Many liberals think that Nancy Pelosi is being very clever for refusing to move Trump’s impeachment proceedings over to the Senate, who have the power to convict him, unless that body agrees to meet certain conditions for a trial (these conditions include the testimony of specified people).
In today’s New York Times’s conversation between liberal Gail Collins and conservative Bret Stephens, they discuss Pelosi’s temporizing. The upside is that, many Democrats think, this will make the Senate look bad and call attention to their not taking the proceedings seriously. (It is deeply disturbing that some Republicans, including Mitch McConnell, have already declared themselves “not impartial”). The downside is that Americans will grow weary of the proceedings and blame the Democrats for playing politics with the impeachment, hurting them in next year’s elections. (Until now, Nancy Pelosi has played it very well, even admonishing the Democrats who celebrated the two-count impeachment.)
Click on the screenshot to read the discussion:
An excerpt:
Gail: One of the very few pieces of good news from this saga is that Nancy Pelosi is the heroine. Not only do her fans think she has the right principles; we know she’ll work out a plan to move forward while keeping her party together. Without doing anything that history will judge as irresponsible.
Bret: Did you see that gesture she made to the members when some of them started cheering after the first article of impeachment passed? I felt like I had just witnessed a split-second rendition of “Mother Knows Best.”
Gail: Totally works for me. Go Nancy.
Bret: Pelosi is very sharp, but she has a quandary. If she tries to bottle up impeachment in the House on grounds that the Senate won’t call witnesses like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, she’ll look hypocritical, for two reasons: First, the House went ahead with impeachment without waiting to hear from Bolton and Mulvaney. And second, she’ll be obstructing the very constitutional principles that Trump’s impeachment is supposed to vindicate. One Harvard Law professor, Noah Feldman, claims impeachment doesn’t actually happen until the House forwards the articles to the Senate. Whether that’s true or not, most Americans expect that impeachment in the House, if it is to mean anything, must mean some kind of trial in the Senate.
Gail: Only about six people in the country understand this issue. As far as public opinion goes, Trump’s wishes have come true: it’s all about whether you love him or hate him. But go on …
Bret: On the other hand, if Pelosi lets the Senate take over from here, Mitch McConnell will arrange an expedited trial leading to guaranteed acquittal, leading much of the public to conclude that the entire process was a waste of time.
Honestly, I’m not sure how she finesses it. What am I missing?
Gail: Mitch McConnell has already made it clear the Senate is not going to make any attempt at fair judgment. All Pelosi can do is draw as much attention as possible to the fact that the jury is fixed.
A handful of Republicans, like the ever-overestimated Susan Collins of Maine, are up for re-election in states that aren’t wildly pro-Trump and they could be in trouble. So in 2020 maybe the Democrats will win the presidency and control of both houses of Congress.
I know that’s not your ideal vision of the future. But it works for me.
I generally agree with Stephens (and Andrew Sullivan) on this one. Let’s get moving! Sullivan:
Despite near-insane attempts to describe a constitutional process as a “coup,” despite senior senators declaring they will violate their oath to be an impartial juror in the forthcoming trial, despite machinations from Mitch McConnell that he intends to turn the trial into a damp squib, the Constitution’s mechanisms just worked. We now need to believe in these mechanisms, in the cooling process of constitutional norms, which are now in operation. The Speaker should not step on her own smart strategy and play games with the articles of impeachment. Send them to the Senate now. Then hold the Senate responsible for what it does with them.
My view: Pelosi should stop playing politics with the impeachment issue (after all, that’s really what she’s doing, as her failure to move is meant to embarrass the Republicans, who have already embarrassed themselves by saying they’re not impartial). Although the Constitution says that the House of Representatives has the power of impeachment, while the Senate has the power to try impeachments and thus remove a sitting President, it doesn’t specify that the Senate has to do this, nor the House cooperate. But it’s my sense that this issue is one of checks and balances, and it wouldn’t meet the Founders’ expectations for an impeachment to occur followed by political conditions for a trial, or by a stalemate yielding nothing at all.
Of course Trump will not be convicted by the Senate: that’s a forgone conclusion. And no amount of testimony from specified witnesses will change that. All we can do is behave as the Constitution says we should, hope for the best, expect the worst, and realize (or so I think) that this process has damaged Trump’s and the Republicans’ chances in the 2020 elections. But others disagree.
So let’s take a poll!
Sub
Speaker Pelosi has played the impeachment issue adroitly up to this point, basically giving Trump enough rope to hang himself. So what now? My guess is that she holds off for a little while longer before naming managers as a bargaining position, betting that McConnell doesn’t have the votes to endorse a sham trial. I’m very happy to leave the decision in her capable hands, not those of the media and the commentariat, who are clamoring for spectacle (and ratings).
“I’m very happy to leave the decision in her capable hands, not those of the media and the commentariat, who are clamoring for spectacle (and ratings).”
Agreed, 100%.
Yes!!!!
Basically agree, though I’m not a super fan of Pelosi. Just a little more time for Republicans to decide whether they want, to quote Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen, Verdict first! Trial after!
Once they decide how much chutpah they have, even if it’s infinite, proceed.
I agree. But, I voted yes guessing she’d move soon anyway. She’s succeeded in getting some attention to the issues, and I don’t think there is much more to be gained. It could be, however, she wants to wait ’till 2020 so she can draw more attention to McConnell’s subterfuge and get the events out from under the holidays.
” . . . get the events out from under the holidays.”
That’s my perception. I wonder how many (short attention-spanned) Americans (as opposed to Trump, McConnell, etc.) are breathlessly following the impeachment matter during the holidays. How much of Pelosi’s holiday time ought be reasonably taken up with assigning impeachment trial House managers and various and sundry other related matters? The next week or so will pass quickly enough.
Mr McConnell is a shrewd and wily old tortoise, but I think he made a mistake by admitting he would coordinate with the WH. Maybe good to his base, but not the wider public.
I have this weird notion that US-ians are quite into “fair play”, and a jury in cahoots with the defendant should not go down well with them. I think Ms Pelosi is clever to withhold for a while to let it sink in. It appears Mr McConnell is squirming.
Also, the McGahn testimony can’t be too long to come in and a possible extra article of obstruction of Justice (a kind of slam dunk case) might be forthcoming, something the wily tortoise is not really keen on, methinks..
Hmmmm…I wonder if something new and juicy is found, they can reopen hearings in the House?
I don’t see why not. While I doubt the Constitution says anything about it, I would assume that the articles of impeachment are just another House Resolution. They should be able to have more hearings and then pass a new resolution that explicitly overrides the earlier one.
They don’t even have to do that, they can just amend this one to add new articles.
I was thinking that what I described was the amendment process. I’m thinking they can’t nullify a House Resolution without issuing a new one that supersedes the old one. I will admit that I’m only guessing here.
Good point.
Yes, this is my thinking as well. While the Ukraine case may be hard to push through the thick skulls of Trump voters, a kangaroo court is so much easier to understand. Same for Trump yelling “It’s all so unfair” at the top of his lungs for weeks on end. Trump and the GOP will sound more and more guilty even if they don’t quite understand all the nuances of the crimes.
🐾🐾
I don’t know why Pelosi thinks she has any say in what the Senate does.
She doesn’t have a say though Pelosi’s over-inflated ego won’t allow her to admit that. That’s why she isn’t doing her constitutional duty and assigning Impeachment Managers and sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. It’s not because she’s worried about “fairness”. She isn’t. But once Pelosi does that she loses control of both the impeachment process and the “orange man bad” narrative that democrats have been throwing around the last three plus years.
You nailed it, Derrec!
How does Pelosi’s ego (and sense of entitlement) compare with those of, say, Trump, McConnell, Graham and Nunes?
There is no “Constitutional duty” to assign managers or send the Articles to the Senate. No obligation whatsoever, Constitutional or not.
What the left wing don’t understand that Nancy has been smart and is a heroine
. . . does not understand is that Nancy has been smart and is a heroine to only slightly less than half of the country. Another forty five per sent thinks she has behaved badly and is not a hero, just the opposite.
Stephens’ claim that he knows what “most Americans” expectations are on impeachment is laughable.
What about this dream (although unlikely) scenario? Pelosi does not transmit the Articles to the Senate now, but keeps them in the desk drawer. In 2020, The Donald somehow wins re-election, but the Democrats retain the House and win a majority in the Senate. And now, the Articles of Impeachment are ready to be delivered….
I think the chances of Mr Trump not being re-elected are better than a substantial flip of the Senate. But that is just my outsider’s guess.
Also, two-thirds is needed to convict. Not going to happen.
Two thirds will never happen, but if a Senate majority established reasonable trial rules, then witnesses would be called, significant additional facts would become public, etc..
That said, it is at least conceivable that a current Senate majority of the Dems plus a few GOP votes (Romney and 3 more) could force this to take place now.
“. . . but if a Senate majority established reasonable trial rules . . . ”
McConnell has proposed “reasonable trial rules”. He is willing to use the exact same rules that were established for the Clinton impeachment. But of course, since those rules don’t give the Senate democrats any advantage they are dead set against using them.
Wikipedia seems to suggest interviewing witnesses was considered while the trial was going on and approved. “Over three days, February 1–3, House managers took videotaped closed-door depositions from Monica Lewinsky, Clinton’s friend Vernon Jordan, and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal.”
Note that the House investigative phase was not blocked from interviewing anyone, so witnesses had already been publicly questioned under oath. tRump has blocked House questioning of all witnesses. I think the request for sworn testimony in the Senate is a reasonable one if you want to be fair about it.
What about witnesses? Are you in favor of a real trial?
I have a hard time conjuring a scenario in which Trump wins reelection but the Dems take control of the senate. There isn’t much ticket-splitting these days, but what there is will likely go in the opposite direction: Independents and the thin sliver of responsible Republicans left in the Party are more likely to vote to dump Trump but keep their GOP senator rather than the other way round.
That was what I tried to say above, but it got misinterpreted (probably wholly my fault for not being clear) as a vote in the present Senate.
Since McConnell has as much as said the Senate trial will be a farce, why bother to send it over? Let Trump be impeached but not acquitted. It is like a strong Censure.
PS Nancy Pelosi for President. She’ll clean Trump’s clock.
✔️
I agree, plus Trump absolutely hates being impeached and not acquitted. Supposedly he was planning on having a nationwide rally spree telling the country he is acquitted and is a perfect president, fighting corruption. This puts a wrench in that scheme. It’s always a good thing when Trump is agitated and unraveling.
I have been liking this option too, but all strategies have significant costs. On the cost side is the American tendency to sympathize with the besieged one, which would be Trump. Remember his polls actually increased during the late stages of the hearings in the House.
I agree there may be a cost, but the benefit is worth it, I believe. What Trump and the Republicans want desperately, I mean desperately, is a sham trial and quick acquittal so that Trump can prance around the country all election year claiming vindication. You can tell that they are worried by Pelosi’s strategy because of all their sturm and drang about how she is threatening the Constitution. Ha. This from a party that has trashed the Constitution for three years now. As someone said above, if bitch McConnell can pocket Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland then Pelosi can hold on the the articles of impeachment for as long as she wants, or until McConnell indicates he will act like something other than Trump’s lap dog.
We don’t yet know what could be revealed during the senate trial that would change public opinion. She should hold out awhile. Something overwhelming could come out.
Here is what Pelosi may be thinking. She knows that Trump will never be convicted, so that isn’t the issue. But, she also knows that Trump wants the acquittal to claim that he is innocent. Thus, for the trial to take place, Pelosi must send the articles of impeachment to the Senate. This is where her leverage comes in: McConnell must agree to call witnesses, such as John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, who presumably will reveal more of Trump’s crimes. So, Trump will get his acquittal, but at a high price.
Pelosi may be rightfully accused of acting in a partisan manner. This is probably true, but so what? Everything in Washington these days is partisan. Pelosi believes that by delaying the sending of the impeachment articles to the Senate it will result in advantage for the Democrats. The Republicans would do absolutely the same thing if the roles were reversed. All that remains to be seen is if her political calculations work out.
Yes, the idea should be to get the ultimate pain out of the republicans. Most of them are beyond being shamed and do not care that they are almost working exclusively for Russia. The Ukraine story should be known by as many people as possible. If nothing else the Senate should have to vote on each of the requested witnesses and documents. Force them on the record as Trump puppets as much as possible. The people who are going to die in the next election are republicans. That is why so many of them are getting out. Between the house and Senate the number of republicans who have bailed or are going to is over 100.
“they are almost working exclusively for Russia.”
This seems like a dogmatic statement, rather than fact-based. Yesterday, the WSJ published a story on how US sanctions have led to construction halting on the Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Russia relies heavily on petroleum exports.
If Trump wanted to support Putin, he would not interfere in their efforts to expand petroleum exports to Europe, and he would curtail US energy exports and production.
Whatever else can be said of Trump, the accusations of working for Russia seem unsupported by facts.
Although there are instances where the Trump “administration” has been tough on Russia, Trump himself has often been a reluctant participant in those sanctions. See: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/us/politics/trump-administration-russia-president.html. Moreover, there are many, many examples of Trump siding with Russia and Putin. See: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/17/politics/trump-soft-on-russia/index.html
It is also disconcerting that Trump has spoken privately with Putin at least 16 times, and it it unprecedented that there is no official record of the content of those conversations. Moreover, at a bilateral summit in Helsinki on July 16, 2018, the two leaders spoke for two hours, joined only by their interpreters. A full account of what was discussed in the private meeting has never been offered, despite lawmakers’ attempts to get interpreters’ notes from the discussion.
Recall also that during a joint press conference given by Trump and Putin during the Helsinki conference, Trump effectively announced to the world that he considered Putin’s denials of Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential elections to be more credible than the unanimous conclusion reached by American intelligence agencies that Russia HAD interfered.
Lastly, the House impeachment hearings produced compelling evidence that Trump had refused to release funding for aid to Ukraine to be used to defend the ongoing Russian invasion unless and until Ukraine agreed to announce that it was investigating debunked conspiracy theories involving his most likely opponent in the 2020 presidential election, Joe Biden. Information that has more recently become public shows that Trump was actually resistant to releasing this funding AT ALL – which would have been devastating to Ukraine and a boon to Russia. It seems clear that Trump ultimately released the funding only after his advisors became concerned with the legal ramifications of his actions.
Indeed. There is also the matter of Donald Trump’s efforts to build a Trump Tower Moscow (which would have been the biggest real estate deal of his career) even as he was campaigning for the presidency of the United States, and his telling bald-face lies to the American public in denying he had any such deals pending in Russia. As well, there is the matter of Trump’s bald-face lies about the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower his eldest son, his son-in-law, and his campaign chairman held with a Kremlin-aligned lawyer for the express purpose of obtaining dirt on Hillary Clinton.
In addition, there is Trump’s desperate effort to keep secret both his tax returns and the records of his transactions with Deutsche Bank (a self-admitted laundromat for the dirty money of Russian oligarchs and the only lending institution that would touch Trump after his multiple bankruptcies — an institution that quashed numerous “suspicious activity” reports generated about Trump and and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, some of which reports involved transactions with Russian oligarchs).
All in all, while there is no basis to conclude that Donald Trump is any type of Russian “agent” in the espionage sense, there is good reason to suspect that Vladimir Putin and the Russians view him as an “asset” — as someone over whom undue influence can be exercised as needed. Certainly, Trump is the only president in US history about whom there have ever been reasons to doubt that his loyalty to the United States is entirely unalloyed.
“Trump has spoken privately with Putin at least 16 times, and it it unprecedented that there is no official record of the content of those conversations”
I think a better way to phrase it would be that the transcripts of those conversations have not yet been leaked.
Trump’s main talent seems to be negotiating. That is a process which requires communication. Besides which, diplomacy and negotiation are among the president’s primary responsibilities.
He also has a thing where he compliments people he is appearing with, especially dodgy people like Kim Jong Un. From the perspective of the US audience, it seems strange. But it serves as flattery for the foreign leader and the audience of his home country. If that helps keep the peace, I am all for it. And flattery on television is cheaper than sending pallets of money in cargo planes.
“debunked conspiracy theories involving his most likely opponent in the 2020 presidential election, Joe Biden.” Not proven, certainly. But debunking would require investigation.
If Trump is trying to do Putin’s bidding, he is really messing it up. He has put all sorts of roadblocks on Putin’s aspirations for control of energy exports in the northern hemisphere. US produced missiles are hitting Russian targets in Ukraine, and US Naval forces are in Odessa right now. Syria is now Russia’s tar baby, and they get to try to sort out the Sunni-Shia rift.
I would expect Trump to do some things in the Russian interest, because concessions are also part of negotiation. But blind hatred of Trump means that any small concession is seen as proof of fealty to Putin. Even sarcastic jokes. Your CNN link included him making the statement “I want to thank him because we’re trying to cut down our payroll.” in response to Russia expelling US diplomats because of sanctions. That joke was 4% of CNN’s evidence for Trump/Russia cooperation. Another joke was listed as well, and even such things as Trump being open to the possibility of visiting Russia. (Obama went twice. Clinton had five visits) Also listed was Trump’s remarks about shared issues with ISIS. As if Beslan and Dubrovka Theater massacres never happened.
“Trump’s main talent seems to be negotiating.”
I can’t think of anything he’s successfully negotiated as President.
“He also has a thing where he compliments people he is appearing with, especially dodgy people like Kim Jong Un.”
It is a well known human trait where someone assumes that others think about things much like they do. Trump loves getting compliments and his first approach to negotiations is to win someone’s friendship. He assumes that his adversaries want the same. Of course most world leaders aren’t that naive. Plus Trump’s psychology is well known now. He’s a prime target for being conned. That may well keep the peace, as you suggest, but it isn’t going to win any negotiations.
While it’s true that one can’t prove that Joe Biden isn’t corrupt, the fact that Trump and his cronies offer as evidence only things that are easily debunked tells me that they don’t have anything of substance.
As far as Trump and Russia are concerned, you imply that he’s negotiating with Putin. For what exactly? Name one thing Trump has even asked Putin for that favors the US rather than Trump personally.
Trump demanded that the Russia end their military presence in Venezuela, which included special forces, propaganda personnel, and military training for Maduro’s forces.
Russia has stated that their mission in Venezuela is legitimate, and that they would not follow Trump’s demands, but have quietly recalled almost all of their Rostec personnel and technicians. I don’t think the info on current actual Russian troop strength in Venezuela is available, so I can’t say whether Putin is submitting to Trump’s demands, but Trump certainly made the demands, which would benefit the Americas as a whole.
So you had to stretch even to get half credit. That would happen occasionally even if Trump and Russia’s behavior was completely random.
You did ask for one thing. It is also reasonable that all of the various sanctions were proceeded by negotiations. I certainly am not privy to all or most of the contacts between governments or their leaders. I am confident that I could be persuaded that Trump has engaged in nefarious activity, but that would also require hard evidence. If we are discussing Trump’s psychology, in my mind it does not seem like he would be a loyal minion to anyone.
I guess I have some sort of social aphasia where Trump is concerned. I have never been a supporter. I was not a fan when he was a TV personality. But the popular, almost rabid hate of him has not caught on with me, either. Beyond cringing when he speaks off script, he just does not elicit an emotional response from me. So I look at the “Putin’s stooge” claim by looking at what I know of whether Trump’s actions have helped or hindered Putin overall. Probably more important is whether those actions helped the US, as just helping or hurting the Russians should not be our goal, except as they relate to getting the Russians to do that which is in our interests.
I am pretty sure that nothing Trump is being accused of comes anywhere near the level of the US involvement in the Skolkovo Foundation 2009-2014.
“Skolkovo is arguably an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage — with the additional distinction that it can achieve such a transfer on a much larger scale and more efficiently,” (EUCOM 2013 report)
You’re doing standup comedy now, Max? Or was it just a typo and you meant “Trump thinks his main talent is…”?
I did not say it was a superpower, nor did I compare his negotiating power to anyone else’s.
I think I can say confidently that public speaking is not his main talent. Maybe he is like Rod Stewart, and secretly makes amazing train layouts.
I have mentioned, I think, that I have one friend who is a big Trump supporter. He is also from NYC. I have used him as a proxy for some business transactions, because he is just relentless. People will make concessions just so he will stop talking. I have never spoken with Trump, but I can see how he could be an effective bargainer.
It does seem like hyperbole as clearly they do things that don’t involve Russia. Still, it seems that Trump is trying to act in Russia’s interest as much as he can get away with. He realizes if he goes too far, he’ll lose support. Even Putin doesn’t want to lose his puppet too quickly.
I suspect for Pelosi and Schumer it will be a matter of timing. Right now freedom of information suits are producing more information than anything because otherwise the democrats are stuck waiting for months on the courts. These Freedom of info actions have now shown the white house specifically withholding money from Ukraine (emails). That makes it very important to get testimony from the guy who wrote the emails. It would also be really nice if they could get testimony from Donald McGahn. If he can confirm what Muellers reports shows this adds considerably.
So if you just say screw it, send what you have to the Senate asap, you might be missing some good opportunity to improve your position. To makes comments such as, only 4 people in the country understand what is going on – that is stupid. And also, what is the point of that comment? No one knows or cares so just let Moscow Mitch keep shoveling shit.
You’ve made me change my mind from yes to no. I wasn’t thinking of new revelations that will likely emerge over the next month or so. There are investigations going on in the Southern District of New York re Giuliani and company that could add fuel to the fire. I’d like to see Giuliani indicted and tried along with a few more rapscallions and tie tRump even more tightly to the ledger of crimes already enumerated.
The matter of handing over his tax returns is also heading to the SCOTUS. I doubt Roberts is going to destroy years of precedent and all the lower courts decisions and rule in favor of he who thinks he’s king.
🤞for his taxes
Yeah, I just think, even if they cannot change the ultimate verdict in the Senate, they need to show as much as possible what this republican cult is going along with. If you cannot impeach a president for going to foreign governments to fix your election, what the hell is left.
One factor in play is that Trump apparently wants to have a trial in the Senate, possibly a real one with witnesses, so the conspiracy against him can be laid bare. Or something like that.
He would presumably like to have the trial completed, with himself exonerated of course, before his State of the Union speech on Feb 4, which Nancy has cordially invited him to give.
This sets up a bit of pressure on Trump to put pressure on McConnell to make something happen. If Trump is not happy with a sham trial, I don’t think anybody will be, so waiting a bit may be the best idea.
I voted “No”: Pelosi should wait to forward the articles to the Senate. Nothing was going to happen until after New Years in any case. This gives time for them to send voters a very important message: McConnell’s Senate is considering having a biased trial with NO WITNESSES. It also forces Trump to fall back on his argument that nothing happened and “the call was perfect”. This stuff tends to sound pretty lame when paired with the “biased trial with no witnesses” meme.
While most of us here follow the news pretty closely, many US voters do not or they listen to the Fox News false feed. It takes time for the real news to reach them and sink in, if it has any chance at all.
It also puts pressure on the few Republican Senators whose seats may be contested in 2020. They will get a chance to listen to their constituents. Supposedly the Dems only need to sway four of them to force McConnell to hold a fair trial with witnesses. There may be several of these Senators that plan to give him Trump a pass on removal from office but don’t want their names associated with a sham trial. Admittedly this is a slim chance but one worth waiting a few weeks for.
Spot-on analysis, Mr. Topping.
I agree. People on all fronts need more time to read, review, process, consider and digest the copious details, given the busy holiday season. Already one Republican senator is uncomfortable with their leadership’s position:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/25/politics/lisa-murkowski-senate-impeachment-trial/index.html
Don’t get excited about Murkowski, she and Susan Collins are the biggest “we look tough on Trump but always go his way” pair in the Senate.
True enough. Chicken shits, all of them.
Yeah, Collins will doubtless work herself into an Aunt-Clara-like dither before voting the Party line with Mitch McTurtle.
I have zero sympathy for any of them, but it’s easy to see the quandary the four most vulnerable Republican senators running for reelection — Collins of Maine, Gardner of Colorado, Tillis of North Carolina, and McSally of Arizona — are in: buck the Party line on impeachment and draw a primary opponent from the hard-right Trumpist wing, or follow Mitch’s lead and blow their wads before they ever get to the general election.
I agree. If any of them really wanted to be more than just “concerned”, they would make some kind of recommendation to McConnell that would move toward a real trial.
I voted no, and generally agree with the comments above. Pelosi knows what she’s doing; letting the Senate hand Trump a victory without witnesses called would not be a win for Democrats; holding up the trial keeps the pressure on and keeps the story of McConnell’s toadyism on the front page. A favorite quote from the chess grandmaster Nimzovitch: “The threat is stronger than the execution”. The meaning of which is: threatening a powerful play, like a pin or a check, will often force your opponent to make moves in response that weakens their position and gives you a further advantage, whereas actually executing that play (the pin, the check, etc.) often allows your opponent to directly and effectively counter that play, dissolving your advantage. Pelosi seems to me to be playing good chess.
It also lets Trump and Republicans that the Dems too can play the game of filling in Constitutional and legal gaps with actions that favor them. I’m all for it if it helps us get rid of Trump but they shouldn’t make a habit out of it. If they regain power in the 2020 election, perhaps they could work to plug some of those gaps.
I don’t think Nancy should sit on the Articles of Impeachment indefinitely, but I see no reason why she shouldn’t use what leverage she has in holding them back to exact some measure of fairness from that one-way son-of-a-bitch Mitch McConnell. All the Dems need is four senate Republicans to defect to check McConnell’s power to do a hose-job on the rules and procedures for the senate impeachment trial.
Plus, in some ways, a delay puts Republicans under the gun. This Giuliani-Parnas-Fruman investigation in the Southern District of New York is fixing to back up on Trump like a clogged White House toilet, all the way to Vienna and the extradition-fighting Ukrainian oligarch/Russian mafiya figure Dmytro Firtash. And, with oral argument scheduled before SCOTUS in March, the clock is ticking on Trump’s desperate, last-ditch efforts to shield his tax returns and Deutsche Bank records from disclosure.
I disagree. Use the Merrick Garland precedent and delay it until after the election. Maybe we’ll have a Democratic Senate, and if Trump gets reelected we can convict him.
I hadn’t thought of the parallel with Garland. Interesting angle.
Better not let McConnell hear that. He could delay the trial based on his Garland Rule. If Trump loses the election, it will be moot. If he wins, McConnell can say, “The people have spoken. There’s no need for a trial.”
My vote in the poll: The Democrats are the motive force behind the proceedings and they cannot now look good if they halt their own momentum because of a perceived bias in the next step in the proceedings. However you think of the merits of the allegations, justice delayed is justice denied. She cannot come out of this well by delaying the proceedings. And Trump will cash in on this with a drumbeat that will drown out any cry from the House.
“perceived bias”? There is nothing perceived about it. It’s blatant bias, have you not been listening to McConnell, Graham et al?
‘Perceived’ as in perceived by them, not by you or others. I was offering a dispassionate opinion.
I voted no for a delay. But sending the articles of impeachment right before Christmas would be bad timing. Hopefully Speaker Pelosi will send the impeachment to the Senate shortly after the New Year. The country has not had much experience with impeachment so I think starting the trial in the Senate just before Christmas would be a bad idea. I also wonder whether Chief Justice Roberts will control the proceedings including whether or not the prosecution and/or defense get to call witnesses. He supposedly presides over the trial and McConnell may have little say over how the trial proceeds. I hope that is the case.
Committed partisans (both Dem and Repub) aside, most Americans had no expectation of a fair trial in the Senate, nor any expectation of fair proceedings in the House. They are not stupid. They expected that, whatever the theatrics, the foregone conclusion was party-line impeachment by Dems in the House and party-line acquital by Repubs in the Senate. I suspect this has little impact on the numbers for or against Trump, but it may bring the low opinion of Congress still lower. Which party gets the most blame is a toss-up but I’d say Dems are likely to take more blame. And it gives Trump more narrative control. This leaves Dems going into the 2020 home stretch (as Yang said) with FAILED IMPEACHMENT as their spotlight trophy while Trump’s narrative lines are “totally vindicated as I said all along” and “look at the Dems’ big accomplishment of the past 2 years — a failed impeachment.” Could go either way, but I’d say outside of the Dem base, it probably favors Trump. So Pelosi should pass to the Senate and get it over with as soon as possible so Dems can start building a positive vision to nudge out the “failed impeachment” centerpiece of their narrative.
I voted yes for similar reasons. Whether she sends the articles to the Senate soon or delays them, she’ll be lauded and reviled in equal measure from all sides for her political acumen. In the end, Trump will still be in office, all pretense of fairness and due process in our government will be abandoned (probably for good) and the Democrats will have an election to try to win. Get it over with and get on with it.
If the senate acquits Trump after a sham, perfunctory proceeding, it will hurt the Republican senators running for reelection in purple states. If the senate holds a full and fair hearing on the merits, it will hurt Trump’s reelection chances by laying bare before the nation that he has no tenable factual defense whatsoever to the articles of impeachment returned against him.
There is no winning strategy. Letting it go to the Senate and having them automatically acquit him seems pretty pointless. It’s a damned if they do, damned if they don’t situation. I won’t condemn Pelosi no matter how things work out – she really doesn’t have a great hand to play.
Republicans who say they will vote against impeaching Trump, before a trial, like McConnel should recuse themselves. The trial has no point if witnesses can’t be called. If Republicans wont allow people from the White House staff to testify it makes clear that the process is a joke and that their testimony would be bad for Trump. A majority of the public (54% to 27% if I remember correctly) thinks there should be witnesses. I say hold out and see how the polling changes. A fake “trial” is a loss for Democrats.
There is nothing to be gained by sending the impeachment to the Senate. Nothing. All it will do is provide the GOP members of the Senate with free, nationally televised airtime to make speeches claiming that the impeachment was utterly baseless, after which they will promptly acquit Trump and he will then claim he was totally exonerated.
As some may know, the senators effectively sit as jurors in the impeachment trial, and are required to take the following oath: “I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.” Note the phrase “do impartial justice.” However, Graham has publicly announced that his mind is already made up and that he doesn’t need to hear any evidence. Many (most?) other GOP senators have made statements to that same effect. Additionally, McConnell has announced that he is taking directions “from the White House” as to how the impeachment proceedings should be handled. Imagine that — the man who is in effect the jury foreman has announced that he will do whatever the person on trial wants him to do.
In my view, Pelosi is in a position to say that the senate proceedings would be a complete sham in light of the outrageous public declarations by McConnell and many other GOP senators that they will refuse to comply with their required oath, such that she will not afford them the opportunity to perpetrate that scam on the American people by referring the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.
This is the only option that makes any sense.
I like your take on it. This could be persuasive to the most important voting block. The uncommitted and the (so far) disinterested. A small but critical group. It is interesting to think, though, that the outcome could be determined by the people who, for the most part, are the most detached.
I suppose some consolation can be taken in that Pelosi, et al, can refulgently state their complaints in The Congressional Record for posterity.
From my reading of various law professors’ opinions the idea that impeachment is not complete until the Articles are passed to the Senate is completely wrong. Impeachment is akin to an indictment and indictments can be sealed and not proceeded on for a considerable time, especially if it’s believed that a trial will not be fair or that all the evidence is not yet to hand.
The Dems have already made clear that they are looking at further indictments which anyone who’s been following the whole three-ring-circus closely won’t be surprised at.
SCOTUS is due to rule on vital cases concerning Trump’s tax returns and whether recipients of subpoenas (to testify in the impeachment enquiry) must actually testify.
While judgements in these cases are not due to be handed down until June they could be the dynamite that destroys Trump.
I must say I voted before reading these comments. I changed my mind back and forth as I read through them.
WEIT has a lot of informed intelligent readers.
Thank you all.
What the Dems in the Senate and House need to hammer home is that if Trump is innocent, why is he blocking testimony from more than a dozen of his people, including Pompeo, Bolton, Mulvaney, Perry, etc? What is the connection between Trump and Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman? An innocent person does not block sworn testimony from those who could show he is innocent.
The GOP members of the House attacked the process and continually moved the goalposts because they could not defend Trump’s actions. The GOP members of the Senate will block any testimony because they know they cannot defend Trump’s actions.
Pelosi is right to wait at least until certain witnesses can be called in the Senate trial. The added bonus is that this is driving Trump crazy.
It’s a (local) political process. I’m happy to see the politicians play their hands, and the voters vote accordingly.
[What I am unhappy with, as much of the rest of the planet, is the current presidential outcome of the process.]
There is no point in sending the Articles over now, the Senate will dismiss them in two weeks and in two months it will be forgotten. They can, and should, IMO, continue to investigate and add new charges as appropriate. Courts may decide to enforce subpoenas, Trump’s taxes may be revealed, all sorts of evidence could come to light.
It is absolutely legitimate to add new charges and new Articles before sending them over to the Senate. Heck, in Andrew Johnson’s case, the House voted to impeach him first and drew up Articles of Impeachment a week later. There is no time limit for charges.
If there is a worse idea than impeaching Trump in the first place, this (not moving on to the Senate) is it. It’s hard to tell if the Dems are tone deaf to the prevailing sentiment among the electorate about impeachment or if they’re so desperate that they just don’t care. Either way, it doesn’t bode well.
Just what do you think the “prevailing sentiment” among the electorate is? That McConnell should just bury the impeachment and move on? 50% of the country thinks Trump should be removed from office (Fox News poll) so I doubt that is really the prevailing sentiment.
One poll says 70% of the electorate want a fair impeachment trial with real witnesses:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/expect-fair-trial-trump-10-aides-testify-poll/story?id=67761813
This tells me that most take this impeachment seriously but didn’t watch, or didn’t trust, the hearings in the House. As I see it, they want to hear Trump really defend himself. This also says that they aren’t going to buy this “impeachment is an unfair hoax” story without a real trial with witnesses.
Poll, schmoll; it says I’m not authorised [sic].
Either way, I think it’s unlikely to make any difference in the 2020 Presidential election; as I’ve noted before, there are only 538 voters in that election, and the party more effective at “dirty tricks” is going to win.
What might be affected is local, state, and congressional votes, depending on how the Senate trial proceeds, how much news coverage there is, and how distant from the 2020 elections it occurs.
I’m old enough to remember the Watergate hearings and Senator Sam Ervin, the country loy-a-yer with his dancing eyebrows and the process that dragged out, covering who knew what and when they knew it. I also remember the Clinton hearings; boring arguments about the meaning of ‘is’. If the trial and coverage are as detailed as for Nixon (especially with relevant witnesses and appropriate questions), it will reflect poorly on the GOP; if it’s a bunch of wrangling over semantics, it will reflect poorly on the Democrats. If the process plays out immediately, it will be largely forgotten by November; if it runs through Spring and up to Summer, not so much.
Both parties know this, and that’s why they’re taking their respective positions on process and timing.
If you remember Sam Ervin, you’ll remember that he clearly said that any witness who ignores a subpoena will be locked up. This is where the Democrats went astray–they allowed subpoenas to be ignored with no consequences.
Yes, I don’t understand why that didn’t happen. It was discussed in the MSM but pundits that I heard thought it would be a step too far without really saying why. One said something like, “It’s just not done”, as if to say it would offend some folk or start a war. Considering the way Trump and Republicans are bending and breaking the law, some folk need to be offended, IMHO.
Back then, there was an independent counsel and a Justice Department full of professionals who had the integrity to resign rather than put loyalty to a single person above their constitutional responsibilities.
The Justice Dept has nothing to do with Congressional subpoenas or enforcing them, in fact, members of the Dept are among the transgressors. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can enforce their subpoenas to bring witnesses before them. Kefauver did it in 1951, sending the Sergeant at Arms to bring in witnesses, and Congress could have done the same today.
DoJ affects courts (at minimum via briefs on behalf the administration), and has direct responsibility for implementation of presidential pardons, making conviction for contempt of Congress (or many other crimes) moot (Arpaio, Saucier, etc.).
The closest to the present situation was Ford’s pardon of Nixon, the crucial differences being that Ford wasn’t being impeached, and Nixon wasn’t called as a witness against Ford, and Nixon was already out of office.
Pardons? I don’t know how any of that is relevant or what Ford and Nixon have to do with it. I’m talking about the House enforcing their own subpoenas, with their own Sergeant at Arms bringing in reluctant witnesses to testify, as has been done in the past. There is no requirement to go through courts or the DOJ.
As I (IANAL) understand the situation, the question of whether executive prohibition against testifying has precedence over congressional subpoenas or vice versa, is an issue which would have to be decided by the courts, if the courts even agree that the matter is other than “political questions”.
At least one person in the Trump administration has used the “I do not recollect” response to questions, and that could very well happen if somebody were compelled to testify before Congress. Unless there is some physical evidence (in which case personal testimony is superfluous), there’s little to show for the rigamarole.
Worst case is a charge of contempt of Congress, with possible punishment by imprisonment, and that’s where pardons and DoJ can effectively nullify the entire (time consuming) process.
Likely outcome of going down that path is the appearance of a urination competition between two political parties, and that merely feeds the GOP narrative.
Suppose that Pelosi does delay till, say, late January.
In the meantime, she makes no progress in forcing a ‘fair trial’ in Senate.
But some more, very compelling, evidence against Drumpf appears before Senate starts its phoney trial in February. And then Senate votes something like 52 to 48 in favour of convicting Trump. So of course he’s not removed.
But suppose also Senate likely would have voted something like 52 to 48 against convicting, had she sent the articles to Senate now or very soon.
Questions:
1/ Was the delay not a good tactic on her part?
2/ Is the USian electorate so stupid that Drumpf parading around pretending ‘exoneration’, despite having been voted against in both houses, actually increases his chances of re-election?