politics Trump Whistle-Blower

Nancy Pelosi Gives Trump, GOP What They Asked For But Didn’t Really Want

The White House issued a patently ridiculous statement suggesting that somehow, the president is "not hurt".

As expected, the House of Representatives passed a resolution on Thursday that moves the impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump into a new, more public phase.

A pair of Democrats – Collin Peterson and Jeff Van Drew – broke ranks with Pelosi and voted with Republicans against adopting the rules set out earlier this week, after the Speaker announced that she would hold a full vote.

Also in line with expectations, Justin Amash – who abandoned the Republican Party on July 4 to become an Independent – voted with Democrats for the inquiry.

Read more: Nancy Pelosi To Give Trump, Republicans What They Asked For, Will Bring Impeachment Resolution To Floor

The vote was 232-196.

Now, the door is open to public hearings and the release of transcripts from the myriad closed-door depositions House investigators have conducted over the course of the last several weeks.

If defending Trump on the merits was difficult last month, it’s become next to impossible after three weeks of testimony from officials including the president’s former top adviser on Russia and Ukraine Fiona HillGordon Sondland, Mike Pompeo’s former top aide Michael McKinley, deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs George Kent, former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch (who implicated Rudy Giuliani in the pressure campaign to oust her) and, of course, Bill Taylor, whose 15-page prepared statement was positively devastating to the White House. A statement from Alexander Vindman proved so damning that the president and some of his allies spent Tuesday slandering the Purple Heart recipient.

The measure passed on Thursday also details the rights Republican lawmakers and Trump have in terms of participating as the inquiry barrels along.

In all likelihood, Trump will be impeached by the end of the year. Although the Syria debacle raised the odds of a Senate conviction from zero to a number greater than zero, it still seems far-fetched (in the extreme) to suggest he’ll be removed from office by the Republican-controlled chamber.

That said, upcoming testimony – including possible depositions for John Bolton and John Eisenberg – has the potential to sway moderate Republicans and, perhaps more importantly, public opinion.

Naturally, Trump is furious, although the White House issued a patently ridiculous statement suggesting that somehow, the president is “not hurt”.

“Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats’ unhinged obsession with this illegitimate impeachment  proceeding does not hurt President Trump; it hurts the American people”, the statement reads.

Don’t let it be lost on you that one of the main arguments for characterizing the impeachment inquiry as “illegitimate” was that Pelosi hadn’t taken a vote. Now she has, and Republicans are moving the goal posts.

For his part, the president tweeted about witch hunts.

“The Greatest Witch Hunt In American History!”, he shouted, into the digital void. He also claimed “The Impeachment Hoax is hurting our Stock Market”.

To be clear, weakness on Wall Street Thursday had nothing at all to do with the impeachment inquiry. Stocks fell on a Bloomberg report about trade talks and a series of downbeat economic reports.

Resolution

BILLS-116-HRes660

11 comments on “Nancy Pelosi Gives Trump, GOP What They Asked For But Didn’t Really Want

  1. Ria says:

    Public hearings will be good for our country even if the GOP remain afraid of Trump and too craven to uphold their oath of office. Public hearings are not going to paint this administration in a favorable light. A Senate trial only has a 10-25% chance of removing Trump from office but it is the right thing to do from a moral and political standpoint.

    • mfn says:

      Agreed. And I think Republicans, who live in a Fox News bubble, will be surprised how many other Americans agree. (FWIW, McConnell’s polling numbers in Kentucky are abysmal.)

    • Mr. Oxygen says:

      The message of the 196 is obvious: No sir! we are doing what is best for our own hides right now by gawd!

      • Ria says:

        Except that they may go down with the ship….. in any event if the evidence starts to look bad, they can vote to impeach- the vote to start investigations was a free vote for both sides. the actual impeachment vote will be much more impactful and telling….

  2. vicissitude says:

    I’m on to looking at bribery and precedents with SCOTUS, not that it will matter, because the Senate is above the law, preparing to ignore quid pro quo bribery, extortion, obstruction and apparently murder — the GOP patriots will sanction murder, if you’re a GOP president, but they do have ethics about blow jobs and abortion. The Senate will bypass all previous historical precedents ( stare decisis) as Chief Justice looks on as GOP — while the puppet while the Parliamentarian texts on her cell phone, while the sergeant at arms masterbates as he and the other GOP members focus on streaming porn. This is MAGA. It is possible that this freak show will result in serious consequences for the GOP, but it’s also possible that America will have a 3 term criminal for president, perhaps even a new generation of Constitutional reform, where precedents of freedom, going back 244 or more years, will be rolled back by a new stronger, better government, which will MAGA.

    Nonetheless, if there is any hope in laws and ethics and even patriotism, it’s still good to ponder how bribery and various crimes have been explored in American history — and thus, how our laws will be reshaped into something easier to explain on fox news. Here’s the first superficial sample:

    Deregulating Corruption

    For Justice Stevens, there were multiple reasons that justified
    regulating money in politics including “Congress’ legitimate interest in
    preventing the money that is spent on elections from exerting an “‘undue
    influence on an officeholder’s judgment’” and from creating “‘the appearance
    of such influence,’” beyond the sphere of quid pro quo relationships.”110
    As Justice Stevens explained, corruption exists on a spectrum; it is not a
    single act:

    Corruption can take many forms. Bribery may be the paradigm
    case. But the difference between selling a vote and selling access is
    a matter of degree, not kind. And selling access is not qualitatively
    different from giving special preference to those who spent money
    on one’s behalf. Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the
    majority’s apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be
    neatly demarcated from other improper influences does not accord
    with the theory or reality of politics. It certainly does not accord
    with the record Congress developed in passing BCRA, a record
    that stands as a remarkable testament to the energy and ingenuity with
    which corporations, unions, lobbyists, and politicians may go about
    scratching each other’s backs. . . .111
    He added: “Unlike the majority’s myopic focus on quid pro quo scenarios
    . . . , this broader understanding of corruption has deep roots in the Nation’s
    history. ‘During debates on the earliest [campaign finance] reform acts, the
    terms “corruption” and “undue influence” were used nearly
    interchangeably.’”112

    Justice Stevens’ dissent noted that in McConnell from 2003 the Court
    had upheld the very law—the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act—that Citi-
    zens United was striking down“When we asked in McConnell whether a compelling governmen-
    tal interest justifie[d BCRA], we found the question easily an-
    swered [in the affirmative]: . . . BCRA . . . is faithful to the
    compelling governmental interests in preserving the integrity of
    the electoral process, preventing corruption, . . . sustaining the ac-
    tive, alert responsibility of the individual citizen in a democracy for
    the wise conduct of the government, and maintaining the individ-
    ual citizen’s confidence in government.”113
    Yet, the majority ignored stare decisis.

    Our undue influence cases have allowed the American people to
    cast a wider net through legislative experiments designed to en-
    sure, to some minimal extent, that officeholders will decide issues
    . . . on the merits or the desires of their constituencies, and not
    according to the wishes of those who have made large financial
    contributions—or expenditures—valued by the officeholder.
    When private interests are seen to exert outsized control over of-
    ficeholders solely on account of the money spent on (or withheld
    from) their campaigns, the result can depart so thoroughly from
    what is pure or correct in the conduct of Government . . . .114

    https://harvardlpr.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2019/07/Torres-Spelliscy.pdf

  3. vicissitude says:

    Sorry about the chopped up comment above, I probably should proof read my ranting and not upload material not properly edited, I can do better ..

    This is interesting:

    Senate shouldn’t cut an impeachment trial short

    Whatever the merits of moving to table an order made within an impeachment trial, moving to table the trial itself would violate the Impeachment Rules that were adopted after 1868. Specifically, cutting a trial short in this manner would violate the stipulation that the Senate shall proceed to the consideration of articles of impeachment upon receipt from the House and that the trial shall continue “until final judgment shall be rendered.”

    As Riddick and Dove observe in their report, “The opening address of an impeachment trial is for the purpose of outlining what is expected to be proved. It is not for the purpose of introducing evidence to substantiate the charges.” According to this logic, senators cannot render a final verdict in the form of dismissal at the beginning of an impeachment trial.

    Of course, the Senate is entitled to change its rules of procedure at any point. Republicans may use the so-called nuclear option to do so over Democrats’ objections. However, they should reconsider doing so because cutting an impeachment trial short is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and undermines the reasons why the Senate was given the awesome responsibility in the first place.

    Abdicating that responsibility by moving to dismiss a trial affirms Hamilton’s fear that the parties would “enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side, or on the other.” The danger, according to Hamilton, is that when viewed in this way, “the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of the parties, than by the real demonstration of innocence or guilt.”

    Yet even in a world where the rules have lost all meaning, Republicans should nevertheless refrain from moving to dismiss an impeachment trial before a verdict can be rendered. If the trial proceeds and Trump is found not guilty (something likely to happen given the two-thirds majority required to form a guilty verdict), the president is acquitted. If, on the other hand, Republicans move to dismiss the trial immediately after it has begun, they will have denied senators the opportunity to acquit the president. The result will be a lingering cloud of suspicion that will hang over the president and Senate Republicans.

    https://www.rstreet.org/2019/10/01/senate-shouldnt-cut-an-impeachment-trial-short/

  4. vicissitude says:

    The greatest confusion for the House at this point — for me, is to understand if there are overlapping crimes with evidence that supports impeachment. A few weeks ago, the House was apparently going to be given access to the full Mueller reports, which target Russia issues, like obstruction and various foreign related secret dealings — but there is now more of a focus on the whistle-blower Ukraine stuff. There can be multiple articles for impeachment, but where’s the beef? What is the purpose of showing trump had secret deals with Russia or secret deals with anybody he connected with. I’m just hoping this isn’t a toothless, pointless circle-jerk that lacks hard evidence. What does happen to America if the MAGA generation of corruption is able to re-write the Constitution, basically because the Democrats are pursuing an un-founded witch hunt –what will that say about America? What-if, trump as racist corrupt evil monster has protected himself, to a point where he grows into hitler and there is no legal way to stop that? If the House comes up shooting blanks and looking like idiots, overplaying their hand, the Senate can shut this all down within a matter of a few days — but if there is substantial evidence that is beyond doubt, then we have a very different ballgame, where accountability becomes a massive liability for the GOP and how that will mutate MAGA into a far weaker political cartoon.

    Curious:

    Directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part
    of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient
    grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes.

    Hmmmm: The report required by this paragraph shall be prepared in consultation with the chairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Oversight and Reform

    https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191028/BILLS-116-HRes660.pdf

  5. monkfelonious says:

    Hey vic, I have an idea for you: start your own blog.

  6. dp says:

    Regardless of impeachment, it seems to me that come election time, the recorded votes in the House and Senate will provide a VERY useful blueprint for “draining the swamp” that President Trump is most responsible for making “unbelievably huge”.

Speak your mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Skip to toolbar