Verrrrry interesting ~ I know that this Ukraine mess, the constantly changing stories surrounding it, and the quickly rising number of Dem pols now supporting impeachment put me over the edge to supporting impeachment too ~ how about you? ~ ~ Sooz

Why polls show public attitudes on Trump impeachment changing
09/27/19 08:00 AM
By Steve Benen

One of the House Democratic leadership’s principal arguments against impeaching Donald Trump was that polls, for the most part, showed Americans against the idea. For House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), this was no small detail: she considered public support a prerequisite to a legitimate process.

And yet, for months, no national poll showed proponents of presidential impeachment outnumbering opponents. Yesterday, that changed.


The full results are online here (pdf). Looking through the crosstabs, the divisions are largely in line with expectations, with traditional Republican constituencies opposing impeachment and traditional Democratic constituencies supporting it.

But of particular interest was the shift over time: in April, the same NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll asked about Trump’s impeachment and found that opponents easily outnumbered supporters, 53% to 39%. The numbers obviously haven’t flipped, exactly, but now a plurality supports the idea.

This coincides with the latest results from some online pollsters, Morning Consult and YouGov, which released similar findings yesterday afternoon.

It’s worth appreciating the likely explanations for the apparent shifts in public attitudes.

Broadly speaking there are two schools of thought on this. The first is that the shift among Democratic officials has helped changed many voters’ minds. When the party was divided, many of the party’s voters followed suit, waiting for some kind of Democratic consensus to take shape. Once that happened this week, the argument goes, elements of the public responded in kind.

And while there may be some truth to that, I’m even more persuaded by the other explanation: public attitudes started changing when the circumstances changed. This isn’t a political landscape in which Americans reconsidered the Russia scandal and Robert Mueller’s findings, and drew new conclusions; it’s one in which a devastating new scandal emerged featuring a president who was caught trying to get a foreign government to help his re-election campaign.

To state the painfully obvious, the latest data is a brief snapshot in time, and attitudes on Trump’s impeachment will invariably change. Stuart Rothenberg warned yesterday, “Polling in the middle of a political hurricane is ridiculous,” and he has a point. Events are unfolding quickly, with new revelations coming to the fore, seemingly every few hours.

That said, Democratic lawmakers care how the electorate feels about this process, and the stronger the support for presidential impeachment, the stronger Democratic spines will be.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/why-polls-show-public-attitudes-trump-impeachment-changing

I still think basing the impeachment move on the July phone call is a bad strategic move on the part of the Dems. I'm afraid the process will either offer him "victim" status and reward his martyrdom with votes or a more apathetic "what's the point, it's just Grabem being Grabem" and then getting pissed because the whole thing is just a waste of time and money.

What does give me pause on the whole scenario is the threats Grabem levelled against the whistleblower. Threatening extrajudicial killing of an American citizen, which is the only way his comments can realistically be interpreted, may be the step to far people have been watching for.

Another problem with opinion polls, no matter when they are taken, is that they rarely consider whether the opinion is one that is likely to change voting intention.

And I actually doubt that this is one of those.

From the Examiner

Compared to historical cases, it's clear this Trump-Ukraine story is impeachment material
by Quin Hillyer

President Trump appears to have made totally inappropriate requests of Ukraine's president — namely, that he investigate or prosecute Joe Biden and his son Hunter for violations of foreign law, real or imagined.

If true, is the current rap against Trump enough to warrant impeachment? Historical comparisons would point one to yes.

What critics suspected of President Ronald Reagan in the Iran-Contra scandal was a deliberate mistransfer of American dollars from one dicey use (sales of arms to Iran) to another dicey use (provision of arms to the Nicaraguan Contras). If Reagan himself had been found responsible for directing the illegal linkage (for which several aides were convicted), he clearly would have been impeached and removed.

And that was all about a policy dispute. Even if Reagan had done that on purpose, he was at least acting in what he thought were American security interests, not for his own personal political benefit.

Trump is suspected of something worse than that: the misuse of American military funds, not in pursuit of recognizable public policy interests, but against private American citizens and for the president’s own political benefit.

That makes this scandal potentially worse than Iran-Contra.

Next, consider the Russia probe. As noted above, the “collusion” suspected in the Russia probe involved alleged actions by Trump as a private citizen. The collusion attempted with Ukraine involved apparent misuse of the presidential office. So the allegations here are easily worse than the ones involving Russian collusion.

Finally, consider Watergate. The most seriously impeachable presidential sins in that incident involved the misuse of American instruments of power (the CIA and FBI among them) to harass the president’s political enemies. The Ukraine imbroglio likewise involves alleged misuse of American instruments of power (military aid and a presidential summit) to harass the president’s political enemies. So that puts the current allegations in the same ballpark as Watergate.

Take out the name “Trump” and considerations of which political “side” is involved, and based on the analysis above, just about everybody would agree the president should be impeached and removed if any of this happened as described above.

Finally, by way of comparison, let’s put the onus directly on Republicans. Let’s put names back into the equation, but make it a hypothetical. Imagine in 1999 if President Bill Clinton, hoping to see Vice President Al Gore elected to succeed him, had pressured Mexico to investigate the son of former Vice President George H.W. Bush for allegedly breaking Mexican law while the younger Bush’s oil business explored in Mexico, even though no U.S. investigations were open and no American laws were seriously suspected of being violated.

Now imagine if Clinton suddenly suspended his then-year-old initiative of helping Mexico fight its drug lords, while at the same time using personal representatives and Oval Office calls to pressure Mexico into opening an investigation of the younger Bush, who already was the expected nominee against Gore.

Republicans would have rightly yelled bloody murder. Clinton would manifestly have merited removal from office for misusing his office to pressure a foreign government to target a Clinton rival for foreign prosecution.

The same considerations apply here. To repeat, this is not a close call. As former top federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has convincingly noted (in other circumstances), “Impeachment is a political remedy (i.e., the removal of political authority), not a legal one (i.e., the removal of liberty after criminal indictment and conviction). That is why Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as ‘political’ in nature — as ‘proceed[ing] from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.’”

If Trump has used the power of his office, for no legitimate security reason, to pressure a foreign government to target his own political rival, then he must be evicted from the presidency.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... t-material

Live links at source

me too. but I think that impeaching him is a good idea.

the articles of impeachment can start with the 10 counts of obstruction mentioned in the Mueller report. then it can add the emoluments issues. and finally, you can add in the phone call.

that should do it.

I think Grabem deserves to be impeached and your loading of the Articles of Impeachment would certainly help do that but the Dems have to be careful that they don't overdo it and turn Grabem into a political martyr. Assuming Moscow Mitch doesn't hold a trial or does hold a trial and finds Grabem innocent or not guilty enough to remove from office that's the line the GOP will be pursuing. What would be great, and may be possible, is if a batch of GOP Congressmen sign on with the Dems on the impeachment and/or a group of GOP Senators vote for removal. Getting the 66 percent required isn't likely but it could greatly weaken the ability to say it was a strictly partisan play - especially if the Dems got more than 50% in the Senate.

He is desperate for sure, but him trying to find out the whistleblower's identity - it also sends a message to intimidate any others who might be thinking of coming forward. That bothers me a great deal. At first I thought it was stupid of him to announce he was trying to identify him - now, not so sure. He may be stupid, but he is also very conniving. He is doing what comes naturally to him and what has worked so far - intimidating people.

As for articles of impeachment - I agree they should add more, but definitely have to be careful not overload where it becomes too much, and it all gets muddled together.

I love that Nancy Pelosi says "cover up " every chance she gets. I think that is going to move the needle

A fed up Shep Smith just debunked every Trump lie in his Ukraine scandal.

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrat ... live_video

I question if the DiC is playing the "mine is bigger than yours" game ~ ~ Sooz

Trump brazenly (and on camera) pushes for foreign campaign help
10/03/19 12:41 PM
By Steve Benen

It was last Tuesday, Sept. 24, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) launched the impeachment process against Donald Trump, following revelations that he tried to coerce Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into helping his 2020 campaign. One day later, the Republican sat down with Zelensky at an event in New York.

A reporter asked the American leader, “Would you like President Zelensky to do more on Joe Biden and the investigation?” Trump replied, “No, I want him to do whatever he can.”

It was hard not to do a double-take. Facing impeachment over pressuring a foreign leader to assist his political scheme, had Trump just done it again? This time, on camera?

This morning, the American president abandoned all subtlety.


So, on the one hand, Trump and his team are engaged in intense trade negotiations with China. On the other hand, Trump is now publicly calling on China to dig up dirt on one of his domestic political rivals. Indeed, within a minute of seeking Beijing’s 2020 help, Trump added, “I have a lot of options on China, but if they don’t do what we want, we have tremendous power.”

Daniel Dale joked, “If a whistleblower had come forward to say Trump had privately told Xi he should launch an investigation into the Bidens, it’d be a huge story. That’s what Trump just did publicly.”

In case that weren’t quite enough, during the same brief Q&A, the American president again called on Ukraine to go after the Democratic presidential hopeful. “I would say that President Zelensky, if it were me, I would recommend that they start an investigation into the Bidens.”

Subtlety has been thrown out the window. Trump is now doing publicly what he’s being impeached for doing privately.

At the least the cover-up phase is over: accused of privately pressing foreign officials to target an American opponent, Trump has decided to publicly press foreign officials to target an American opponent.

At some level, the American president must understand that he’s at the center of a scandal involving allegations that he abused his office, seeking foreign help in his re-election campaign. But as of this morning, the Republican seems unable to help himself.

Trump has been reduced to confessing wrongdoing from the South Lawn, effectively daring the political world to hold him accountable, confident that Republicans won’t care.

Nick Akerman, a former Watergate prosecutor, recently said, “What he’s been saying in public is the kind of thing I used to prosecute people for doing in private.” Akerman made that comment two weeks ago. The problem is far worse now.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-brazenly-and-camera-pushes-foreign-campaign-help

It is just his strategy to normalize his behavior in the Ukraine debacle - just as he normalizes his lies. It will fly with his base, the republican party, and the spin merchants will keep attempting to make it all look like a big to-do about nothing. One can only hope it does not succeed and he digs his hole deeper, but you can never underestimate the machinations of the corrupt.

he is flaunting the law because he thinks he is above it.

pray he is not proved correct.

It's time to get serious .....

Wine Pairings for Any Impending Impeachment Scenario
We must get serious about what we shall drink
Stephanie Ashe



The past few weeks have been a real rollercoaster for the White House! We began the month thinking Trump might be impeached for colluding with Russia, but now there’s literally endless permutations of impeachment opportunities! As the time nears, we must get serious:

Which wines are we going to drink as DJT has those sweet sweet articles of impeachment brought against him?
Below are pairings for a variety of scenarios.

Russian Collusion: Riesling



A light and aromatic white wine, Riesling has hints of pee tape blackmail, undocumented meetings with Russian leaders, and a slight air of millions and millions of dollars from foreign governments. Undoubtedly the perfect wine for a Russian collusion impeachment hearing.

Obstruction of Justice: Shiraz



The most likely possibility right now, the obstruction of justice route needs a tall, dark, and handsome wine like Shiraz! The flavor of Comey’s saucy memo is apparent in every sip, making each one more delicious than the last. Almost black in color, there will be an extra irony in enjoying this wine, given how much Trump hates black people.

Sharing Classified Information: Merlot



Merlot is made from thin-skinned grapes that are particularly sensitive to the environment, just like the liberal snowflakes attacking our Lord and Savior Donald Trump! It’ll be a great wine to pair with the possibility that really super serious information was just shared with very bad people who may now kill us.

Business Conflicts: Pinot Noir



Re-enact scenes from Sideways and take heart in the fact that American taxpayers are no longer serving the Trump family business!

Violating Anti-nepotism Laws: Chardonnay



Between Jared Kushner, Ivanka, and whatever the hell the other Trump kids are doing, DJT has managed to bring his whole family to the White House. (Except Tiffany. LOL Tiffany) The Justice Department has been A-OK with these appointments so far. Which is fair, because quite frankly, being able to get a job you’re wildly unqualified for because your rich dad got a job he was wildly unqualified for is the American Dream! But if they ever dig deeper into the legalities of it all, get the Chardonnay out watch the tears fall from Eric Trump’s weird face.

ALL OF THE ABOVE: Rosé



It’s not out of the question that all of the above lead to the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump, in which case we should all just have a good time! Stop worrying about impressing your friends, and drink the wine everyone knows is the most delicious but pretends not to like because it’s not cool. You’ve survived the worst presidency in American history, and you deserve this!

https://thebelladonnacomedy.com/wine-pa ... c78a89a590

Since this article dates to 2017 we have to decide what wines to pair with everything else that's come to light since then (including the Ukraine call a well as the other whistleblower reports.)

I swear you can't make this stuff up ....

Trump calls for Romney's impeachment
BY JOHN BOWDEN

Vid at source

President Trump called for Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) to be impeached Saturday and argued that Republican voters in the state made a "mistake" nominating Romney for the Senate.

In a pair of tweets, the president argued that the Utah Republican should be removed from office and that former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), another frequent Trump critic, was "better" than Romney.



Senators cannot be impeached but can face recall votes in some states. Utah does not have any provisions in state law for recalling a sitting senator.

Romney, who was elected to the Senate last year, faced the highest disapproval rating of Utah's congressional delegation, according to a poll taken in July.

His office did not immediately return a request for comment from The Hill.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... mpeachment

Live links and vid at source

"President Trump called for Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) to be impeached Saturday and argued that Republican voters in the state made a "mistake" nominating Romney for the Senate."

Whatever one thinks of Romney - this so absurd and self-serving. It also reeks of desperation and it is hard to believe there are many who fall for it, and actually want it to happen just for expressing his opinion. Un Fn' Believable.

I've been thinking about this whole scenario.

I understand that there is a very big incentive for Democrats to not go after trump. It could turn Trump and his supporters into martyrs, they're probably going to beat him anyway, etc.

Here's the thing. Those are political reasons. I'm sick to death of political reasons.

It isn't the Democratic party that is at risk right now. It's the entire reality of American democracy, and the whole idea of the importance of rule of law. Is the president above the law? Is he SO FAR above the law that he can flaunt his crimes publicly? If he's going to get away with this nonsense, why even have election laws? Why have laws at all?

Lady Liberty needs a good shot of vitamins right now. And the dems may have to sacrifice to do it. But they need to do it for the sake of the country, the institutions, the rule of law, and the idea of truth in general, before the world goes crazy (er).

Common folks, grow a few and do your damn jobs.

gat. . .

Terrific post, greeny! ~ you've captured much of what I [and many others] are thinking/feeling ~ my only small quibble is as I changed one of your sentences as follows:

"Lady Liberty needs a good shot of vitamins kick in the ass right now." ~ ey

Sooz

Another excellent Steve Benen commentary ~ I strongly urge y'all to read the letter [live-linked below] ~ even those not used to "legalese" will see it as just more BS from the DiC's merry team of enablers ~ ~ Sooz

White House: Impeachment process is ‘unconstitutional,’ ‘illegitimate’
10/09/19 08:00 AM—Updated 10/09/19 08:25 AM
By Steve Benen

Few genuinely believed that Donald Trump’s White House would cooperate with Congress’ impeachment inquiry with transparency and integrity. The question was how, and in what form, the president and his team would defy lawmakers’ authority to hold Trump accountable.

Yesterday afternoon, the answer came into sharp focus with a letter from White House counsel Pat Cipollone.


The full text of the eight-page letter is online here (pdf), and even by the standards of Trump World, this one’s a doozy. I’m a little surprised a White House counsel agreed to put his name on it, since it’s likely to do lasting harm to Cipollone’s reputation as a legal professional.

Indeed, it’s difficult to see the letter as even presenting a legal argument. In practice, it’s as if the president threw a tantrum; the White House legal team jotted down some of his poorly articulated rage; and shameless Republican attorneys tried to put a legal-ish veneer on Trump’s rant.

Gregg Nunziata, who served as legal counsel and a senior policy adviser to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), described Cipollone’s letter as “bananas” and a “barely-lawyered temper tantrum.” Nunziata added that “no member of Congress,” regardless of party or ideology, “should accept it.”

It’s that bad.

Going into yesterday afternoon, I’ll confess to being deeply curious as to what the White House counsel’s office was going to come up with, since the Republican talking points in recent weeks have been so hilariously unpersuasive. I assumed Cipollone’s letter to Congress would offer Team Trump an opportunity to put its best foot forward.

But if this is the best they’ve got, the White House is in trouble. The counsel’s office was reduced to arguing that the U.S. House’s impeachment process, established by the Constitution, is “unconstitutional” – a word the document repeated eight times – and the White House considers Congress’ process “illegitimate.” It therefore feels comfortable refusing to cooperate with the legal inquiry.

Reactions from the legal community were brutal. George Conway wrote, “I cannot fathom how any self-respecting member of the bar could affix his name to this letter. It’s pure hackery, and it disgraces the profession.” Former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal called the White House’s letter “inane,” adding, “You don’t get to block impeachment just because you don’t like it.” Law professor Ryan Goodman, former special counsel at the Pentagon, described Cipollone’s letter as “a professional embarrassment.”

This may yet get worse before it gets better. In a call with reporters orchestrated by the White House, a senior administration official argued that before officials on Team Trump agreed to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry, the president and his aides expected a “full halt” to the process.

Or put another way, after Congress stops the impeachment inquiry, Trump will consider cooperating with the impeachment inquiry.

As a rule, if the White House were confident in the president’s innocence, complete defiance wouldn’t be necessary. But in this case, Trump and those around him clearly have a great deal to hide.

The likelihood of the president’s impeachment inches closer to 100% every day.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/white-house-impeachment-process-unconstitutional-illegitimate#break

Grabem and his minions could be walking into a trap here. If these people he is ordering not to testify are breaking the law by not doing so, he is also culpable. He may think the inquiry is over his crooked attempt to intimidate the Ukraine but the Articles of Impeachment have not been drawn up yet. They could also include or even only surround his illegal refusals to fulfill his obligations to Congress.

Anyone believe the DiC can pull off a "charm offensive"? ~ ~ Sooz

As impeachment looms, White House fears cracks in the GOP wall
10/10/19 10:44 AM—Updated 10/10/19 10:56 AM
By Steve Benen

Donald Trump has long been obsessed with maintaining a united partisan front, confident in the belief that he can withstand any crisis just so long as Republicans rally behind him. And yet, whether he understands the consequences of his actions or not, the president has a curious habit of testing the limits of his allies’ loyalties.

Congressional Republicans, for example, thought Trump had made a “huge mistake” releasing an incriminating call summary two weeks ago, but the president ignored them. GOP lawmakers were broadly disgusted when Trump – apparently on a whim – changed his policy toward Syria and abandoned our Kurdish allies without giving so much as a heads-up to his ostensible allies on Capitol Hill.

Congressional Republicans were blindsided again when the White House blocked Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, from appearing on Capitol Hill, which came on the heels of the president putting GOP lawmakers in an awkward position by calling for Sen. Mitt Romney’s (R-Utah) impeachment – something that isn’t even possible in our system of government.

All of which is to say, at a time when Trump desperately needs unyielding Republican support, the president has taken a series of needlessly provocative steps that have angered and alienated the GOP officials whose backing he needs.

The Washington Post reported overnight, “There is an acknowledgment inside some quarters of the West Wing that Trump cannot ignore the skittishness of Republicans.”


CNN, meanwhile, reported that the president has been “lighting up the phone lines of his allies on Capitol Hill,” including multiple calls per day to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), “to whom he’s stressed the importance of Republican unity.”

The CNN report, which hasn’t been independently verified by MSNBC or NBC News, added that Trump has warned McConnell that he’s prepared to “amplify attacks on those Republicans who criticize him.”

Or put another way, the president has a carrot and a stick approach in mind.

Chances are, Republicans will do what they’ve consistently done: cover for Trump and make every effort to shield him from accountability. Indeed, three weeks into the White House’s impeachment crisis, we’ve already seen GOP officials embarrass themselves in the hopes of downplaying the scandal.

But this latest reporting suggests the president, his outward posture notwithstanding, isn’t altogether confident in his intra-party position.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/impeachment-looms-white-house-fears-cracks-the-gop-wall

I'm thinking that there's some pretty big cracks appearing between Grabem and the Party faithful. More and more of them are either developing a backbone or discovering some rudimentary ethics. If it appears the virus is spreading, Moscow Mitch, who has kept his powder dry so far, will throw the old pervert to the curb and kick him in the head while he's down there.

Let's face it, from Mitch's point of view Grabem has been pretty much wrung dry. There's nothing more Grabem can offer other than idiotic positions that are detrimental to MM's grasp on power. A Pence or some other easily manipulated gas bag would be ideal and may even allow him - er, the GOP - to keep the White House - for the good of America you understand.

A question:

If the impeachment of Trump results in his leaving office but no criminal charges or jail time, could he run in the next election?

The question has been asked elsewhere. The answer is yes.

KARMA, work your magic/do your thing! ~ ~ FTR, this renews my hope, given that the commentary is expressed by a conservative scholar ~ the full, more detailed article from The Bulwark is well worth the read and is live-linked below, with the full Cipollone letter live-linked in post 44 above ~ Sooz

White House letter inadvertently revealed Trump has no impeachment defense: Conservative scholar
Published on October 15, 2019 | By Matthew Chapman

On Tuesday, conservative think tank scholar Greg Weiner urged Democrats in The Bulwark to continue the impeachment investigation into President Donald Trump — and suggested that the warning letter to House Democrats from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone proves he has no legal recourse to challenge it.

“The most compelling evidence for impeachment is now in the public record. White House Counsel Pat Cipollone’s refusal to cooperate with the House’s impeachment inquiry is an attack not on its recipients — House Democrats who, through a process of legal alchemy, he accuses of violating phantom processes — but rather on the relationship between Congress and the executive branch,” wrote Weiner. “President Donald Trump is now claiming for himself and, crucially, future presidents, the authority to determine the legitimacy of legislative oversight.”

Weiner argued that impeachment is now a necessity for three key reasons: To hold Trump accountable, to assert the separation of powers, and to follow the evidence laid out by Cipollone himself.

“Cipollone’s letter is a game-changer precisely because it is not about the president’s conduct — which Democrats are always primed to attack and which Republicans are forever willing to excuse,” wrote Weiner. “It sweeps away the clutter of Trump’s outsized personality to clarify the constitutional stakes. In that sense, the letter is not a constitutional crisis. It is a constitutional opportunity.”

In fact, Weiner argued, the impeachment inquiry should focus on the abuse of power inherent in the letter itself.

“On the basis of Cipollone’s letter alone, the House could immediately debate articles of impeachment rooted in abuse of power and obstruction of Congress,” wrote Weiner. “That would clarify the question for Congressional Republicans, which is not whether they are willing to apologize ad infinitum for President Trump personally — they are — but rather whether they are willing to go on record as foregoing their power of oversight of future Democratic administrations. Democrats will eventually occupy the White House and Republicans will eventually control the Congress. Whether that happens in 2021 or beyond is not the point. The survival of congressional oversight is.”

“Oversight of the administration’s antics in Ukraine can continue, of course. But the obstruction case is ready for trial. The evidence is indisputable, and indisputably clarifying,” concluded Weiner. “What is on trial is not the transient fabulism of Donald Trump but rather the enduring architecture of the Constitution.”

You can read more here.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/white-house-letter-inadvertently-revealed-trump-has-no-impeachment-defense-conservative-scholar/