House Judiciary Comm. Impeachment Hearings Start Tomorrow

Donald Trump faces two deadlines this week.

On Monday, the House Judiciary Committee will begin holding impeachment hearings on what charges to include in the Articles of Impeachment.

The Ukraine report is expected to make up the core of Democrats’ likely articles of impeachment against Trump. Lawmakers leading the inquiry have suggested Trump could face an article alleging abuse of power for withholding military aid and a White House meeting from Ukraine while Trump and his allies pressured the country’s new president to investigate Democrats.

The Committee has given Trump a deadline of today for notifying them as to whether his counsel will participate. [More]

If I were drafting the Articles of Impeachment, I'd include every bad thing he's done since kindergarten. Just to make sure they know he has always been a rotten apple. Once an apple gets a worm, it's rotten to the core and inedible. There's no going back. Leopards don't change their spots.

So yes, in this age of "Me Too", what's good for the sauce should be good for the gander and Trump's remarks on the Billy Bush tape should be considered. The “Me Too” crowd would likely say talking about women that way should be a high crime. (I'd go for misdemeanor because even though we are talking about a serial violator (according to the settled and pending lawsuits filed against him), we still have a First Amendment that protects even cringeworthy speech.) Even given the presumption of innocence which I doubt he’s entitled to in an impeachment trial, I think it’s safe to say his conduct towards women could be considered a misdemeanor.

I'd bring up his treatment of the U.S. Government as his family's personal livelihood-building tool. Jared will go on to say he has diplomatic experience even though it was always a joke to think he’s bring peace to the Middle East. Ivanka will say she's an expert about female empowerment even though the only female I know about that she helped is herself. She'll hit the lucrative lecture circuit talking about how very hard it was to juggle motherhood with her intense meeting schedule at the White House and in China, India and Russia, but how she let her determination not to let her father down overcome the obstacles and win the day.

Then there's his cronyism: Rudy Giuliani as his defacto Secretary of State, working for free. There’s Don Jr.'s girlfriend who gave up a lucrative career with Fox News to work on his dad's re-election campaign – anyone want to take bets on whether that relationship lasts through election day 2020?

Donald Trump (Sr.) burns through aides like an oil lamp. With Rudy likely facing his own troubles by 2020, who will Trump turn to for legal advice? Tiffany Trump, are your ears ringing? Sure, you may not yet have a license to practice, but your dad won’t care. Rules are just technicalities, meant to be broken.

Sure, Donald Trump lacks the skills to govern, but maybe that’s the new standard for the Executive in Chief of the United States. If so, maybe we just need someone with good delegating skills. I doubt Donald Trump makes any decisions other than what to have for lunch, what TV channel to watch and which head of state to call and chat with when he’s bored. He's got people all around him eager to teach him what he should know about every possible topic a President might have to make a decision on, he just doesn’t want to listen.

Maybe what we need are two people with equally low skill sets at politics and governing who blow him away when it comes to fandom. Two people so well known and loved by his base that they would turn against him in a heartbeat to vote for the Big Star, whichever party’s ticket he or she ran on. We all know Donald cannot win without his underinformed, margainalized base. They don’t care about politics, they want to be on the side of an outsider - a non-professional politician with oodles of money, some of which they are only too happy to believe will come their way.

Who better than rock stars or gangsters fits that bill? Maybe we need a music ticket with two huge arena performers who pack in 100,000 people a concert. If one's a woman, all the better. Maybe Taylor Swift would agree to run as a Democrat. How about a Springsteen-Swift ticket? Or a Garth Brooks-Taylor Swift ticket? Or a Taylor Swift-Carrie Underwood ticket?

Emily's List and other women's groups would be chomping at the bit to give Taylor advice. The political machinery and all those groups with a cause would learn how the music business works and how to pitch themselves to rock stars really quickly. No more head-scratching (as in “WTF just happened in there”) after every meeting like there is now with Trump. Rather than being led by a self-professed billionaire who learned his art of dealing from his days as a carnival barker, let's step it up a notch and offer the opportunity to some mere multi-millionaires. They may have less money but they more than make up for it because they have real rather than imaginary talent and real experience at hiring people who actually get their jobs done right.

Or maybe we should pair Taylor with a pardoned crook instead of another musician. Trump’s base loves the “gangster” image. He fits perfectly, the more he gives America his littlest finger, the more they love him for stepping over the white line of decency. I can't think of a cool gangster right now that middle America, the central northwest and the deep South loves, but I'll give it some more thought.

We are the voters. We pick the winners. We don't have to be stuck with Joe Biden or the other lackluster group of septagenarian candidates the Dems are feeding us. Let's demand some rock stars, one of whom should be a huge country star who would capture Trump's underinformed voters and cause him to lose. If Bloomberg and Bernie can change parties to run for President, so can a Republican country music star. We might be able to find one that hates Trump from having had a lousy experience on the Apprentice (except the Apprentice didn't have a lot of A-listers, they were more like DWTS, making celebrities of celebrity-wannabes or former celebrities who had fallen out of favor and needed money.)

I'll end with: Pete B. and Julian Castro are fine. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are not. (According to the New York Times, Kamala is on a downward spiral from which she's unlikely to recover. Why: the NY Times says it's because she can't make a decision and her staff complains they are treated badly). I think Warren is tumbling, and despite his hefty bank balance, Sanders may follow her soon. Bloomberg is just wasting his time -- and ours.

Am I being serious or is this snark? If you haven't read Talkleft before, I can assure you it is snark. But not by much.

< Saturday Open Thread | Kamala Harris Drops Out of Presidential Race >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yes, the media (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 03, 2019 at 11:50:16 AM EST
    will likely place blame on Chairman Nadler rather than on the Republican members who act up and disrupt.

    However, I am hopeful that the solemnity of the impeachment hearing as contrasted with the belligerent and disrespectful Corey Lewandowski testimony before the Judiciary Committee will generate more public disgust than applause from Republican attempts at a carnival atmosphere.

    Never-the-less, I trust that Jerry Nadler has taken Chairman lessons, including review of videos from Adam Schiff's Intel hearings and received tips from kindergarten through middle-school teachers.

    The snark giveaway (none / 0) (#1)
    by jmacWA on Sun Dec 01, 2019 at 02:05:07 PM EST
    Or at least one of them... Taylor Swift is only 29... and you would not make a mistake like that :)

    Actually, I would make (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Dec 01, 2019 at 02:12:43 PM EST
    a mistake like that, but hey, google is my friend and I just learned Taylor Swift was born  December 13, 1989 which means she'll be 30 in a few weeks. (I totally didn't consider age, only national origen. Bono and James Corden can't run. Bon Jovi is too tied to Hillary. But, the beat goes on.

    I didn't mean to suggest (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Dec 01, 2019 at 02:24:43 PM EST
    Bon Jovi wasn't born in the US, only that I considered him along with Springsteen.

    How about Willie Nelson (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 01, 2019 at 03:25:44 PM EST
    Bit old but seems spry

    GET IT ALL IN (none / 0) (#4)
    by ChiCity on Sun Dec 01, 2019 at 03:21:31 PM EST
    The more the public finds out about Trump, the worse Trump does

    In July, a Washington Post/ABC poll found that support for initiating impeachment proceedings was 37%, and 59% of Americans were against it.

    Sept. 25, right after the Ukraine story broke, a Quinnipiac University poll found that 37% supported impeachment and removal from office and 57% disapproved.

    On October 9, a Fox News Poll released showed a new high of 51 percent wanted Trump impeached and removed from office, another 4 percent want him impeached but not removed, and 40 percent oppose impeachment altogether. Has stayed about the same.

    Compares with NYT "Nixon, July 28, 1974, 11 days before he announced that he would resign:
    46% impeach & remove
    38% don't impeach & remove
    16% no opinion"

    Or Clinton: 1998:
    29% impeach
    67% don't impeach

    "Crime in Progress, (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 02, 2019 at 12:38:09 PM EST
    Inside the Steele Dossier and the Fusion GPS Investigation of Donald Trump", by Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, should be widely distributed to help the public understand, to a greater extent, the corrupt and compromised President of the United States and the danger posed to the country.

     Don't need to do what the RNC and Trump is doing to make Don, Jr.'s book a NYTimes best seller (with a qualifying asterisk--already in the dollar bin at your local bookstore), but a wider readership would be good. Among turkey, football and guest in-law, I was able to complete this enlightening read over the weekend. Recommended.


    One thing (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 03, 2019 at 08:01:08 AM EST
    I don't think Bloomberg is wasting his time.  I just don't.  Conventional wisdom might suggest he is.  There is nothing conventional about the current political climate.

    My first reason is the democratic field.  They are not bad.  But am finding it really hard to visualize a single one of them surviving Trump.  Of course a lot could depend on what happens in the next few weeks.  What happens with Rudy, taxes etc,  there could certainly be the kind of shi+storm that might allow any of them to win.

    Barring that, IMO, we are in trouble.  

    I think Bloomberg's plan is clear.  He thinks, and I agree, there will be no clear front runner after the first 4.  He wants to swoop in on super Tuesday and grab enough delegates that no one can win outright and force a contested convention.

    Will any of this work?  Who knows.  Is there "demand" out there for Bloomberg.  Clearly not yet.  But billions can create demand.  And if we get to the convention and the only options are bumbling Biden or Bloomberg's billions, IMO dismissing the possibility of Bloomberg would be a mistake.

    How Bloomberg Could Win. Again.
    He's getting in late. He's out of step with his party. The news media thinks he's a joke. All of that was true when he first ran for mayor of New York City, too.

    Oh, and (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 03, 2019 at 08:11:23 AM EST
    This hearing tomorrow (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 03, 2019 at 08:56:34 AM EST
    Is going to be a good indicator of where we are going.  Collins, Jordon, Gaetz, Gomert et al are going to roll Nader like a jelly doughnut.

    They will scream and yell and turn to whole thing into a freak show.

    I hope I'm wrong.

    I hope (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jmacWA on Tue Dec 03, 2019 at 09:55:04 AM EST
    you're wrong too... BUT I'd say the odds of the GOP running a freak show are 100%, sadly, the odds of Naler being able to control them are more like 33%.  All of which means this will be a spectacle that will get wall to wall coverage by the major media that will slant GOP because they're more fun to watch

    Yep (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 03, 2019 at 07:16:23 PM EST
    Al Franken was on the Judiciary Comm. (none / 0) (#20)
    by leap on Tue Dec 03, 2019 at 07:45:26 PM EST
    I'm so sorry he's no longer in the Senate. He doesn't BS, is always prepared, sharp as a tack, not afraid to ask questions and squeeze out answers. Damn. I don't have any confidence in Nadler.

    In that respect, any GOP attempt to sow confusion by turning tomorrow's proceedings into a circus likely has a much greater potential to backfire on Republicans spectacularly, as to benefit them politically. And that's because they're playing to a base of low-information supporters whose hearts they've long already owned. Meanwhile, they've been alienating most everyone else.

    Remember when I said that Democrats had to move the public opinion needle for impeachment above the 37-38% point where, at the time of the Mueller hearing, it had been languishing for months? Well, they've done that; the impeachment needle is now hovering at about 55%.

    That's due to the fact that Democrats have changed their tone, tenor and demeanor in response to September's whistleblower revelations, and public reaction to their messaging since then has been increasingly positive. Meanwhile, Republicans have not changed either their tactics or their message, and their position remains static at around 40%. And 40% won't win anything in a one-on-one matchup.

    Now, there's a strong likelihood that Trump could very well survive a Senate trial by browbeating Republican senators into supporting him. But if these recent shifts in public opinion are any indication, that particular outcome may subsequently prove to be a Pyrrhic victory, the kind which portends a rather disastrous fate for the entire GOP come November 2020. The public is watching Trump and Co., and they're clearly not liking what they're seeing.



    Trump (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 03, 2019 at 04:05:14 PM EST
    IMO has put people like my senator David Perdue in a largely untenable position. If he votes to impeach Trump he's going to have to deal with the tea party nuts either running a primary against him or voting 3rd party in 2020 and if he doesn't he's going to have to answer to the voters of the entire state where Trump is not popular.

    ... has been released publicly. And lo and behold, we now know that Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) had subpoenaed Rudy Giuliani's phone records from his carrier, which he's included in the impeachment report.

    Not surprisingly, these phone records further indicate that Giuliani was not only talking with OMB officials during the period immediately preceding the recall of Ambassador Yovanovich from Kyiv, both he and henchman Lev Parnas were also in close contact with Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee.

    Since there's no longer any question that Nunes is seriously implicated in this scandal, he likely has some serious explaining to do, especially to his colleagues on the committee. But he may want to lawyer up first.


    He (none / 0) (#15)
    by FlJoe on Tue Dec 03, 2019 at 05:06:36 PM EST
    can always blame it on his cow.

    ... from the Intelligence Committee proceedings. Given his repeated failures to disclose his communications with the Trump White House and the Trump campaign, he has clearly disgraced himself with his conflicted conduct on that committee, both as chair and ranking member.

    Next up for Nunes will be a House Ethics Committee investigation into that conduct, which I believe will likely be followed by a public announcement that he will not seek re-election to his CA-22 seat. Most certainly, today's disclosure has probably rendered any re-election bid by him problematic.



    Or his mom (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 03, 2019 at 05:28:56 PM EST
    Hah! (none / 0) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 03, 2019 at 05:41:34 PM EST
    Wasn't it "Devin Nunes' Mom" who first ridiculed him for having lost his virginity to a microwaved grapefruit while Extreme's song "More Than Words" played in the background? If that's true, then I blame it all on the mullet haircut he had in high school.

    I'm liking Pamela (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 04, 2019 at 10:30:50 AM EST
    And it's been a long time since I wanted to throw something at my tv as much as I did when Turley started talking about his f'ing dog.

    In a truly just world, where the best legal minds (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 04, 2019 at 11:26:44 AM EST
    in the country were appointed to the Supreme Court, it would have been Justice Karlan some time ago. Plus, Pam is totally hilarious. An all around great person.

    Professor Karlan (none / 0) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 04, 2019 at 11:59:01 AM EST
    Is great. And, I am really impressed by Noah Feldman.  Turley is trying to have his cake and eat it too--- maybe, and even likely, Trump did wrong, but need more facts and the process is too fast.  And, we just  all need to get along and he can keep his TV gigs.  Professor Gebhard is more effective at questions than in his reading of his statement.

    Interesting argument he is making (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 04, 2019 at 12:05:45 PM EST
    About how they need to prove it.

    Possibly problematic if they do.  Rudy, Lev, etc.


    Nunes' (none / 0) (#22)
    by FlJoe on Wed Dec 04, 2019 at 10:38:15 AM EST
    cow and Turley's dog. What's next Gaetz's gator or Gohmert's goat?

    He (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 04, 2019 at 10:43:29 AM EST
    would have some kind of "doodle"

    Gonna go out on a limb (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 04, 2019 at 10:49:08 AM EST
    and predict the republicans are not going to have many questions for the three not Turley scholars

    But I really want to see Gomert or Sensenbrenner question Pamela.

    I really do.


    Why is Jonathan Turley even on that panel? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 04, 2019 at 12:52:25 PM EST
    It's like if the House Committee on Health and Human Services convened a panel of experts to discuss the state of mental health services in the country, and then invited Dr. Phil and Dr. Laura.

    My impression (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Dec 04, 2019 at 06:07:23 PM EST
    Dem witnesses: "The founding Fathers said..."

    Turley: "I have a great dog. If my dog could talk, here is what he would say..."


    Turley is a tenured professor of (none / 0) (#29)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 04, 2019 at 01:44:45 PM EST
    constitutional law at a well-regarded law school. He may be wrong in this testimony, or biased, or unconvincing, but he is not unqualified.

    I never impugned Prof. Turley's credentials. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 04, 2019 at 01:56:18 PM EST
    I'm saying that essentially, for purposes of this hearing, he is playing the role of a pop culture attorney, much as he does on cable TV news programs. I've read the Federalist Papers myself, and I'm well aware what the Founders argued in those documents. Turley cherry-picked from them today to fit his own preferred narrative. Further, when discussing specific matters of fact with regards to this Ukraine inquiry, he has deliberately chosen to view them obtusely in order to again align them with his narrative.

    Gotta say (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 04, 2019 at 04:05:31 PM EST
    I have not watched every minute but my impression is this has gone way better than I expected.

    Nadler has done a decent job of Ring Master.

    It's hard to imagine even Trump supporters are not sick to death of Turleys smug smarmy whine.

    The three others have been impressive.

    Yes, Nadler (none / 0) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 04, 2019 at 08:49:59 PM EST
    did a good job.  And, Turley "impeached" himself on the basis of inconsistencies/inaccuracies and application not of the Constitution as it exists, but rather, on how he would like it to be.

    The Democratic members effectively coordinated their questions.  The Republican members were reduced by the facts to carping about  process.   When Gym Jordan ventured beyond motor-mouthing set to high volume, he missed the mark on the primary victim of Trump's impeachable offense--not Zelensky, but us, the American people, as quickly pointed out by Professor Feldman.   The Republican who wins the gravitas question is the Congressman who focused on why the hearing was not being held in their usual room, since the one being used is assigned to the Ways and Means Committee.


    In the meanwhile... (none / 0) (#32)
    by desertswine on Wed Dec 04, 2019 at 05:06:42 PM EST
    Rudy Giuliani is back in Eastern Europe dining at the American Embassy in Budapest and stirring up the Ukrainian cesspool to undermine the Democrats case against trump for right-wing TV.

    Giuliani Travels to Europe

    Very very dirty stuff.

    Same day (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 04, 2019 at 05:23:44 PM EST
    Political Wire

    Trump Now Sees Giuliani as a Liability

    December 4, 2019 at 2:59 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 214 Comments

    Gabriel Sherman: "Trump is coming around to his advisers' view that Giuliani is a liability, three Republicans close to the White House told me. The relationship has grown so strained that Trump has even directed Giuliani not to appear on Fox News, a Republican briefed on the conversations said.

    Maybe he is not planning the return


    Maybe he (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 04, 2019 at 08:38:21 PM EST
    can check out how running to Vlad works out and let Trump know.

    Nancy just said (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 05, 2019 at 07:52:41 AM EST
    It's on.  It's official.  We are impeaching the piece of shi+

    Not in those exact words.

    And, it appears (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 05, 2019 at 10:53:40 AM EST
    that it will move quickly.  The crimes against the Constitution will focus on the Ukraine shakedown and the cover-up by obstruction of Congress and obstruction of justice.

    The Mueller Report's findings of Russian linkages with the Trump Campaign and the obstruction into its investigation can be added, not as a separate Article, but to buttress Articles by demonstrating a pattern of crime and abuses of power.

    I believe this to be the best strategy; the evidence, to date, is abundantly clear. Of course, since we are dealing with Trump, there is very likely much more evidence that could be made available with additional inquiries and testimony of key figures, such as Bolton and McGhan. However, the danger to the democracy and Trump's unrelenting quest to cheat on the 2020 election dictates moving ahead now.

     It is shameful and a dereliction of Constitutional duty that the Republicans in the Senate will not vote to remove Trump.  But, as the legal scholars (other than the Republican pick) testified, to ignore is not an option if we want to maintain our Constitutional form of government.



    Holy hell (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 05, 2019 at 10:54:47 AM EST
    Profile picture for Donald J. Trump
    Donald J. Trump
    Nancy Pelosi just had a nervous fit.

    More please

    Thank you


    I would expect (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 05, 2019 at 10:58:10 AM EST
    There will at least be considered the (I think) 4 of the 10 instances of obstruction that according to Mueller met all requirements to be considered obstruction.

    Emoluments would not surprise me.

    All the articles out of the committee do not have to be passed by the house.  See Clinton.


    She is doing (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 05, 2019 at 07:54:37 AM EST
    A CNN town hall tonight.

    She just (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 05, 2019 at 09:59:39 AM EST
    Kickedass and took names.  It was great.

    Video soon.

    Nancy Pelosi: "Don't mess with me"
    As Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was walking away from the microphone at her weekly press conference, a reporter asked her: "Do you hate the President, Mrs. Speaker?"

    Pelosi stopped and said: "I don't hate anybody."

    She then walked back to the microphone, and said that while she believes Trump is a "coward," that's only about his political positions.

    "I think this president is a coward when it comes to helping our kids who are afraid of gun violence. I think that he is cruel when he doesn't deal with helping our Dreamers, of which we are very proud of. I think he is in denial about the climate crisis. However that's about the election," she said.
    She continued: "This is about the Constitution of the United States and the facts that lead to the President's violation of his oath of office. And as a Catholic, I resent your using the word 'hate' in a sentence that addresses me. I don't hate anyone."

    "So don't mess with me when it comes to words like that," she said before walking off the podium.

    Alt universe of my choice (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 05, 2019 at 11:40:14 AM EST
    Nancy runs in 20 as an incumbent

    Pelosi/Booker? (none / 0) (#44)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 05, 2019 at 12:01:58 PM EST
    Pete (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 05, 2019 at 12:03:45 PM EST
    Talk aboiut balance (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 05, 2019 at 12:06:06 PM EST
    Young/Old; Man/Woman; Gay/Straight; West Coast/Midwest.

    And she had her doubters (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 05, 2019 at 12:08:55 PM EST
    among Dems who wanted newer, younger for Speaker.

    She is Exhibit A why experience matters.  Pretty tough....good leader.


    The guy asking the question (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 05, 2019 at 12:03:23 PM EST
    was a Fox News/Sinclair Broadcasting person ....Who else would carry water for the alt right?