happens in House and Senate. She may be familiar with the concept of the separation of powers, she is just not comfortable with it. She may never send the articles; she has nothing to gain by losing control of the narrative.

      What has the House accomplished? A demonstration of an abuse of their power as they seek to affect the outcome of the 2020 election.

  6. Submitted by Ray Schoch on 12/19/2019 - 09:42 am.

    I agree that “weird” seems an appropriate term for this latest development, but it has to take its place in line among other “weird” things associated with this entire impeachment episode. I wasn’t aware of Tribe’s earlier writing about holding a political Damoclean sword over Trump’s head, and am in the same group with Eric regarding the legal niceties of it all. It’s above my pay grade.

    On the other hand, Mr. McConnell has promised – ahead of time – to violate the oath (one that’s explicitly IN THE CONSTITUTION) to be impartial during an impeachment trial, so this may simply be a Democratic counter-strategy. No one’s hands are entirely clean at this point, if purity in a totally political process is what’s desired. It’ll be interesting to see how it all plays out, whether / if it makes it to the Supreme Court, and whether consideration of that last point takes place before the upcoming election. It’s all pretty interesting stuff for students of American history.

    As for Mr. Trump’s characterization of Adam Schiff as a “pathological liar,” even if were true (I’ve seen no evidence of it in the hearings I’ve seen on TV, nor is it evident in what I’ve seen in print), it would be a genuine case of an incredibly sooty pot calling the kettle black, since Mr. Trump’s thousands of lies as President (many of them admittedly rather small ones) are well-documented.

    • Submitted by BK Anderson on 12/19/2019 - 09:56 am.

      The psychological term for much of what comes out of the mouth of Donald Trump is “projection”.

      • Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 12/19/2019 - 10:53 am.

        From my perspective, Dems are guilty of just about everything they are accusing Trump of. This ploy by Pelosi could be called Obstruction of Justice. Using the impeachment process as naked electionerring is clearly an abuse of power.

        • Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 12/19/2019 - 11:58 am.

          But, she’s just delaying action. Nothing in the Constitution says anything about how fast, or if, the House must send on the articles of impeachment.

          Isn’t that what Trump’s supporters advise on all the House subpeonas issued for witnesses from the administration? Isn’t that what McConnell does with all the House-passed vital legislation in 2019?

          C’mon.

          I love seeing a woman play successful political harball on the national stage! That’s what this seems to be. Go, Nancy!

          • Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/26/2019 - 08:44 pm.

            The Speaker is electioneering via impeachment whether or not she delays the articles. Just back in March, she said that impeachment must be bipartisan. She got pulled into this mess and doesn’t know how to get out

        • Submitted by Connor OKeefe on 12/19/2019 - 12:07 pm.

          “Using the impeachment process as naked electionerring is clearly an abuse of power.”

          Yes sir, and for which, I’m convinced they will pay in November.

        • Submitted by Thom Roethke on 12/19/2019 - 12:23 pm.

          It’s such an obvious strategic blunder. Impeaching a President who is up for re-election in less than a year is not only unnecessary, but delaying the process further shows that they don’t actually feel that urgency is needed. All to appease a small minority of partisans who are already in the bag for 2020 while irritating a majority of voters who value stability first.

          • Submitted by BK Anderson on 12/19/2019 - 12:55 pm.

            Polls are routinely indicating that between a plurality and 50% of respondents think Trump should be convicted of impeachable offenses, while up to 57% consider him wholly unfit for office. So that’s quite some “small minority of partisans”, it would seem, sir.

            The reality is that Trump’s continued presence in office as scofflaw loose cannon makes the country ungovernable. If he were an actual patriot, he would see that, and resign in favor of the faceless Pence. But instead we get nothing but absurd presidential declarations of “perfection”….

            • Submitted by Thom Roethke on 12/19/2019 - 01:18 pm.

              The polls also showed a decisive victory for Hillary Clinton in 2016. The better question is: how will undecided voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania feel about this?

              • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 12/19/2019 - 04:09 pm.

                Happy to oblige:

                OHIO
                Emerson 9/29 – 10/2 Biden +6

                MICHIGAN
                RCP Average 8/17 – 11 Biden +7.7

                PENNSYLVANIA
                RCP Average 5/9 – 11/9 Biden +7.0

                WISCONSIN
                RCP Average 9/29 – 12/8 Biden +4.0

                And bonus coverage:

                GEORGIA
                Atlanta Journal-Constitution 10/30 – 11/8 Biden +8

                NORTH CAROLINA
                RCP Average 8/1 – 11/13 Biden +3.4

                And plug these into

                https://www.270towin.com/

                And you get Biden 328, Trump 210

                …Turn out the lights, the parties over…

                • Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/23/2019 - 07:33 am.

                  Seriously, you find these types of polls reliable? By all the polls, Clinton won the election of 2016, you might recall.

              • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 12/19/2019 - 06:09 pm.

                I know, I figured Clinton would win by 3 million votes.

              • Submitted by Tom Crain on 12/21/2019 - 09:11 am.

                And just in case you think Biden support will crater by Super Tues (like the previous 3 primaries) here are the #s for the likely nominee

                OHIO

                Emerson 9/29 – 10/2 Sanders +6

                MICHIGAN
                Average 8/17 – 11 Sanders +7.3

                PENNSYLVANIA

                RCP Average 5/9 – 11/9 Sanders +3.7

                WISCONSIN
                
RCP Average 9/29 – 12/8 Sanders +1.4

                And bonus coverage:
                GEORGIA

                Atlanta Journal-Constitution 10/30 – 11/8 Sanders +4

                NORTH CAROLINA
                
RCP Average 8/1 – 11/13 Sanders +1

                Also, Warren beats Trump in all of these states as well and it should be noted Biden, Sanders and Warren poll within MoE.

                • Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/23/2019 - 08:48 am.

                  Desparately clinging to polls and pollsters, the same ones that let you down quite recently.

                  • Submitted by Matt Haas on 12/23/2019 - 02:39 pm.

                    So we should cling to Donnie’s? He’s quite fond of citing his polls, “better than anyone in history” as I recall. Doctor, heal thyself.

                    • Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/23/2019 - 04:39 pm.

                      No.

                      Don’t trust politicians nor their surrogates quoting polls.

          • Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 12/19/2019 - 03:56 pm.

            But we can’t wait for the 2020 election, which is exactly what Trump has been trying to manipulate!

            Impeachment is urgent,to avoid a corrupt electoral process (like the one Trump welcomed in 2016 when Russian interference won it for him).

            • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 12/21/2019 - 03:19 pm.

              Actually, formal impeachment would result in a formal exoneration in the Senate — what Trump wants. Pelosi leaving Trump dangling by sitting on the Articles hurts Trump a lot more.

          • Submitted by Robert Lilly on 12/19/2019 - 03:56 pm.

            Anyone who truly values stability will not be voting for Trump.

          • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 12/19/2019 - 06:10 pm.

            Yeah, just because he invited foreign interference in an American election in 2016, why should we stop him from doing it 2020?

          • Submitted by ian wade on 12/21/2019 - 12:24 am.

            “Stability” isn’t exactly the word what comes to mind when considering the current administration.

        • Submitted by Robert Lilly on 12/19/2019 - 03:55 pm.

          I would say it’s entirely like McConnell refusing to give Garland a Senate hearing. I bet you applauded that.

  7. Submitted by Chas Dalseide on 12/19/2019 - 10:02 am.

    I suppose this will go to the Supreme Court if it continues. The Chief Justice will probably have to recuse himself. it would be interesting if
    the trial was held off until the nominating convention, or even until the
    day after the next election. The question may be, “What is a speedy trial?”
    It seems like delays of 90 days to help prepare are routine, but maybe that only applies to the defense side.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 12/19/2019 - 10:26 am.

      The right to a speedy trial does not apply here, since an impeachment is not a criminal prosecution.

      For that matter, there is no constitutional right to be represented by counsel, call and confront witnesses, or to be protected from double jeopardy. The procedural rules are set by each house of Congress.

  8. Submitted by joe smith on 12/19/2019 - 10:05 am.

    The House is trying to set the rules in the Senate. Not going to happen. My favorite this morning is Pelosi talking about what the House is planning on doing for the American people now that Impeachment is over. The “Do nothing Democrats “ are in full scramble mode after being ripped by their constituents for doing nothing!

    • Submitted by BK Anderson on 12/19/2019 - 10:33 am.

      Well, there is a “Do Nothing” chamber in the Congress, but the evidence would not suggest it is the House, sir!

    • Submitted by David Markle on 12/19/2019 - 11:19 am.

      The House has done plenty, but much of it only sits on McConnell’s desk.

    • Submitted by Eric Snyder on 12/19/2019 - 11:42 am.

      I’m assuming you do a minimum amount of homework before you write your comments. If so, then you’d already know two things. One is that the Democrats have a large number of bills ready for Senate consideration. Second, you’d also know that McConnell is refusing to hear them.

      So, this leave the question as to why you’d be repeating a Trump/Republican lie that the Democrats aren’t doing anything.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 12/19/2019 - 12:34 pm.

      I don’t know if you are aware of this, but it is possible for the Senate to introduce most types of legislation without waiting for the House. If the Senate is doing nothing, it’s their fault.

      Of course, given the quality of Senators who make up the majority, nothing may be the most productive thing they can do.

      • Submitted by joe smith on 12/19/2019 - 07:31 pm.

        Are you guys actually that naive? A bill that has a chance to be taken up in the Senate is a bipartisan bill with input from both Republicans and Democrats. Show me one of those sitting on Mitch McConnell’s desk. A bill used to mislead folks is one totally marked up by Democrats with no Republican input about something they know th3 Senate will not take up. The Democrats throw that bill at the Senate, voted totally on party lines and the Lefty faithful scream “ we are doing something”…. Not really doing something with those bills… Thus the “Do nothing Dems” panicked and passed USMCA to appease their constituents that didn’t by into “we have hundreds of bills sitting on Mitch’s desk.

        • Submitted by Matt Haas on 12/20/2019 - 11:39 am.

          Hmm, please show me those “bipartisan” bills engineered to garner Democratic support originating from the other side of the aisle. Don’t worry, I won’t be holding my breath.

        • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 12/20/2019 - 12:00 pm.

          Give me a break. The Senate can take up House bills and amend them. It’s called “the legislative process,” and it used to be how the country functioned. Of course, it was a long, detailed process, not suited for Twitter or sound bites on cable news, so who needs it?

          “Thus the “Do nothing Dems” panicked and passed USMCA to appease their constituents that didn’t by into “we have hundreds of bills sitting on Mitch’s desk.”

          That’s pretty funny. The USMCA (a.k.a. “NAFTA, But We Have to Call it Something Else so Trump Can Call it his Own”) was negotiated in the House over a period of some months. The negotiations were not public, and were fairly complex, so the right-wing media couldn’t be troubled to discuss them.

          Of course, your characterization of Democratic representatives as “panicked” by constituents not buying into a narrative is also pretty comical. I’ll bet that, if you asked the average American voter what the “USMCA” was, and didn’t let them Google it first, they would most likely tell you that it had something to do with the Marine Corps.

          • Submitted by joe smith on 12/20/2019 - 06:42 pm.

            Why would the Senate take up bills that have no Republican input from the House? Only the gullible believe the House is sending bills to the Senate for consideration. The bills are sent for one reason, talking points.

            • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 12/21/2019 - 03:12 pm.

              “Why would the Senate take up bills that have no Republican input from the House?”

              So they can A. amend them; or B. vote them down. It’s pretty simple.

              The real reason is the Snowflake Caucus is afraid to take unpopular positions in an election year. Strengthening election security? How do the Republicans feel about that, when it doesn’t involve depriving “those people” of the franchise? Prescription drug prices? How do they feel about that? Etc.

              • Submitted by joe smith on 12/22/2019 - 08:26 am.

                You mean like that boondoggle spending bill? What a travesty that folks think this monstrosity is good governance. Lobbyists were concocting this tax payer rip off as Nancy and Schiff distracted tax payers with the House sham…. Yep, that’s the way to run the Government alright!

                • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 12/23/2019 - 09:59 am.

                  Let’s see if I have this correct: passing bills without Republican support is bad, but if there is Republican support, it’s only because the Democrats have distracted the Republicans with the impeachment proceedings.

                  I think I understand.

    • Submitted by Tom Crain on 12/21/2019 - 09:23 am.

      According to this PEW analysis the (R) controlled 113,114,115 congresses (2013-2019) have been the least productive in the last 30 years.

      https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/25/a-productivity-scorecard-for-115th-congress/

  9. Submitted by Ron Gotzman on 12/19/2019 - 10:14 am.

    This is what the beginning of “mob rule” looks like.

  10. Submitted by Pat Berg on 12/19/2019 - 10:19 am.

    Waiting for McConnell to be fair? I wouldn’t recommend anyone hold their breaths.

    After all, this is the guy who refused to consider a lawful Supreme Court nomination due to some made-up precedent he came up with for political expediency. The man has no conscience.

    Not sure how you deal with that.

  11. Submitted by Tim Smith on 12/19/2019 - 10:44 am.

    Further evidence this is 100 percent politically motivated and an attempt to over turn an election. For 230 years congresses have resisted the temptation to set an impeachment bar so low. They didn’t even prove the President committed a crime. Hating someone is not grounds for impeachment. Lets get this over with and on to the people’s business please.

    • Submitted by Jim Bernstein on 12/19/2019 - 11:30 am.

      No specific “crime” or criminal act is required. It is very clear that that impeachment and a subsequent “trial” were intended to remove president who violated his oath and/or willfully refused or failed to discharge the duties of his office. The Congress gets to decide what is impeachable conduct and merits removal from office. I have no doubt that a president like Donald Trump who is so manifestly unfit for the office – after three years in that office – is exactly who the Framers had in mind when they used the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

      • Submitted by Tim Smith on 12/19/2019 - 12:09 pm.

        A very low partisan bar and sets the stage for every future president to potentially be impeached. Way to strengthen our democracy.

        • Submitted by Eric Snyder on 12/19/2019 - 12:56 pm.

          I wonder who proposed this bar for impeachment:

          “You don’t have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this Constitutional Republic.

          Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
          https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lindsey-graham-impeachment_n_5b7cf009e4b0cd327df7d6f4

          Going by the Graham standard, Trump could be impeached for a great many things: The dozens of women alleging rape and sexual assault against him; his compulsive lying (the Washington Post has found over 15,000 lies and misrepresentations of the truth by Trump thus far in his presidency); his vocal support of violence at rallies; his praise for Nazis and white supremacists; his self-dealing while president; his vulgar and idiotic tweets and public pronouncements; his refusal to do anything about climate change and his apparent inability to educate himself about it; etc., etc.

          Trump is wildly incompetent and unfit for office. This is perfectly apparent. No crimes are needed under the Graham standard to remove the stain from the White House.

          • Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/23/2019 - 05:37 am.

            And clearly, the President won’t be losing his job due to impeachment. In fact, since impeachment began those Americans in favor of impeachment and removal from office has gone from 50% to 45% (CNN poll) and his approval rating have increased 6 percentage points. Proceed at speed; the anti-Trump crowd in Congress needs no help getting him re-elected. It seems they just can’t help themselves.

            • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 12/23/2019 - 11:13 am.

              “Seriously, you find these types of polls reliable? By all the polls, Clinton won the election of 2016, you might recall.”

              • Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/23/2019 - 04:43 pm.

                Polls for people who like them and from sources like CNN that they like.

                Comparing one CNN poll to a previous (one month) CNN poll on the same topic shows a trend. It may not show reality, but it shows a trend. It shows that impeachment is working in the President’s favor.

            • Submitted by Tom Crain on 12/28/2019 - 10:19 am.

              Don’t trust politicians nor their surrogates quoting polls.

              • Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/28/2019 - 03:52 pm.

                Yes, the only poll that really matters is the one being held in November. The Democrats will do everything they can to undo it.

      • Submitted by Tim Smith on 12/19/2019 - 12:12 pm.

        Again, no proof, hearsay only.

        • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 12/19/2019 - 01:17 pm.

          Really? There are other news sources beyond FOX, Breitbart etc. and sorry to tell you. they are credible, And when you see video clips of Trump I don’t think they are dubbing. Hard pill to swallow that you have been took by a con man.

          • Submitted by Tim Smith on 12/19/2019 - 03:24 pm.

            Umm am on minn post, there are more than here and huff post and msnbc too.

            • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 12/19/2019 - 05:11 pm.

              TS, we have laid tons of proof at your feet, but as the saying goes: You can lead a man to knowledge but you can’t make him think. Trump is a convicted cheater, He cheated his own charity, and had to admit it. He along with his family all got whacked by the court. You got took by a con, cheated out of your vote, and appear overly anxious to get cheated again, Some folks would go so far as to call folks that cheat charities, criminals, Kind of like a billionaire stealing Xmas presents from Toys for Tots! But hey you get to choose to support a cheat or not.
              https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Trump+and+his+charity
              So, do you think this ever made headline news on FOX, Brietbart, Tucker?

    • Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 12/19/2019 - 12:06 pm.

      Lying under oath about sex with an intern in the White House was what got Bill Clinton impeached. By Republicans.

      That’s the lowest bar we’ve ever seen for impeachment of a president. It involved nothing about policy or official acts by a president.

      A President extorting an election interference from a vulnerable international ally and withholding Congressional funds illegally to get that interference–and then obstructing any Congressional investigation of your actions–is a much higher bar.

      Trump passed–or failed, if you will–that legitimate bar.

      • Submitted by Tim Smith on 12/19/2019 - 12:42 pm.

        Lying under oath and perjury are felonies.,

        • Submitted by kurt nelson on 12/19/2019 - 03:59 pm.

          And your president has lied under his oath, 15,000 times. When the trial starts, McConnell and Graham will both be felons too, right.

        • Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 12/19/2019 - 04:05 pm.

          But, Tim, it’s about lying about WHAT.

          Lying about your extortion, bribery, illegal withholding of Congressionally-appropriated funds, distorting our official foreign policy via-a-vis Russia and Ukraine, trying to get someone else–a foreign country–to do your political dirty work for the next American election, saying that Ukraine and not Russia got you elected in the first place in 2016, etc.?

          • Submitted by Connor OKeefe on 12/20/2019 - 11:35 am.

            The perjury statute does not take the issue lied about into consideration. Lying under oath is a felony; period.

          • Submitted by Solly Johnson on 12/20/2019 - 07:06 pm.

            Brennan lied under oath about an illegal torture and spying program, and Clapper lied under oath about illegal surveillance of American citizens. Not only did they face no prosecution, but Brennan now works for MSNBC and Clapper at CNN. It’s obvious that the well connected live under a different set of rules and laws than average citizens.

            • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 12/23/2019 - 12:08 pm.

              Guess the real question is: Why doesn’t Barr go after them then? After all he is the AG, or is he just there to twist the truth to protect Trump?

        • Submitted by BK Anderson on 12/19/2019 - 06:18 pm.

          Unfortunately for your position, the traditional understanding of the Impeachment clauses is that not every crime is an impeachable offense (thus the clear error of the absurd Clinton impeachment) and not every impeachable offense is a crime.

          But Trump’s actions constitute both bribery and campaign finance violations, if you are interested in felonies—as opposed to abuse of office for personal gain by the executive, which is what most concerned the Framers.

          As for Article 2, Trump’s egregious and unprecedented refusal to cooperate with (any!) House investigation(s) and his decision that he alone has sole power to determine a Congressional investigation’s validity (“Witch hunt!!” Hoax!!”), that is a willful breach of the checks and balances system of the Constitution–which the Framers also most surely would have thought an impeachable offense.

          But Trump is, of course, supremely ignorant of the actual provisions of the US Constitution, which he has demonstrated time and time again. That the entire conservative Repub party is now (apparently) also uniformly ignorant and dismissive of the Framers’ work is a sign that the republic cannot long endure.

          • Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/23/2019 - 07:51 am.

            Executive Privilege is a thing; not long ago it was invoked by President Obama, and as this column describes, his Attorney General was found in contempt of Congress over the matter.

            https://www.propublica.org/article/the-facts-behind-obamas-executive-privilege-claim

            Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in denying he had sex with an intern in a White House Office. If the Chief Executive Office of any corporation in America was caught in this lie, they would be thrown out by the corporation’s board if they didn’t have the decency to resign.

      • Submitted by Tom Anderson on 12/19/2019 - 05:43 pm.

        “By Republicans” is incorrect. President Clinton was impeached by Representatives from both parties. It was what is sometimes called “bipartisan”.

    • Submitted by richard owens on 12/19/2019 - 12:08 pm.

      Let me inform you and others who claim to know the intentions or motives of others: in this case, those who do not support the Trumpian style-

      You may know BEHAVIOR by observation. You may know style as repeating patterns of BEHAVIOR.

      And yet you cannot claim to know MOTIVES by projecting them or characterizing people with labels..

      Speaking for myself, I can see the difference between HATING Donald Trumps’ ACTIONS in every aspect of his role as President of the United States, and not even caring enough about the man to hate him as a person. I hate the destruction of American values by a crooked lying conman, which Trump appears to be modelling.

      Republicans are not just repetitious loud presumptuous and annoying, but also WRONG when they attribute malice to the intentions of those who are challenge the form and substance of his behavior.

      Is that too difficult to understand?

      Republicans in the House have simply not engaged on the facts, but have done their best to tear down, discredit, belittle and complain about what they think is the intention behind impeachment. He’s abandoned our country’s interests and embraced Russian ones.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 12/19/2019 - 12:25 pm.

      “For 230 years congresses have resisted the temptation to set an impeachment bar so low. ”

      For 230 years, the voters have resisted the temptation to elect such a dishonest lowlife to the Presidency, but here we are.

      “Hating someone is not grounds for impeachment.”

      Conservatives have an affinity for the word “hate,” don’t they? Any opposition, any contradiction is the product of “hatred,” rather than sincere, good faith disagreement. It’s as if they feel Republican officeholders are so far incapable of error or wrongdoing that the only explanation for a lack of acquiescence must be hatred!

      Come out of your bubble, Mr. Smith. I don’t understand why it is so difficult for conservatives to believe that there is a possibility that Trump could be guilty of an impeachable offense. He is not comparable to an incarnate divinity, Rep. Loudermilk notwithstanding.

      I might also point out that “hatred” is what propelled Trump to the White House. When you gaze long into the abyss . . .

      “Lets get this over with and on to the people’s business please.”

      Protection of the Constitution is the people’s business; in fact, members of Congress take an oath to that effect.

    • Submitted by Thom Roethke on 12/19/2019 - 12:29 pm.

      I agree. I’m no fan of Trump but this just creates more chaos. Extremists on both sides are a threat to the majority of Americans who value stability in their communities and safety for their families. For all the things that Trump has done, his administration has still been cognizant of this. This unwarranted uncertainty that Democrats have created will convince many voters that they should not be trusted with the keys come next November.

      • Submitted by Robert Lilly on 12/19/2019 - 04:09 pm.

        Sure your not a fan of Trump *eye roll*
        “Extremists on both sides are a threat to the majority of Americans who value stability in their communities and safety for their families.”
        Do you think setting policy by tweet, catching the people who work for you off guard and unsure what they need to do is somehow stable? That’s crazy!

        • Submitted by BK Anderson on 12/20/2019 - 09:51 am.

          The notion that the Trump regime represents some type of “stability” for the country is rather dark comedy…

    • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 12/19/2019 - 10:12 pm.

      Well, I guess you disagree with the one and only witness the Rs produced during the impeachment: noted legal scholar Jonathan Turley:

      He agree that if a quid pro quo could be decisively proven, an impeachable act was committed. And of course Trump declined to allow the first hand witnesses who could clear him to testify.

      Why are McConnell and Graham almost deranged on not allowing witnesses?

      Because they know first hand witnesses are going to corroborate the impeachment testimony they disparaged as “third hand”.

      And now sane and rational; R Senators are going to yield to Turley’s legal opinion and all of a sudden the R house of card starts to collapse and the only chance of getting to 67 starts to grow.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 12/21/2019 - 03:27 pm.

      It would ‘overturn’ an election only if Trump were replaced by a Democrat.
      In fact, Trump would be replaced by Trump-lite (Pence).

  12. Submitted by cory johnson on 12/19/2019 - 02:34 pm.

    He’s so dangerous they absolutely had to rush the “investigation” only to hold it up from going to trial in the Senate? Wow.
    And House Democrats complaining about an unfair process in the senate is the 2019 winner of pot calling the kettle black.

    • Submitted by Tim Smith on 12/19/2019 - 03:24 pm.

      Amen!!

      • Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 12/20/2019 - 11:46 am.

        Trump goes down in history as having been impeached. Which is an action only the House of Representatives takes, per the Constitution.

        What he may not get is the pre-ordained absolution/acquittal from the Senate that Mitch McConnell has promised him.

        Without that quick and dirty, no-witnesses show trial in the Senate, Trump will probably not be able to go to the voters in 2020 and claim falsely that there was “no there there” for impeachment!

        Nancy Pelosi’s delay in sending over the articles of impeachment is a supremely intelligent and brass-knuckles tactic. That kind of thing is something Trump himself admires in Nancy Pelosi–he admits, basically, that she’s smarter and ultimately more powerful than he is and it eats him up.

        That’s one reason why he wrote that Dear Mommy letter to her the other day saying the the other kids on the playground have been unfair to him.

    • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 12/19/2019 - 03:25 pm.

      Guess we should take that republican point of view: Let him cheat in the 2020 election like he cheated int he 2016 election, like he cheated on all 3 of his wives, etc. etc. etc. The right wing principles: Cheating is good, ethics and honesty is bad, don’t call out bad behavior, reinforce it with a free pass! Protect your own, the hell with your oath of office. Corruption as long as we are wining is good, if we are losing, we need to get more corrupt.

      • Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/27/2019 - 08:16 am.

        How was it that he cheated in the 2016 election? Sounds like an impeachable offense, yet there is not article for it.

        The Left cheated themselves with a poor candidate selection. In that process, there was cheating when candidate Sanders was the victim of collusion.

        • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 12/29/2019 - 08:59 pm.

          The Muller report states clearly Trump new the Russians were helping him but did nothing. In some circles that is cheating in right wing circles looks like (that’s how they play normally) Guess its OK for someone to slide you Aces under the table.

          • Submitted by Steve Rose on 01/02/2020 - 11:03 am.

            Forward this information to the House. The left wing leadership there can certainly write up a pithy Article to send over to the Senate. Let’s get this trial started!

    • Submitted by Pat Berg on 12/19/2019 - 03:32 pm.

      I had to laugh today as I listened to Pam Bondi (a Trump impeachment advisor) being interviewed on NPR. She was complaining about how Democrats have been “dragging out” this whole impeachment thing (she was not referring to Nancy Pelosi’s upcoming decision – she was referring to the process so far).

      Republicans complained about the Mueller investigation taking too long (I guess they wanted that one to be rushed) and then complained about the impeachment process being rushed (I guess they wanted that one dragged out – that is, up until Nancy Pelosi’s latest announcement).

      And now they’re back to complaining about it taking too long again.

      Sure would be nice if those Republicans would make up their minds. Gets downright dizzying trying to keep up with all their changes of direction!

      • Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/24/2019 - 02:44 pm.

        The Democrats were all about the urgency, no time to go through due process. No time to use the courts to challenge executive privilege, yet no urgency to send the Articles to the Senate.
        https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-12-20/democrats-urgency-on-trump-s-impeachment-tested-by-pelosi-delay

        • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 12/24/2019 - 06:35 pm.

          Urgency meaning what, lets wait until 2021-22? Be clear of your concern. No we want a fair trial, appears you are Australian and prefer the kangaroo courts vs getting all the facts on the table, I’m not afraid of the truth why are you?

          • Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/24/2019 - 11:17 pm.

            Not a concern, just enjoying the comedy and pointing it out for others. The Democrats tells us that impeachment is a matter of urgent national interest. So much so that they can not use the courts to overcome the President invoking executive privilege. So convenient because his use of executive privilege can be charged as an abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Got that rushed through, but not forwarding the Articles to the Senate. A splendid Kabuki empty show.

            • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 12/25/2019 - 10:25 am.

              Comedy? For some of us folks its an American tragedy to have a President so corrupt that he has to be impeached! There isn’t a thing funny or comical about this entire presidency. As noted earlier, if not now then when? After he cheats in the 2020 election again? Or when he has established himself as life long dictator? You actually beg the question, where does executive privilege end in your world, or doesn’t it? As has been pounded here for months/years, folks like you appear to be pro-dictatorship for Trump, no bounds on executive privilege. Kabuki, the only kabuki show here is the Republican Senate saying they will take an oath to conduct a fair trial when they have already declared the verdict! I am not afraid of the truth and witnesses, evidence, documents etc. in a fair trial,why are you?

              • Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/26/2019 - 07:44 pm.

                If there is a single pro Trump dictatorship comment anywhere on MinnPost, provide the quote right here. Executive Privilege is a thing, just ask President Obama. He used it without you determining that he needed to be impeached.

                The impeachment rhetoric, genned up, doesn’t resonate with the American people. Calling him a Nazi doesn’t make it so. The Democrats are out of ideas and out of time. This is what they have, vague articles, no crime, no bribery, and no urgency.

                • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 12/29/2019 - 09:07 pm.

                  Guess that is your perspective. Like FOX and company, all fantasy no truth no facts. Just keep twisting those facts and climbing further down the rabbit hole. When folks don’t understand rationale its not possible to have a rational conversation.

                  PS: Why can you not address the question at hand?

                  Evidently you are 100% A-OK with Trump cheating with foreign countries to win elections, because its the economy stupid?

                  Everything else you keep pumping out is a side show or a diversion!
                  Reality, vs fantasy.

                  • Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/30/2019 - 10:06 am.

                    Your AOK question is based on a false premise.

                    I see that you cannot provide a quote to back your assumption regarding the thoughts and beliefs of others.

  13. Submitted by Frank Phelan on 12/19/2019 - 06:16 pm.

    Given how most conservatives fancy themselves strict constructionists, and profess such fealty to the Constitution, it’s amusing to hear them complaining about due process, speedy trials, etc, when the document they defend so vigorously clearly makes it clear that impeachment has nothing to do with criminal trials, or that a crime even needs to have been committed.

  14. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 12/20/2019 - 07:33 am.

    When thinking about the constitution and the law generally, it’s useful to start from the proposition that it’s a free country, at least for now. One of the things that made, and IMO one of the real genius moves of the founders, is that the constitution was designed to be flexible enough to fit times and changes that the founders could not foresee. What this means in practice is that in a lot of ways, in constitutional terms, we are allowed to make stuff up as we go along.

    The framers didn’t tell us how to deal with impeachment procedurally. They left that up to us. That means there really is no constituional reason for the house to immediately pass an impeachment resolution on to the senate. By the way, it also can mean that there is no constitutional reason why the senate has to wait for such an act before taking up impeachment.

    By not immediately moving impeachment over to the senate, the House retains control over it. They can, for example, reopen the hearings and call witnesses and enforce subpoenas that in ways they chose not to do initially. The president is on record saying he wants to confront his accusers. The senate has made it clear that they will not allow him to do that. The House can now step up and offer them that opportunity for due process, the lack of which currently aggrieves him. To those who say something like that is unconstitutional and unprecedented, the obvious response is to go back to that first principle, that it is a free country. So far.

  15. Submitted by Neal Rovick on 12/20/2019 - 07:48 am.

    If the first-hand witnesses and multiple documents cannot be brought forward as facts, what is the point of the trial?

    Unless the GOP is all-in for a complete take-down of democracy (President as King), a fair trial would require the examination of people and documents that have been concealed from the public in the House proceedings.

    The impeachment trial can wait until there is agreement to have those witnesses and documents. That, I suspect, is the plan.

  16. Submitted by Connor OKeefe on 12/20/2019 - 08:52 am.

    On Tuesday, Trump was an existential threat to the country, and had to be removed *immediately*; no time for judicial processes. Today, The same people that said that, returned home today for a nice 10 day holiday with their campaign financiers and families.

    Evidently just venting their spleens put an end to the threat…it’s a super power, I guess.

    • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 12/20/2019 - 09:41 am.

      “no time for judicial processes”

      This is repeated endlessly with no accompanying fact.

      Can you offer any specifics that should have been a part of a worthy judicial process?

      Thanks….

      • Submitted by Connor OKeefe on 12/21/2019 - 07:01 am.

        The Legislative branch demands documents from the Executive branch as part of an investigation.

        The Executive branch invokes the privilege the Constitution bestowed on the office of President and refuses.

        Legislative branch is outraged; “You can’t do that!”, they sputter.

        Executive branch chuckles “Constitution says we can”.

        Sound familiar?

        This is exactly what happened during another impeachment investigation, between the Nixon administration and the US House of Reps.

        The House, following the procedure stipulated by the Constitution, took the argument to the SCOTUS, who ruled in the House’s favor.

        That sir, is what a genuine, bi-partisan impeachment inquiry, conducted by adults, looks like, as opposed to the Punch and Judy show we have today.

        • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 12/21/2019 - 01:35 pm.

          So you’re saying if Schiff would have jumped up in the middle of the impeachment process, called time out and said: OK, we’re not moving forward until Mulvaney / Bolton / Pompeo testify: subpoenas will be fought to the SCOTUS, Nunes, Jordan and friends would have said:

          “OK now!, we finally have a bi-partisan impeachment process”?

          Trump, like Nixon is guilty and if we have to wait for his 17 minute gap moment, fine by me: Pelosi should wait for the witnesses to be volunteered or for the SCOTUS to rule.

          These folks hold the answers to all these questions. If they could clear Trump he would be shuffling them up there ASAP.

          And you can bet Mulvaney / Bolton / Pompeo are not going to perjure themselves to save the skin of a man who has never taken a bullet for anyone other than himself in his entire life.

          Why all the rage tweeting? He knows the walls are crumbling…

        • Submitted by BK Anderson on 12/21/2019 - 01:52 pm.

          First of all, the lower courts have already been ruling consistently against the Trump Regime’s unprecedented (and bogus) claims of absolute executive privilege, openly calling them baseless and unhistorical. The Regime has not accepted these rulings, dutifully appealing each of them, both for (more) delay and in hopes of getting the matters to the rightwing Trump Court.

          Second, the Trump Regime’s privilege arguments are in contravention to the very case you cite, US v. Nixon, and are thus not based on existing precedent, but on attempts to expand the privilege. Again, the goal is delay and paralysis.

          Finally, the conservative movement has willfully destroyed the integrity of the Supreme Court by forcing through two ideologically committed conservative activists as “justices”, contrary to the will of the people. There has never in the history of the country been a Supreme Court majority nominated by a popular vote-losing president and confirmed by a bare partisan majority of senators representing less than 45% of the populace. So even if the Trump Regime were able to obtain a 5-4 ruling affirming its (heretofore unprecedented) claims of privilege, the ruling would be irremediably tainted. (US v Nixon was unanimous, by the way.) Thus the conservative movement has intentionally destroyed the critical function of the Supreme Court as an impartial “referee” between the elected branches.

          So it might not be best to appeal to a “genuine bi-partisan….adult” approach–to anything! Because your (political minority) movement long ago opted against such a thing, out of necessity.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 12/21/2019 - 03:29 pm.

      Once again,impeachment is not a judicial process. It does not involve a legal violation.

  17. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 12/20/2019 - 09:30 am.

    “On Tuesday, Trump was an existential threat to the country, and had to be removed *immediately*; no time for judicial processes. Today, The same people that said that, returned home today for a nice 10 day holiday with their campaign financiers and families.”

    There is no contradiction here. What delays the judicial process, is the judicial process itself. Judges are notoriously slow in doing their work, and many Democrats believe that Republican judges are using delay to sabotage the process. By keeping a role in the impeachment process, House Democrats are at least keeping alive the possibility of resorting to the courts. Once things move to senate, the Republican majority won’t allow the courts any role at all.

    The concern for me and many Democrats is the what the impact on Trump will be of his inevitable acquittal in his senate trial. Just in case you haven’t noticed, Trump is getting worse. Flush from his victory over Robert Mueller, he immediately expanded his abusive practices by attempting to collude with Ukraine. When he is acquitted, Trump will automatically take that as a reinforcement of his pet lawyers assertion that the Article II of the constitution gives him absolutes power. The consequences of that might well be dire.

    • Submitted by BK Anderson on 12/20/2019 - 12:53 pm.

      No Doubt. As his unhinged “Letter to Nancy” shows, Trump is entering the “uncontainable” phase of his severe and disabling personality disorder, and is encouraged in his mania and malignant narcissism by his (like-minded) sycophants in the WH bunker. That is the risk Trump’s Repub enablers in Congress are running.

      It may be that the hope of “re-election” is all that can contain the Divine CEO’s acute mental illness at this point. Can one imagine what Trump will do in the unfortunate interregnum period (Nov-Jan) should he be declared the loser in 2020?

      • Submitted by Connor OKeefe on 12/21/2019 - 12:06 pm.

        “Can one imagine what Trump will do in the unfortunate interregnum period (Nov-Jan) should he be declared the loser in 2020?”

        Build the wall? End chain migration? Disband the Dept of Education? The opportunities are endless!

    • Submitted by Jon Kingstad on 12/20/2019 - 04:14 pm.

      The Republicans think the U.S. is or ought to be a one-party state. Like the Soviet Union under Stalin. If this Impeachment fails to awaken the voters from their dogmatic slumbers, the Republicans might well have their wish come true. In which case, as I suppose, it will be made out to be the fault of the Democrats for somehow confusing people about Trump and his true nature. Assuming this episode of history is not airbrushed out of the records and flushed down the Orwellian memory hole.

      • Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/23/2019 - 10:46 pm.

        You clearly don’t know what Republicans think and you don’t speak for them.

        The party behaving like they want one party is the Democratic Party. Speaker Pelosi and her party control the House and they have done there what they please. Now the Speaker wants to call the shots in the Senate, a legislative body her party does not control. Separation of powers is a beautiful thing. Speaker is free to mind her own business; this is not a one party system. If the impeachment articles are not sent to the Senate, then there is no impeachment.

        • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 12/24/2019 - 06:32 pm.

          Not sure where you are going, or coming from? Suggesting that the $1.5T give away to the wealthy by the “R” folks wasn’t doing what they wanted? Or perhaps denying Obama his Supreme Court appointment? Or perhaps Moscow Mitch holding up 100’s of federal court appointments when Obama was in office? Or easing the rules on air and water pollution, we all get a little sick in order for corporations to make a lot of $? Or is it Trumps attitude that he is beyond reproach? Or is it that the AG is now his personal attorney and could give a sh-t about his real job as protecting the average American? Or is it we don’t want a fair trial for the Impeachment, we just want to let the mobster go free? Or was it the I’ll spend the budget the way I wan to, the hell with congress’s authority to control the purse strings? Separation of powers surely you jest, it is clear folks on the right want them all separated into Trumps hands, the dictator, if not they would have voiced an opinion along time ago, instead “quiet as a church mouse” on Xmas eve.

          • Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/26/2019 - 07:26 am.

            Offering opinions, or in your case sophistry, is not a priority for some of us on Christmas eve. A fair impeachment trial? The House set the bar quite low for fairness. The Senate won’t go that low.

            • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 12/29/2019 - 07:46 pm.

              None are opinions but are all facts: As expected, some folks can’t tell the difference between reality and fantasy, appears you enjoy that distinction.

              • Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/30/2019 - 08:18 am.

                “Separation of powers surely you jest, it is clear folks on the right want them all separated into Trumps hands, the dictator”

                Clearly you are not on the right, so you need to cite a source if you are to be taken seriously. You merely claim to know the intentions and motives of others by projecting them and characterizing people with labels. You could instead say what you think, but that is not how the anti-Trump train rolls.

                • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 12/30/2019 - 09:36 am.

                  Observation and rationalization: McConnell does not want a fair trial, said so himself. Does not want to have Trump accountable for his actions, that means no checks on power, no checks on his corruption. Evidently you have a difficult time following the bouncing ball about all of Trump’s corruption that has been placed out here over the years, either that or a very short memory. What, suffer from ground hog day syndrome? . .

                  • Submitted by Steve Rose on 01/01/2020 - 07:51 am.

                    Do you have a source for McConnell stating that he does not want a fair trial, or are just comfortable speaking for him?

                    Here is a source, CNN, regarding Senator Schumer deciding and announcing his verdict as a juror before the last Senate impeachment trial.

                    “During his race for the Senate in 1998, Schumer campaigned against impeaching Clinton and attacked his Republican opponent, Sen. Al D’Amato, for not taking a position on the issue.
                    D’Amato had said it would be “inappropriate” to weigh in because senators “may be called upon to act as a jury.””

                    https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/27/politics/chuck-schumer-impeachment-1999-kfile/index.html

                    • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 01/01/2020 - 09:53 am.

                      “I”m not impartial”

                      https://www.npr.org/2019/12/17/788924966/mcconnell-i-m-not-impartial-about-impeachment

                      Now answer the question instead of playing “Don Quixote” for corrupt Trumps non existent honor.

                    • Submitted by Steve Rose on 01/01/2020 - 05:34 pm.

                      Did you ask a question? Do you have a link in which McConnell states that he doesn’t want a fair trial?

                      In the House of Representatives, all of the Democrats voted in favor of impeachment and all of the Republicans voted against it. Before the hearings, how many of them do you think were impartial. Attack McConnell for his honesty; can’t make up material this good.

  18. Submitted by Edward Blaise on 12/20/2019 - 09:38 am.

    Tears of laughter must roll down the cheeks of Vladimir Putin when he sees the likes of Devin Nunes get up on worldwide TV and put forth the scheme he invented to blame it all on Ukraine.

    He must be dumbfounded that we are so gullible as to swallow the most outlandish, far fetched scenario imaginable:

    1. I’ll throw a few million bucks at helping the Trump 2016 campaign. Probably will come to nothing; but anything that make HRC look bad is good for me.
    2. Trump wins! I helped!
    3. Trump has always been hot for me and Russian deals. I’ll reach out to my new pal.
    4. Hey pal: Those Ukranians? All bad, major corrupt, I just want to take them over again and get back to the good old days. You know they were friends and supporters of HRC right?

    And the next thing you know the entire intelligence gathering might of the US is overruled because Don got a tip from Vlad and he shared it with Dev and Lindsey.

    As I said: tears rolling down Putin’s cheeks at the gullibility of a major American political party…

  19. Submitted by cory johnson on 12/20/2019 - 01:19 pm.

    Even Noah Feldman thinks it’s a bad idea.
    To paraphrase McConnell: She’s threatening to withhold delivery of something he does not want. Not sure she knows the definition of leverage.

    • Submitted by Joel Fischer on 12/20/2019 - 03:52 pm.

      McConnell may not want them, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Trump wants them to go to the Senate. And since McConnell has the backbone of a jellyfish, he is certain to wither in the face of Trump’s demands.

    • Submitted by BK Anderson on 12/20/2019 - 04:42 pm.

      You are forgetting that TRUMP wants his trial and (pre-determined) acquital—very badly!

    • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 12/20/2019 - 05:43 pm.

      She did not want to do this in the first place.

      She did her best to wrangle out of the Mueller Report: “If we thought he was innocent we would have said so”.

      But as she said: “He is basically self-impeaching”, every time you turn around he does something could be considered impeachable.

      And she finally she had no choice but give in. She should now simply set the minimum bar of a few key witnesses and say: “that’s it, if McConnell wants to move on, no problem.

      Why even bother to have a trial that has a 100% rigged outcome as McConnell and Graham have guaranteed?

      Lindsey has more important matters to attend to like opening his Hunter Biden investigation in the Judiciary Committee.

      • Submitted by cory johnson on 12/20/2019 - 07:32 pm.

        Nah- she’s just a better poker player than Nadler and Talib. She’s been planning impeachment along with the other Democrats since November 2016. She’s just politically savvy enough to silence the applause after the impeachment vote.

  20. Submitted by Connor OKeefe on 12/21/2019 - 07:13 am.

    “Judges are notoriously slow in doing their work, and many Democrats believe that Republican judges are using delay to sabotage the process. By keeping a role in the impeachment process, House Democrats are at least keeping alive the possibility of resorting to the courts.“

    Ahhhh, I see. The Democrat House majority doesn’t trust the courts, so they’re holding their cards in case they want to use the courts…

    I can see how that fits perfectly within the Democrats tactical planning. Very clever indeed.

  21. Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 12/21/2019 - 05:25 pm.

    Well looks like the Republicans and Trump have pulled out all the stops. Putin gets his 2 cents worth in to support Trump. So just to make sure we all have this straight, FBI, CIA, NSC basically the entire US intelligence community along with the US congress “human scum” all have it wrong, and the proof is; Putin (X-FSB) has it right along with Trump! Mob Boss Trump and company, along with the Trump cult, are using the Russian Leader an expert in disinformation, the architect of the 2016 election interference as their new shining star of truth and honesty!
    Can’t make this stuff up, Yep, enemy #1 is not Putin, its our security services and anyone not wearing a MACA hat! Sounds like Trump and the republicans if they get their way will hand it all over to Putin, after all according to Trump he is more trustworthy, and his cult agrees!

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/12/trump-putin-impeachment-support-conspiracy/

  22. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 12/22/2019 - 06:39 am.

    The Democrat[ic] House majority doesn’t trust the courts, so they’re holding their cards in case they want to use the courts…

    The Democratic attitude toward the courts is a different issue, and in my opinion, an important issue going forward. In this case, I think the issue is, or should be tangential. In my opinion, the Constitution gives full power of impeachment to Congress. This highly limits the role of the courts. It raises the question as to whether any attempt to resolve issues raised in the courts itself violates separation of powers and is itself unconstitutional. The easy out for the courts, and one that would mostly benefit Republicans is to say impeachment is a political question over which courts have no jurisdiction. I can’t say that position would be wrong as a matter of constitutional law.

    People talk a lot about issues of timing. I tend to dismiss such discussions because events must happen in time at some point. But by retaining control of impeachment for a while, Pelosi does maintain some political advantage. Trump, right now, is both impeached and unacquitted, not a comfortable place to be.

    • Submitted by Connor OKeefe on 12/22/2019 - 11:36 am.

      “Trump, right now, is both impeached and unacquitted, not a comfortable place to be.”

      There are legal scholars out there, including one who the Democrats tapped to testify in favor of impeachment before the Judiciary committee, who say Trump is not impeached until the articles are sent to the Senate.

      Lefties will dance around that fact, but history will record it. The Democrat vote to impeach may bother Trump to some degree, being the vainglorious man he is, but it has no effect on the people that will vote to reelect him.

      • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 12/22/2019 - 04:43 pm.

        We agree: The Trump cult black hole will not allow the light of Truth, honesty, integrity, reality etc light to enter. It is all darkness in the Trump abyss.

        • Submitted by Connor OKeefe on 12/23/2019 - 06:03 am.

          That’s funny, sir. Thank you and Merry Christmas!

          • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 12/23/2019 - 08:37 am.

            Strange, I didn’t find anything funny about it at all. Perhaps instead of just a Merry Christmas, a reflection on the spirit of Christmas, country and “we the people” is in order?

            • Submitted by Steve Rose on 01/02/2020 - 08:56 am.

              What is funny is “The Trump cult black hole will not allow the light of Truth, honesty, integrity, reality etc light to enter.”

              In what alternate reality will a black hole not allow light to enter? A black hole pulls with the force of gravity so mightily that light is not able to escape. Light enters; light doesn’t escape. If you will, kind of like a cosmic Hotel California.

  23. Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/27/2019 - 08:18 am.

    Consumer confidence soaring; record breaking Super Saturday, exceeding Black Friday by 10%. The NASDAQ exceeded 9000 points for the first time yesterday. Any way you parse the population, unemployment is at record lows. As President Clinton adviser James Carville proclaimed, “The Economy, Stupid”. Attempts, foolish and desperate, to downplay the economy have become popular.

    Impeachment is the last resort, though not an effective one.

    • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 12/27/2019 - 12:15 pm.

      Yep, that’s great rationale, let the corrupt folks like Trump all go free. Suspect they ought to let Bernie Madoff out of jail as well as all the other cheats and swindlers that reflect Trumps moral values. Its the economy! Sup[pose we should let him go kill a couple folks in time square as well, its the economy! Evidently you are 100% A-OK with Trump cheating with foreign countries to win an elections, because its the economy stupid? Especially when ~ 45% of Americans own zero stocks & bonds.

      • Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/27/2019 - 10:56 pm.

        Save children and retirees, most Americans have jobs due to a strong economy. Presently, African-American unemployment is 5.4%. It has never before been that low in the history of America.

        Try to explain away a strong economy – that is fun to watch. While not everyone owns stock, many people work for companies whose stock is increasing in value. Wages are increasing, bonuses being handed out. About 2 in 3 employers expect to give holiday bonuses or perks this year, according to a survey from Challenger, Gray & Christmas. As Carville famously said, “The Economy, Stupid!”

        • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 12/29/2019 - 09:19 am.

          Please address the question:
          Evidently you are 100% A-OK with Trump cheating with foreign countries to win elections, because its the economy stupid?

        • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 12/29/2019 - 10:39 am.

          Evidently 44% of the folks in this survey disagree with your economic assessment.

          https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nearly-half-of-americans-think-the-country-is-worse-off-now-than-at-the-start-of-2019-poll-shows/ar-BBYoPBD

          • Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/29/2019 - 05:10 pm.

            This is what is known as slight of hand, though clumsy.

            This is what is said about 44%:

            “About 44 percent of Americans think the United States is in a worse place now compared with the start of 2019,”

            Nowhere does the word economic nor the word economy appear in the article.

            Also from that linked article, Democrats are particularly unhappy with the state of affairs, which is likely related to a Republican-controlled White House or even President Donald Trump’s impeachment.” No kidding.

            • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 01/02/2020 - 02:48 pm.

              The discussion was about “the economy stupid” The response was, here you have ~ 44% of respondents suggesting its not just about “the economy stupid” I stand by that assertion, point being its not just about” the economy stupid” for all folks, No slight of hand or word twisting, you agreed with the point. “No kidding!” .
              Now back to the original topic at hand: “Evidently you are 100% A-OK with Trump cheating with foreign countries to win an elections, because its the economy stupid? “

              • Submitted by Steve Rose on 01/02/2020 - 04:32 pm.

                If you want to influence the discussion of the economy, find and quote an article about the economy. Your 44% article is not about the economy, but yes I see you standing by it.

                It’s tough to criticize a strong economy, with employment, wages, growth all trending upward, yet some persist.

                A question based on a false premise deserves no answer; An answer would be as meaningless as the question.

  24. Submitted by Steve Rose on 12/28/2019 - 04:16 pm.

    That is an interesting choice of photo at the top of the column.

    The unidentified woman in blue looks as if she would prefer to be anywhere else. Adam Schiff again appears to be asleep at the wheel. Jerry Nadler looks to be perfectly cast as Ebenezer Scrooge for a stage production of A Christmas Carol. Speaker Pelosi separates herself from the others who are wearing their House Member Pin, opting instead for the Mace of the Republic Power Brooch. Is she elevating or separating herself from the others?

    She has the Articles in the pocket of that dark suit. Will she keep them or send them to the Senate?

Leave a Reply