The Shampeachement Follies

[Crunch]

Alright, longish post but relevant. Adam Schiff told CNN’s State of the Union he saw no reason to call in more witnesses to publicly testify before the House Intelligence Committee. So we're at the end of the hearings ... at least the public ones. He could change his mind but for now, he's done. Even Chuck Todd knows there's a problem:

CHUCK TODD:

I want to put — I mean, you have all these open leads. It just seems odd that you’re stopping.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF:

Well, we’re not —

CHUCK TODD:

I mean, look at all these open leads.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF:

Yes, Chuck, it’s —

CHUCK TODD:

You have Bolton, you have the energy deal, the —

REP. ADAM SCHIFF:

It’s important to know we’re not stopping, but it’s also important to know this, Chuck, and you’ve acknowledged this, and I find this remarkable, the evidence is already overwhelming, right? The evidence is already overwhelming. The questions is not —

CHUCK TODD:

But you’re not in a courtroom. You know that.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF:

Well —

CHUCK TODD:

You have a political bar you have to meet.

Of course, everyone knows there's a problem.  WaPo reporter Rachel Bade has the inside info on how some Democrats getting are “cold feet” as worries grow about public opposition to impeachment. You gotta understand, after 2 weeks of public hearings, support for impeachment has declined signficantly:

According to the FiveThirtyEight average of national polls, support for impeachment has shrunk from 50.3 percent in mid-October to 46.3 percent presently, while opposition has risen from 43.8 percent to 45.6 percent.


Among independents in the FiveThirtyEight average, support for impeachment topped out at 47.7 percent in late October but has sunk to 41 percent over the past three weeks.

Almost 7% drop from the 538 guys. That means out in the real world it's probably quite a bit more than what they report. You can start to see the reality sinking in:

n Emerson University survey found an even more extreme flip among independents.

In October, independents supported impeachment 48 percent to 35 percent in Emerson’s polling. In the new poll released this week, independents opposed it by a 49 percent to 34 percent margin. In that time, overall support for impeaching Trump swung from 48 percent in favor and 44 percent against to 45 percent in opposition to impeachment and 43 percent in favor.

The latest Morning Consult survey was the third poll released this week to register a flip among independents. That survey also registered a new low among all voters in favor of impeachment at 48 percent.

But perhaps most alarming for Democrats is a new survey of Wisconsin from Marquette University. In Wisconsin, a key swing state in next year’s election, Marquette found that 40 percent supported impeaching Trump and removing him from office, while 53 percent opposed it. In October, before the hearings began, support was at 44 percent and opposition was at 51 percent.

Put 2 and 2 together and it's clear why Schiff is halting the public hearings. The Democrats are essentially seeing support for the shampeachment go into freefall and need to stop the hemorrhaging. Why, you may ask? Because it's hurting them, badly:

Vulnerable Democrats are watching in horror as GOP impeachment attacks deluge their districts back home. And they want a much stronger counteroffensive from their own party and its allies…

GOP-aligned outside groups have spent roughly $8 million on TV spots this cycle in battleground districts, such as Rep. Anthony Brindisi’s central New York seat. The vast majority of those ads specifically hammer Democrats over impeachment.

Meanwhile, swing-district Democrats are receiving little reinforcement from their own party or even other liberal coalitions. Democratic and pro-impeachment groups have spent about $2.7 million in TV ads, according to an analysis of spending by the ad tracking firm Advertising Analytics. And more than $600,000 of that total went to ads targeting Republican incumbents, not helping vulnerable Democratic members.

How do the vulnerable democrats phrase it? Well, like this:

“It’s like someone taped our arms to our side and punched us in the face,” groused one Democrat to Politico ...

Even Vanity Fair is starting to freak out.

So, it's bad. Real bad. It's blowing up just as everyone expected it to. What's the next step? Plans for impeachment were announced, literally, 19 minutes after Trump won. Russian collusion was a epic bust and the only thing that's an even bigger bust is the Ukraine one.  Unfortunately, the left ignored Pelosi's attempt to retain some semblance of sanity and steamrolled her into letting the kangaroo court of Schiff and Friends to go forward.

There was bipartisan support against the hearings with 2 Democrats joining the Republicans - that should have been the flashing warning sign. Now, they're in quite the pickle. There are 233 Democrats in the House right now. 231 voted for the hearing and if less than 231 vote to move this forward (i.e. the bipartisan opposition actually grew), it hands Trump a bit of a victory and you know, you just know, how he'll tweet that and how he'll crow about the loss of support after the hearing shows it's nothing more than a hyperpartisan witch hunt. And God forbid she doesn't have the 218 votes to close the deal. The fallout of that would be an epic failure. Pelosi has to get not the 218 but at least the same 231 or Trump gets a win.

But, then we go to the Senate. And you all know what's gonna happen there. The handpicked, coached, "witnesses" will be without Schiff protecting them. Schiff himself will be called to testify as will others on his staff. Joe and Hunter Biden will take the stand. The debacle of the house hearings, as demonstrated above, will pale in comparison to what happens to the Democrats once it moves out of their control and into the senate. Trump has reportedly asked for the impeachment to go forward just so he can fully engage in the fight. Trump and the Republicans will wreck what's left of the Democrats here. I know it, you know it, Pelosi knows it.

So what does she do? Not having the vote or losing the vote is a massive failure. Having the vote and winning it is an even bigger failure. Democrats are in a lose-lose. Pelosi is pretty smart, she's been around the block so what's her way out?

She goes to the DNC media outlets and talks about how they got him, super proof, undeniable. By perfect witnesses. It's all obvious and real. The DNC media will eat this up and put it on full blast. Then she says, we can't go forward though. Those evil, corrupt, baby-eating, Republicans will simply not convict. And, through her perfect patriotism and that of Democrats, she holds the vote and goes for censure or something. All to save the country the embarrassment of acquiting Trump. I'm not saying she does this, just that it's a way out of the situation they've gotten themselves into with the least amount of damage.

Should be entertaining either way.

[yossarian22c]

Trump has reportedly asked for the impeachment to go forward just so he can fully engage in the fight. Trump and the Republicans will wreck what's left of the Democrats here. I know it, you know it, Pelosi knows it.

Trump could fully engage right now and allow people to testify. The Republicans in the house are getting equal time to question witnesses as the democrats. They could turn over the state department records pertaining to Ukraine. Basically they could do anything other than stonewalling the investigation. I think the only witnesses the Republicans were denied were Joe and Hunter Biden. Maybe a few others related to conspiracy theories.

[Crunch]

Trump has reportedly asked for the impeachment to go forward just so he can fully engage in the fight. Trump and the Republicans will wreck what's left of the Democrats here. I know it, you know it, Pelosi knows it.

Trump could fully engage right now and allow people to testify.

Who is he preventing from testifying? I'm sure there are some, I just don't know. But, why should he allow anyone else to testify? What's the upside for Trump to put anyone in the situation where they have to answer to Schiff's kangaroo court? Trump is already winning the political war here, as polling shows, there is no advantage for him to allow anyone else to go on enemy turf and get beat up when he can wait and have them in front of a friendly audience.

The Republicans in the house are getting equal time to question witnesses as the democrats.

Let's ask Elise Stefanik if that's true. I tell you what, the optics on that one are pure electoral gold, straight into my veins.

They could turn over the state department records pertaining to Ukraine.

You have the call transcript and statements from the people involved in the call. You don't need a single other document.

Basically they could do anything other than stonewalling the investigation.

Stonewalling? What? Schiff and Friends say they got it all, they got the goods and it's undeniable! Why would you mischaracterize that as stonewalling?

I think the only witnesses the Republicans were denied were Joe and Hunter Biden. Maybe a few others related to conspiracy theories.

They did not get the leaker or any of the sources that provided the second and third hand information. They did not get the staff members from Schiff's office that coordinated with the leaker. They only got witnesses that were supposed to provide strong anti-Trump bias - and even then they were forced to admit it was just conjecture (or presumption as it was admitted).

[TheDrake]

The whistleblower is protected by federal law. Forcing him to testify would be illegal.

You're sure there are SOME??

An unidentified source told the network that National Security Council lawyers John Eisenberg and Michael Ellis will not testify.

Two other officials, Robert Blair, assistant to the president and senior adviser to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and Brian McCormack, associate director for natural resources energy and science at the Office of Management and Budget, had already declined to testify, outlets reported Saturday.


An administration official told that CNN that Eisenberg is claiming executive privilege, while Blair, Ellis and McCormack said they are not going to appear because they won’t be able to have an administration lawyer present, according to CNN.

Blair’s attorney, Whit Ellerman, also told Politico his client would still not show up if subpoenaed, adding that “direction from the White House and advice from [the Department of Justice] cover subpoena.”

Two other Office of Management and Budget officials, Michael Duffey and Russell Vought, will not show up to testimonies later this week, a source with knowledge of the situation told CNN.

Outgoing Energy Secretary Rick Perry refused to a request to testify Wednesday as part of the inquiry, a spokeswoman for his department, Shaylyn Haynes, told The Hill on Friday.

And that's just this week.

[yossarian22c]

Who is he preventing from testifying? I'm sure there are some, I just don't know.

In addition to the ones mentioned above, John Bolton (and other NSC officials), Mike Pompeo, Rudy, and others. Did you miss the white house announcing they weren't going to co-operate in any way and instructed everyone not to turn over documents or testify?

[ScottF]

Serious question: What kind of repercussions would be in play if it's proven that Schiff knew who the whistleblower was before he stated he didn't? Obviously the optics would be really bad, but would there be any more formal consequences?

[TheDeamon]

Serious question: What kind of repercussions would be in play if it's proven that Schiff knew who the whistleblower was before he stated he didn't? Obviously the optics would be really bad, but would there be any more formal consequences?

With a Democratic House? Repercussions are zero, a Democrat led ethic committee won't do anything to Schiff, to the point I doubt they're willing to even investigate.

Republicans might take it up in 2021 should they retake the House, but its more likely they're simply going to wash their hands of the whole mess, as it allows them to look like the Adults stuck between Trump and the Dems.

[yossarian22c]

The Republicans in the house are getting equal time to question witnesses as the democrats.

Let's ask Elise Stefanik if that's true. I tell you what, the optics on that one are pure electoral gold, straight into my veins.

Did any of the Democrats yield their time to anyone other than council? So your response to they didn't get equal time is to say that the committee adopted a different set of rules for these hearings and one Republican didn't like it? I'm glad your so interested in optics. I always find the optics of a situation what's most important in discovering the truth  .

[Crunch]

The whistleblower is protected by federal law. Forcing him to testify would be illegal.

It is not illegal to have him testify. He will be forced to do it during the senate trial, it will be legal.

You're sure there are SOME??

An unidentified source told the network that National Security Council lawyers John Eisenberg and Michael Ellis will not testify.

Two other officials, Robert Blair, assistant to the president and senior adviser to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and Brian McCormack, associate director for natural resources energy and science at the Office of Management and Budget, had already declined to testify, outlets reported Saturday.


An administration official told that CNN that Eisenberg is claiming executive privilege, while Blair, Ellis and McCormack said they are not going to appear because they won’t be able to have an administration lawyer present, according to CNN.

Blair’s attorney, Whit Ellerman, also told Politico his client would still not show up if subpoenaed, adding that “direction from the White House and advice from [the Department of Justice] cover subpoena.”

Two other Office of Management and Budget officials, Michael Duffey and Russell Vought, will not show up to testimonies later this week, a source with knowledge of the situation told CNN.

Outgoing Energy Secretary Rick Perry refused to a request to testify Wednesday as part of the inquiry, a spokeswoman for his department, Shaylyn Haynes, told The Hill on Friday.

And that's just this week.

A lot of “sources say”, probably at least some of this is made up. Do you think they should have testified? I think it unlikely any administration would ever waive executive privilege under these circumstances. However, we very well may see them in the senate trial.

[Crunch]

Who is he preventing from testifying? I'm sure there are some, I just don't know.

In addition to the ones mentioned above, John Bolton (and other NSC officials), Mike Pompeo, Rudy, and others. Did you miss the white house announcing they weren't going to co-operate in any way and instructed everyone not to turn over documents or testify?

It rings a bell and fits with what anyone with a shred of intelligence would do. I just wanted to see a list.

[Crunch]

I'm glad your so interested in optics. I always find the optics of a situation what's most important in discovering the truth  .

I’m surprised you discount them. See the OP, you know how Democrats are feeling like they’re getting beat up? It’s the optics, running through ads. Given this is a political effort, the optics are massively important. You cannot possibly believe the truth is even remotely important here, not with Schiff and his show.

[Seriati]

The whistleblower is protected by federal law. Forcing him to testify would be illegal.

That's false.  There is no required anonymity or protection from testifying - even if the WB were legit.  However, the WB is not actually legit.

Trump has reportedly asked for the impeachment to go forward just so he can fully engage in the fight. Trump and the Republicans will wreck what's left of the Democrats here. I know it, you know it, Pelosi knows it.

Trump could fully engage right now and allow people to testify.

Sort of.  All that was "permitted" was for such persons to go into the House dungeon for secret testimony that would only be released if it helped the DNC narrative.  Kind of stupid to agree to that under penalty of perjury.  I'm sure Schiff and his staff would be totally wiling to sit down under oath with the DOJ where the DOJ was allowed to choose what to release or not.

The Democrats had the option to create a fair process and choose instead to create a show trial.  Trump's had to live with that unfair process, and now the Democrats do too.

The Republicans in the house are getting equal time to question witnesses as the democrats.

They are getting the "same" time it's not remotely equal.  Schiff has repeatedly, interrupted the Republicans (they are not allowed to interupt him), directed witnesses on how or whether to answer questions, and manipulated the process to prevent reasonable rebuttal rights.  I mean, honestly, he specifically disallowed the Republicans from using who they wanted to ask questions, in particular he set the rules so that Jim Jordan couldn't ask the primary questions.  I mean honestly, what kind of process allows you to control how the other side can even make their case?  Not one seeking the truth that's for sure.

Schiff was allowed to lie, to characterize others statements, with impunity.

And, no matter what, disallowing WhiteHouse participation was in no way designed to get to the truth.

They could turn over the state department records pertaining to Ukraine.

Sure, and Schiff could turn over records of his staff's interaction with the WB and all communications they had with DNC members related to the inquiry.  Why isn't he doing that?

Oh yeah, because just because something can happen doesn't mean it should or that it's a legitimate request. 

Basically they could do anything other than stonewalling the investigation

See that's the thing, this was never an investigation.  Not one member on the DNC side was looking for the truth, they were just looking for facts that they could use to forward an impeachment vote.  Period end of story.   And when they didn't get them, you get Schiff on tv claiming it's ironclad.  Lol

I think the only witnesses the Republicans were denied were Joe and Hunter Biden. Maybe a few others related to conspiracy theories.

Nothing wrong with calling them, all legitimate to call.

[Pete at Home]

What do we want?  SELECTIVE PROSECUTION!
when do we want it? WHEN IT SUITS US!

[Seriati]

What do we want?  SELECTIVE PROSECUTION!
when do we want it? WHEN IT SUITS US!

I'd say, when do we want it?  WHEN WE'RE LOSING A WINNABLE ELECTION!

[Crunch]

When do we want it? MAYBE AFTER THIS TWO WEEK BREAK!

I mean, Trump is destroying the nation, America may not survive, dog and cats, living together, mass hysteria!

Meh, we’ll get to it after a nice break.

Again, it’s a political process, optics are important. How’s the ad for this one gonna play in contested elections? Democrats  were so upset and had such solid evidence with the stakes being the actual dissolution of the United States, so they decided to take a two week break.

That ad will run in heavy rotation. It seems like some the Democrats are intentionally tanking this while others can’t think of anything else. It’s like the party went schizophrenic.

[Fenring]

I mean, Trump is destroying the nation, America may not survive, dog and cats, living together, mass hysteria!

That's Trouble with a capital T, and that rhymes with P, and that stands for Trump.

[Wayward Son]

Of course, everyone knows there's a problem.  WaPo reporter Rachel Bade has the inside info on how some Democrats getting are “cold feet” as worries grow about public opposition to impeachment. You gotta understand, after 2 weeks of public hearings, support for impeachment has declined signficantly:

According to the FiveThirtyEight average of national polls, support for impeachment has shrunk from 50.3 percent in mid-October to 46.3 percent presently, while opposition has risen from 43.8 percent to 45.6 percent.

Among independents in the FiveThirtyEight average, support for impeachment topped out at 47.7 percent in late October but has sunk to 41 percent over the past three weeks.
Almost 7% drop from the 538 guys. That means out in the real world it's probably quite a bit more than what they report.

Enjoy it while you can, boys.  The latest FiveThrityEight average has bounced back.  As of 11-26-19, it's up to 48.6 percent for impeachment and opposition has dropped to 41.1 percent--2.5 percent increase from your quote, and a 4.5 percent decrease in opposition.

Which means that out in the real world, it's probably worse.

I guess hearing from the officials themselves that the U.S. government actually did try to pressure the Ukrainian government to try to influence our elections by announcing an investigation against Trump's most likely opponent is slowly sinking in.

[TheDrake]

breakdown of opinions

In the article, they suggest that the ones who are not certain about this whole thing don't care and aren't watching.

[Seriati]

I still find it funny that people think opinion polls are the relevant thing.

Its a matter of right and wrong, the fact is the opinion polls are relevant because the process, even loaded as far to the left as it could be, didn't produce any actual evidence that goes to the President's conduct.  I'm with Trump on this, I kind of hope they do impeach, this whole sham will disintegrate when the other side actually gets to present a case.

[TheDrake]

The opinion polls are mostly interesting as a question of blowback during elections in close districts - in either direction. If it is the hyper partisans who care, then the more centrist voters who are up for grabs are not paying attention and probably don't base their vote on impeachment unless something very dramatic happens.

[Crunch]

I still find it funny that people think opinion polls are the relevant thing.

Its a matter of right and wrong, the fact is the opinion polls are relevant because the process, even loaded as far to the left as it could be, didn't produce any actual evidence that goes to the President's conduct.  I'm with Trump on this, I kind of hope they do impeach, this whole sham will disintegrate when the other side actually gets to present a case.

I find opinion polls semi-relevant. I don't much buy into one time "spot polls" and I certainly don't base my entire hopes/doubts on them. But if all things remain consistent and we see a trend develop, I start thinking that something is happening.

But, more importantly, the politicians running the clown show live and die by them and make big decisions based on polls. And the opinion polls they most trust, like Rasmussen and Emerson, show a rather seismic shift since open hearings started. For example:

Black American support for President Trump:

Emerson: 34.5%
Rasmussen: 34%

There was an article some time ago that made the case that if Trump ever got more than 30% of the black vote, he'd be impossible to beat. Everyone scoffed at it being impossible but it seems likely to have happened. More open hearings in the judiciary committee will be scheduled at some point. If this trend holds or improves for Trump, I'm not sure how the Democrats go forward on impeachment.

[Crunch]

Case in point:

Rep. Brenda Lawrence on Tuesday jumped back on the House Democrats’ impeachment train, performing an awkward double-reversal after walking back her support for removing President Trump from office.

Ms. Lawrence, Michigan Democrat, went from supporting impeachment in October, to saying Sunday that censure of Mr. Trump might be a better alternative, to reviving her full support of impeachment.

She said the two weeks of public hearings on impeachment had convinced her of the need to impeach Mr. Trump.

“The information they revealed confirmed that this president has abused the power of his office, therefore I continue to support impeachment. However, I am very concerned about Senate Republicans and the fact that they would find this behavior by the President acceptable,” she said in a statement.

On Sunday, she said there may not be any “value” in impeaching the president ahead of the election.

“We are so close to an election,” said Ms. Lawrence said on a local radio program, Charlie LeDuff’s “No BS News Hour.”

“Sitting here knowing how divided this country is, I don’t see the value of taking him out of office. But I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable,” she said. “I want him censured. I want it on the record that the House of Representatives did their job, and they told this president and any president coming behind him that this is unacceptable behavior.”

Brenda is looking for a way out. She tried to back out of impeachment altogether but she got the screws put to her and came back with this rather weak response to once again support impeachment (maybe?).

If Pelosi cannot get the original 231 Democrats to impeach Trump, or even bring in the 2 others, Trump scores major political points. If Pelosi only gets 218, just barely enough to impeach, Trump essentially wins even though he was actually impeached. The only thing worse for Democrats is actually having a Senate trial and that's precisely what Brenda is talking about.

This will be interesting.

[Pete at Home]

I still find it funny that people think opinion polls are the relevant thing.

Its a matter of right and wrong, the fact is the opinion polls are relevant because the process, even loaded as far to the left as it could be, didn't produce any actual evidence that goes to the President's conduct.  I'm with Trump on this, I kind of hope they do impeach, this whole sham will disintegrate when the other side actually gets to present a case.

I find opinion polls semi-relevant. I don't much buy into one time "spot polls" and I certainly don't base my entire hopes/doubts on them. But if all things remain consistent and we see a trend develop, I start thinking that something is happening.

But, more importantly, the politicians running the clown show live and die by them and make big decisions based on polls. And the opinion polls they most trust, like Rasmussen and Emerson, show a rather seismic shift since open hearings started. For example:

Black American support for President Trump:

Emerson: 34.5%
Rasmussen: 34%

There was an article some time ago that made the case that if Trump ever got more than 30% of the black vote, he'd be impossible to beat. Everyone scoffed at it being impossible but it seems likely to have happened. More open hearings in the judiciary committee will be scheduled at some point. If this trend holds or improves for Trump, I'm not sure how the Democrats go forward on impeachment.

The only black Americans I know who voted for Trump told me they did so to accelerate things falling apart so something else could be rebuilt.  That’s not a statistical argument, though.

[TheDeamon]

The only black Americans I know who voted for Trump told me they did so to accelerate things falling apart so something else could be rebuilt.  That’s not a statistical argument, though.

They have a lot of company in the "burn it all down" camp which also voted for Trump in 2016. The democrat's continuing to flip out over Trump makes him a solid lock for most of those voters to repeat that vote again in 2020. Their reason for voting for Trump in 2016 remains valid in 2020. He was voted in to disrupt the system, Trump's done a remarkable job of that so far, and him getting voted back in is likely to make a lot of anti-Trumpers to suffer from even more extreme psychologically induced illness than they already are. Why wouldn't they do so again? For those voters, that is an amazing bonus.

[TheDrake]

You're forgetting about the phantom millions of fraudulent voters... Only way he can lose according to him, breitbart, 4chan, and proud boys.

[Crunch]

You can tell the current shampeachment is falling apart since they’re looking for the next one already.

On Wednesday’s broadcast of CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) said House Democrats could impeach President Donald Trump again.

Cohen says:

”Things will come out for as long as he’s president and after he’s president. We will continue to pursue those issues, and we can still have hearings in Intel in Judiciary on actions he took that are violative of the Constitution, that are violative of law that affects our national security. All of those things can still be subject for hearings and possible— if there is something that comes out that’s impeachable, that doesn’t mean you can’t have another impeachment. There’s no rule that you win once and olly olly in-free.”

Impeachment now, impeachment tomorrow, impeachment forever. From now on, if Congress is from another party than the president, we will have nonstop impeachment.

[Crunch]

Let’s out this under the follies:

Three women claim that Sondland engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior toward them.

Sondland doesn’t deny knowing he three women in question or having business meetings with them but, through his lawyer, he denies any inappropriate touching or kissing. But, we must believe all victims. These brave women deserve awards and huge go fund me efforts.

Sondland has lost all credibility.

[Fenring]

You know what? When I've been looking at this thread since it was started I knew the title was a portmanteau. Because of how portmanteaus are usually constructed - cutting off the end of one word and the beginning of the second word to form a new one - I've been reading it this whole time as "shampoo impeachment." I figured it had something to do with shampooing the subject, like a dog show or something, like making it up. Kill me.

[TheDeamon]

You know what? When I've been looking at this thread since it was started I knew the title was a portmanteau. Because of how portmanteaus are usually constructed - cutting off the end of one word and the beginning of the second word to form a new one - I've been reading it this whole time as "shampoo impeachment." I figured it had something to do with shampooing the subject, like a dog show or something, like making it up. Kill me.

It's actually about the Sham-wow guy being locked in a room full of mints and peaches.

[Crunch]

Given the wash, rinse, repeat approach Democrats have taken on impeachment, now their 4th or 5th effort, shampoo impeachment jokes are relevant.

The next rinse is coming into focus:

The biggest Democrat problem is that they will lose control of the narrative at the very time they need it most.  With the inspector general report getting ready to drop and John Durham's investigation proceeding, they simply cannot afford to turn over the megaphone.

When Republican voters are actually hoping the Democrat House votes for impeachment, the odds of an impeachment vote drop precipitously.  While Democratic Party leaders are deranged, they are not that stupid.

For all of these reasons, instead of cutting the Schiffian Knot, they will likely pretend it never existed.

My guess is that they will solemnly intone that after prayerfully considering the evil president's actions, they have decided to hold a censure vote in the interests of the country while they further investigate.  They will claim they could have and probably should have impeached the president since the case was ironclad, but the Republican senators would just cover for him.  With a national vote right around the corner, they will trust in the voters to deliver justice.

[TheDeamon]

I'd expect some verbiage about it being set aside "pending further evidence" so that in the off chance Trump is re-elected, but they keep the House(possible), they can find a way to immediately resume impeachment proceedings in either 2021 or 2023.

[Crunch]

Ok, we’re gearing up for the next installment of the sham so let’s talk about section F of the rules democrats are creating.

In section F, if Trump doesn’t give Democrats all the witnesses they want(i.e. drops executive privilege), then Nadler has the power to deny Trump’s council the ability to question witnesses or call witnesses.

So Trump has some calculus to do.  He can ignore this sham and not send his team to participate. That’s been effective so far as Democrats keep stepping on the rake. Or, he could send his team and have the optics of Nadler refusing to allow them to question a la Stefanik.

It’s just incredible to see democrats constantly giving Trump the ability to decide how he wants to hurt them.

[Crunch]

Today, from the Associated Press:

Right now, Republicans are wielding impeachment mostly as an offensive weapon, and Democrats are generally playing defense or changing the subject as 2020 congressional races rev up. It's unclear how potent the issue will be by Election Day.

You know it’s getting bad when it’s time to roll this out.

[LetterRip]

Ok, we’re gearing up for the next installment of the sham so let’s talk about section F of the rules democrats are creating.

In section F, if Trump doesn’t give Democrats all the witnesses they want(i.e. drops executive privilege), then Nadler has the power to deny Trump’s council the ability to question witnesses or call witnesses.

Executive privelege is quite likely to not extend to witnesses or documents that are part of impeachment hearings,

One lesson of U.S. v. Nixon is that an executive privilege claim is particularly weak when Congress has invoked its power to remove a president from office through impeachment, said Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri.

In the impeachment context, “virtually no part of a president’s duties or behavior is exempt from scrutiny,” Bowman said. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-privilege-explainer/explainer-can-trump-use-executive-privilege-to-withhold-full-mueller-report-idUSKCN1SE2CW

[TheDeamon]

I think there might be a compelling case in this instance for SCotUS to put a curb on that to the extent that only the Senate can do that when it comes to impeachment proceedings.

Otherwise, you're just asking for every major investigation into "questionable activities of the President" to become "an impeachment proceeding" which no rational person should want. (If the House is recognized as having that power, expect every PotUS from this day forward to be Impeached by the House if if is controlled by the opposing party.)

But then, this comes down to politics again, because I'm still not convinced that what the Dems have uncovered to date warrants impeachment. I guess we'll see what the Justices think. If they agree with me, they're going to limit the power of the House in some form as a reflection of their viewing this proceeding as being an abuse of Legislative authority.

[DonaldD]

I think there might be a compelling case in this instance for SCotUS to put a curb on that to the extent that only the Senate can do that when it comes to impeachment proceedings.

The courts have already weighed in on the conflict between privilege and oversight, and although there could be tweeks to the balance between the branches, there is no chance the court would fly in the face of previous jurisprudence to this extent and so radically intrude into the separation debate.

But then, this comes down to politics again, because I'm still not convinced that what the Dems have uncovered to date warrants impeachment.

Whether something warrants impeachment to one person is if course purely subjective, but notwithstanding the particular echo chamber of this thread, what Trump did just on the July 25 phone call would almost certainly be enough to get him convicted of bribery in criminal court.

That's aside from all the corroborating witnesses and the refusals to testify by members of the administration - this not being a criminal proceeding, but rather a political one, there's nothing stopping Congress from interpreting what such refusals likely mean, nor even from interpreting what Trump's directives for his people not to appear might mean.

[Crunch]

...what Trump did just on the July 25 phone call would almost certainly be enough to get him convicted of bribery in criminal court.

If you look rationally at the polling, you can see this is obviously not true. At best, you would get a hung jury and you’d be damn lucky to get that. The majority of people aren’t going along with the accusation of abuse of power, quid pro quo , extortion, bribery. That the accusation of what he supposedly did constantly shifts based on what seems to poll best indicates it’s a losing accusation.

Because of that, the chance of a senate conviction is as close to zero as it gets. Many senators are already very clear they will not convict based on the lack of actual evidence (it’s all opinion and hearsay).

So what is the endgame here? What is the win for democrats? The blowback from impeachment is already starting. Does continuing the sham stop the bleeding or accelerate it?

[LetterRip]

If you look rationally at the polling, you can see this is obviously not true.

Polls are fairly meaningless to how a court case would go.  Roger Stone was convicted on all counts.  I doubt there were many conservatives who would agree he committed a crime in a public poll prior to his indictment and conviction.  The Trump supporters vary between completely uninformed and negatively informed - they have been fed a steady diet of absurd lies on Hannity and other shows and have completely ignored reality.

At best, you would get a hung jury and you’d be damn lucky to get that. The majority of people aren’t going along with the accusation of abuse of power, quid pro quo , extortion, bribery. That the accusation of what he supposedly did constantly shifts based on what seems to poll best indicates it’s a losing accusation.

Bribery is the legal term for a 'quid pro quo' (this for that) that is illegal.  Bribery using a government office and resources is also an abuse of power.

[ScottF]

The Trump supporters vary between completely uninformed and negatively informed

This is a perfect example of why dems are most likely doomed again in 2020. You allow for only the two possibilities that fit within your own cognition. Unless your model allows for the possibility of a “positively” informed Trump supporter? I doubt it does, but that’s not your fault. It’s how we're all wired.

[LetterRip]

This is a perfect example of why dems are most likely doomed again in 2020. You allow for only the two possibilities that fit within your own cognition. Unless your model allows for the possibility of a “positively” informed Trump supporter? I doubt it does, but that’s not your fault. It’s how we're all wired.

You can't be accurately informed and believe that Trump hasn't committed an impeachable crime for which there is adequate evidence that an impartial jury would find him guilty - those are mutually exclusive.  You could think that a jury member might deliberately go against the law and facts and find him not guilty.  That isn't thinking he isn't guilty, that is a belief about behavior.  Do I believe there are Trump supporters immoral enough that they would lie during voir dire and then hang a jury even if Trump were proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law?  Sure.

That has nothing to do with the strength of the evidence - it simply speaks to the immorality of some individuals.

[TheDeamon]

In a court of law, almost all testimony heard to date would have been stricken from the record.

Which would make it rather hard for a Jury to convict him on.

[LetterRip]

In a court of law, almost all testimony heard to date would have been stricken from the record.

On what basis do you think that?  Th testimony given thus far would be pretty typical testimony for a bribery criminal trial.  I've yet to hear hardly any questions or testimony that would be disallowed.  There has been hearsay, but only as would be typical of a grand jury inquiry - to establish who other potential witnesses are and to establish who might have relevant evidence.

So Taylor might not testify in a criminal trial that he had been told by one of his staffers that the staffer had heard Sondland talking to Trump.  Instead Taylors staffer would be supeonaed and would testify directly to what he heard.  Similarly the cell tower logs would be supeonaed and establish the phones that were used and where the phones were located.  Right now those logs aren't being made available, similarly Trump has ordered relevant witnesses not to testify and evidence to be withheld - which a criminal trial wouldn't allow.

[ScottF]

You can't be accurately informed and believe that Trump hasn't committed an impeachable crime for which there is adequate evidence that an impartial jury would find him guilty - those are mutually exclusive.  You could think that a jury member might deliberately go against the law and facts and find him not guilty.  That isn't thinking he isn't guilty, that is a belief about behavior.  Do I believe there are Trump supporters immoral enough that they would lie during voir dire and then hang a jury even if Trump were proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law?  Sure.

That has nothing to do with the strength of the evidence - it simply speaks to the immorality of some individuals.

If only stating things as fact made them so. If you’re right, Trump will clearly and decisively be removed from office. If you're wrong (I know, not possible) prepare to experience another short circuit - a glitch in your matrix - when Trump wins by a much larger margin in 2020. I realize this doesn't make sense to you, but ready yourself just in case.

[TheDeamon]

If only stating things as fact made them so. If you’re right, Trump will clearly and decisively be removed from office. If you're wrong (I know, not possible) prepare to experience another short circuit - a glitch in your matrix - when Trump wins by a much larger margin in 2020. I realize this doesn't make sense to you, but ready yourself just in case.

Eh, I'm inclined to think New York and California will make sure he doesn't win the popular vote once again. His carrying the electoral college is very likely though, IMO.

[LetterRip]

\
If only stating things as fact made them so. If you’re right, Trump will clearly and decisively be removed from office. If you're wrong (I know, not possible) prepare to experience another short circuit - a glitch in your matrix - when Trump wins by a much larger margin in 2020. I realize this doesn't make sense to you, but ready yourself just in case.

That is a complete non-sequiter to what I wrote.  Trump voters aren't going to go through voir dire and then sit and listen to evidence therefore they aren't going to vote based on his guilt or innocence of committing a crime.  So either you failed to read or failed to understand what I wrote.

[wmLambert]

Actually, LetterRip, your entire post was clueless. All those Schiff witnesses came to the conclusion there were no crimes. Specifically, they all said there was no bribery, quid pro quo, threats, nor any other impeachable actions. I realize the cross afforded to the GOP panelists was short, but they did get every single witness to admit there was no crime. You must have selectively decided to not listen to the most important part of the hearings.

The most damning thing about them was the fact that they regarded their own personal bureaucratic designs to be the "regular" process, and the official Trump policy to be "irregular". Seems like personal confessions of being denizens of the swamp, first, and patriots, second.

[Seriati]

Executive privelege is quite likely to not extend to witnesses or documents that are part of impeachment hearings,

I think that this statement is untrue.  You're misreading U.S. v. Nixon, which in fact established that there was a high bar for overcoming Executive Privilege and what it would take to pass it.  In the end, all the court authorized, was an in camera review by a judge who was charged with maximally protecting the Presidential privilege.  That means, it was still possible that the judge would not release things disclosed, even, potentially, if they were relevant to the charges.

Nothing about the House investigation remotely matches the facts in U.S. v. Nixon.  It's all tied into diplomatic communications (which the Nixon court flat out said are one of the areas where EP is at its strongest), there is not true adversarial process (which was a fundamental constitutional matter that gave the courts "parity" with the Executive branch, though it's possible the impeachment would satisfy this), there was specificity and likelihood of relevance (here - at best - you have a fishing expedition and not ability to pinpoint the relevant communications); you had a process designed to minimize the harm (in camera review for relevance before release and no leaks, which doesn't remotely match the current process).  You also had a far more activist court than the modern court.

So yes, its a certainty that EP is not absolute, but no, it's not remotely clear that this investigation - where it is today is going to get past it.   

If this is "impeachment" is the "bar" to get past EP, then EP doesn't exist.

[TheDeamon]

If this is "impeachment" is the "bar" to get past EP, then EP doesn't exist.

Well, more precisely, if "impeachment is the bar" period, than EP no longer exists. Because the moment the House decides it wants documents from the White House that are being protected by EP, they'll simply open "impeachment hearings" to get access. (And why every future President with the opposing party in control of the House could expect to be impeached by the House from now on)

Which is why I said the courts are likely to take measures to put hard limits on the kind of range Congress has with that authority. Be that a requirement for Judicial review of the documents to be released to Congress as you mention, or requiring it to be elevated to the Senate before EP loses most of its protections.

[DonaldD]

Originally Posted by wmLambert:

All those Schiff witnesses came to the conclusion there were no crimes.

Every one of them... "conclusions"? really?  I can't wait to see those quotes...

Specifically, they all said there was no bribery, quid pro quo, threats, nor any other impeachable actions.

No, they did not.

Ambassador Sondland: "Was there a quid pro quo - as I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call, and the White House meeting, the answer is 'yes' "

Ambassador Taylor: "Mr Ratcliffe, I would just like to say that I'm not here to do anything having to do with to... to decide about impeachment, that is not what either of us is here to do, that is your job."

I realize the cross afforded to the GOP panelists was short

Wrong again - the Republicans were granted exactly the same amount of time as were the Democrats.

...but they did get every single witness to admit there was no crime.

Again, quotes, please?

[Seriati]

Polls are fairly meaningless to how a court case would go.  Roger Stone was convicted on all counts.  I doubt there were many conservatives who would agree he committed a crime in a public poll prior to his indictment and conviction.

Well we could only argue about the public information at the time.  At least on the witness intimidation it looks clear cut based on the texts he sent.  That said, he was important to Mueller as a "conduit" to Wikileaks, and it seems pretty decisive that hedin't have that connection.

The Trump supporters vary between completely uninformed and negatively informed - they have been fed a steady diet of absurd lies on Hannity and other shows and have completely ignored reality.

I think this is one of the most offensive beliefs out there.  I havaen't found the anti-Trumpers to have any more grasp of fact, and frequently to have less.  You just have the advantage of having more confirmation bias in the media.

I mean seriously, you have multiple accounts of media being directly controlled by open anti-Trumpers and it still seems you think you are getting reality from them.

There are no neutral accounts.  Trump's done a lot of good things, and they never translate into positive stories on the media you read, yet you are "getting the truth" and the other side believes only lies.  In fact, if you can't see your own information bias it's kind of clear evidence that you are part of the problem you are identifying as the "other" side.  Anyone can see that Hannity is biased for the President, he's one of Fox's opinion hosts after all.  But Don Lemon?  Further to the left than Hannity to the right, Maddow?  Yep further left and biased.  Heck, the "news" programs on MSNBC are further biased than the opinion[\i] shows on Fox.

Give it 10 years and you might be able to look back and see how off your view on the "real facts" actually was.

Bribery is the legal term for a 'quid pro quo' (this for that) that is illegal.  Bribery using a government office and resources is also an abuse of power.

Bribery is not the "legal term" for a "quid pro quo" that is illegal.  That's literally false.  The quid pro quo is an element of bribery, but there's other elements.  In fact, it's literally the other elements that define it as a crime.

And then you make it sound as if a "government office" or using "government resources" is another kind of bribery, when you can't actually be talking about the crime of bribery without them.

In either event, the claim of "bribery" is weak sauce, you don't have the requisite proof of intent.  You have a whole bunch of bad actors pretending they have it.