Donald Trump Impeached for Abuse of Power and Obstruction

Update: 6:43 MT: Donald Trump has now been impeached on both counts: Abuse of Power and Obsturction of Justice.

People are dancing in the streets tonight. With 398 days left in his term, Donald Trump has been impeached on one count of Abuse of Power and a second count of Obstruction of Congress.

Regardless of what the Senate does, Donald Trump's legacy will be forever stained.[More...]

Donald Trump should be glad he isn't in a federal criminal court. If he had been convicted and approached sentencing with this attitude which he expressed on his Twitter account today, the judge would max him out.

Can you believe that I will be impeached today by the Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats, AND I DID NOTHING WRONG!

This is not a sad day for the country. It is a victory for the people, especially the 52% who didn't vote for him.

< Manifort NY Case Dismissed, Rick Gates Sentenced to 45 Days in Jail | Donald Trump's Reaction to his Impeachment: "I Fired His As*" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    To be fair, the analogy is not to someone (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 18, 2019 at 08:12:30 PM EST
    who has just been convicted. In terms of process, Tr*mp has now been (the equivalent of) indicted on two counts. Until and unless convicted after a fair trial in the Senate (America should be so lucky) he is not like a defendant facing being sentenced.

    I was referring to (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Dec 18, 2019 at 09:04:41 PM EST
    attitude. I thought I said he's lucky not to be a defendant. I was making the point that when defendants face the sentencing judge, the judge wants to see remorse not denial. Trump has now been "bound over" for trial in the Senate. The analogy is if he were being tried in a court for his offenses rather than Congress, his attitude and denial would get him a long sentence.

    We are in uncharted territory. (none / 0) (#5)
    by ragebot on Thu Dec 19, 2019 at 10:09:46 AM EST
    Just watched Pelosi's presser.  She was evasive at best when questioned about the timing of sending what the House passed to the Senate.

    I am not sure there is a good analogy to things like a grand jury proceeding and a DA charging a defendant.  As long as Pelosi keeps stalling (in the presser she seemed to be fine with not sending anything to the Senate for an undetermined amount of time) it is not clear to me what Trump's status is.

    To confuse things even more McConnell seems more than happy to run out the clock.  In fact in his floor speech he as much as said the Senate will do nothing until the House sends the articles of impeachment to him.  Pelosi's position seems to be that she will not send the articles of impeachment  till she knows what the Senate will do.

    Back in the day this was sometimes called a Mexican standoff; neither side thinks it is an advantage to do anything so they do nothing.

    As has been endlessly noted the Constitution is vague about how impeachment proceeds.  But it does seem clear to me that as long as Pelosi sits on the articles of impeachment the Senate has no obligation to do anything; and since McConnell seems happy to do nothing I am not sure what happens next.

    If articles of impeachment are never sent to the Senate has Trump really been impeached de jure?  Truth be told that question is really above my pay grade; and I suspect above the pay grade of lots of con law experts.  But more to the point what happens if the articles of impeachment are never sent to the Senate?


    I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Dec 19, 2019 at 11:23:54 AM EST
    ...that Pelosi is doing a masterful job of keeping the GOP off balance. She plays the "long game" while the GOP just wants today's headline.

    The media love "Democrats in disarray" articles, and they can't seem to come to terms with the chaos and insanity that now grips the GOP. A month ago Trump welcomed impeachment because he said it would re-elect him, and besides, Pelosi would never have the votes. So much for that strategy!

    It was only a few months ago when she was derided as not knowing what she was doing. She responded by winning every time.


    Masterful (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 19, 2019 at 01:10:47 PM EST
    She just seems to be a few steps ahead.  Every time.

    ... senators will be required to swear the following oath:

    "I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God."

    Senate Majority Leader "Moscow Mitch" McConnell, whose Senate Leadership Fund PAC is already in receipt of $3.5 million in funds from Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska's friend Len Blavatnik, is already on record with this little gem:

    "Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can. We have no choice but to take [the impeachment trial] up, but we will be working through this process, hopefully in a fairly short period of time, in total coordination with the White House counsel's office and the people who are representing the president in the well of the Senate." (Emphasis is mine.)

    Finally, and for his part, Sen. Lindsey Graham -- whose own PAC, BTW, also received $800,000 from the aforementioned Mr. Blavatnik -- has already affirmed the following:

    "This thing will come to the Senate, and it will die quickly, and I will do everything I can to make it die quickly. I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I'm not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here." (Again, emphasis is mine.)

    Here's my take. First, I've considered the well-documented evidence already in the public domain regarding Donald Trump's betrayal of our country. Then, considering the public statements of Messrs. McConnell and Graham in the context of the fact that their PACs are in receipt of launder Russian campaign donations, I've concluded that Mr. Trump's house isn't the only one that reeks from the stench of Russian rubles here. Hence, the respective vows by McConnell and Graham to violate the oath they'll swear as jurors in Trump's Senate trial are perfectly understandable. Their own behavior won't survive similar scrutiny.

    By withholding the articles of impeachment, at least for now, Speaker Pelosi is precluding the ability of McConnell, Graham and their GOP Senate majority colleagues to exonerate Trump for the crimes he's committed against the country, and robs Trump of something he desperately wants.

    I understand completely the partisan nature of Congress. But there's a big difference between acting as a partisan and being overtly complicit in an ongoing act of betrayal of our country on behalf of a foreign power.

    So, yeah, I am going to go there. If Republicans had witnesses and evidence that would exonerate Trump of the charges, they'd have produced them by now. Quite the contrary, the available evidence instead strongly suggests that Trump, McConnell and Graham are acting as craven agents of the Kremlin. And in that regard, they are likely guilty of an act of treason in spirit, if not in the letter of the actual law.

    So, may God have mercy on their self-serving and double-dealing souls. Because if I have my way, I most certainly won't.



    Finally, an objective and scientific test (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Peter G on Thu Dec 19, 2019 at 03:07:21 PM EST
    of whether there the Christian God actually exists. Having credibly and in all seriousness assured us that they will swear falsely, "so help me God," to act impartially, if McConnell and Graham are not stricken dead by lightning on the floor of the Senate when their hands touch the Bible, I guess that will settle the matter once and for all.

    That's much too flashy and ostentatious. But He does like to do karma.



    To Understand Pelosi's Strategy (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by RickyJim on Thu Dec 19, 2019 at 07:34:32 PM EST
    you have to figure out what is the best course in order for the Democrats to take the Senate and White House in next year's election (and of course keep the House).  I think that they want a continual stream of news about Trump's sins and the Republican acquiescence of them up to election day.  That is why they never pressed to get Trump's financial records by asking for an expedited Supreme Court review.  Slow balling Senate trial on the current impeachment resolution seems to also fit in with this strategy.

    That's not a good analogy. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 19, 2019 at 07:53:03 PM EST
    RickyJim: "That is why [House Democrats] never pressed to get Trump's financial records by asking for an expedited Supreme Court review."

    The U.S. Supreme Court announced last Friday that the justices will hear oral arguments on the matter of Trump's financial records in March, and will rule in June. And for SCOTUS, that's pretty fast.



    No, Donald, RickyJim is right on this one (none / 0) (#26)
    by Peter G on Thu Dec 19, 2019 at 08:24:36 PM EST
    The Supreme Court has the tax return cases on its normal time schedule. Every case accepted between August and January each year is decided by the end of June. That's the standard track.

    When was the last time SCOTUS fast-tracked? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Dec 20, 2019 at 12:43:45 PM EST
    If I remember correctly, it was 19 years ago in December 2000 with Bush v. Gore. And even then, that was likely because the fix was already in with the majority.

    They knew what they were going to do -- and I daresay so did many of of us, as well -- the moment Justice Scalia overruled the Florida Supreme Court's order in Tallahassee and placed an immediate hold on the resumption of that state's vote count.

    (It also wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, were we to one day learn that Scalia, et al., had already prepared a rough draft of their majority opinion to facilitate a quick turnaround.)

    And that's actually my point, which I quite obviously failed to state clearly. The current conservative SCOTUS majority isn't going to fast-track anything on behalf of congressional Democrats.

    Further, the federal judiciary in general isn't exactly known for its quick tempo in rendering momentous decisions, a factor which the Trump White House and the GOP no doubt counted on in order to effectively run out the clock during the run-up to the 2020 election.

    That's why Speaker Pelosi and Chairs Schiff and Nadler made the collective decision to forgo any further litigation for now, and instead mark up and file the articles of impeachment this week.



    Timeline on Nixon Tapes Case From 1974 (none / 0) (#34)
    by RickyJim on Sat Dec 21, 2019 at 10:27:01 AM EST
    From Wikipedia:
    April - Special Prosecutor Jaworski Gets subpoena for tapes.
    May 31 - Judge Sirica's deadline for turning tapes over.
    July 8 - After appeal directly to Supreme Court of Sirica's ruling, Supreme Court hears oral arguments.
    July 24 - Scotus give unanimous decision that Nixon must turn over the tapes.
    Aug 9 - Nixon resigns.

    Note that Congress and impeachment were not involved.  I am sure there there are more recent instances of accelerated consideration but this is the closest to the current situation.  The Supreme Court taking up Bush vs. Gore was even faster.


    Linda Greenhouse on What the Scotus Might Do (none / 0) (#35)
    by RickyJim on Sun Dec 22, 2019 at 10:13:02 AM EST

    In the readers' comments section, I saw a prediction that at least Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan will vote to uphold the subpoenas and nobody should be surprised if it turns out to be unanimous.  Trump's case is really weak since they have nothing to do with his presidential duties.


    Not above Laurence Tribes pay grade (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 19, 2019 at 11:21:48 AM EST
    He has been talking about it for six months

    Impeach Trump. But don't necessarily try him in the Senate.


    Which does not answer my question (none / 0) (#8)
    by ragebot on Thu Dec 19, 2019 at 11:49:04 AM EST
    I had read that article months ago.

    Problem is it gets us nowhere fast.

    There was already speculation that the Senate/McConnell would slow walk any effort to try Trump; or simply table it if they had 51 votes.

    What happens if Pelosi never allows a bill with the articles of impeachment to get a vote in the House, or even if she does she never sends it to the Senate.

    While Tribe pointed out it could be done his speculation in the article was that the House hearings would be an advantage and get thing out to the public.  Every poll I have seen has shown no movement and lots of talking heads are saying positions have hardened and absent earthshaking revelations the polls are not likely to change.

    So in addition to my question about what happens if the House does not send the articles of impeachment to the Senate I have a second question.

    How long can the House delay; I was under the impression that one House could not bind another House; but I have seen talking heads disagree on this.  One said if Trump was reelected the House (assuming the dems retain control) could sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate then.

    It almost seems like a question on a law school exam.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 19, 2019 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    In my unprofessional opinion what happens if she delays or even refuses to send the articles to the senate for a whitewash and continued coverup would be he is impeached and the republicans are unable to cover it up or "clear" him of the charges.

    There are very few details about how this is done.  It's says they get sent to the senate it does not say when, how soon, or under what conditions.

    It seems rather obvious the idea is to force them to have an actual trial.  With witnesses.  Which many republicans and Trump himself have said they want.  Mitch clearly does not want that.

    I think stringing this out for as long as possible and giving Trump a little push over the edge he is so near is a great idea.

    Give us a few more Dingle/McCain moments.  


    Also (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 19, 2019 at 01:09:20 PM EST
    It strikes me as a pretty good insurance policy against further offenses.  Which we know are coming.

    For whatever predictions are worth ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 19, 2019 at 01:30:05 PM EST
    I think there will be witnesses.  

    "Hanging" (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 19, 2019 at 01:35:19 PM EST
    Editorial Board (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 19, 2019 at 03:11:44 PM EST
    For Supporters, Impeachment Dispels Donald Trump's Image of Invincibility
    The Democrats cut him, and now he's bleeding

    The thing about authoritarian-minded Americans is that authority is the thing. Their authority. What Trump does and says--the substance of his conduct--doesn't matter. He looks strong. He acts strong. He campaigned on that perception of strength. Trump punches down, sure. That's cowardly, yes. That's beside the point. To the authoritarian mind, appearing strong is strength. And if Trump appears strong, they are strong. If he appears weak, they are weak. Such is the bond between cult followers and cult leaders.

    That's where the Senate comes in. Only acquittal will stop Trump's bleeding. Acquittal means the Congress was wrong. It means the president isn't weak. It means his supporter aren't weak.

    A mountain is about fall on top of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's head.

    I don't think he knows it yet. McConnell said this morning that Pelosi was playing games. She did not immediately send two articles of impeachment to the Senate. She said she wouldn't do that until she got assurances that the Senate would conduct a fair and constitutional trial. She said she won't remit when the foreman of the Senate jury (McConnell) has said he's already made up his mind. McConnell, for his part, said her refusal to remit is proof that the House impeachment process was "shoddy work."

    She has the leverage. He doesn't. I know it looks like the reverse. It looks like Pelosi is saving the Senate Republicans from taking the worst vote of their lives. It looks like Pelosi is playing "constitutional hardball" without any tangible objective. But McConnell will want to acquit more than she wants to remit. The mountain won't fall on her. The president's desire for exoneration to recast his invincibility spell before a chunk of supporters stop paying attention is only starting to mount. The longer Pelosi waits to send the articles, the more likely McConnell is to give in her to demands.

    That is probably (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 20, 2019 at 03:50:41 AM EST
    the best explanation of Trumpers and Trump I have read. It makes so much sense.

    At the conclusion of what's undoubtedly been a rather tumultuous year by any sense of measure, Speaker Nancy Pelosi sat down for an interview with Hether Caygle and Josh Bresnahan of Politico.

    On Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's suggestion she was "too afraid" to send him the articles of impeachment against President Trump:

    "Oh pfft! Fear is never a word used with me. You should know right away. I'm never afraid and I'm rarely surprised."

    On those House Republicans who, during this week's impeachment debate, compared President Trump's predicament to both the crucifixion of Jesus and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941:

    "I mean really? Get out of here. Some of them don't believe in the Constitution. They didn't act upon it, they acted completely against it. They believe in Donald Trump."

    Speaker Pelosi has established herself, particularly over the past twelve tumultuous months, as one of the most effective and formidable legislative leaders in the entire 230-year history of the United States Congress, certainly on par with Lyndon Johnson, the legendary "Master of the Senate."

    And from my perspective, if there's one photograph that sums up the year 2019 in Washington, it's this now-iconic image of the Speaker confronting President Trump at a White House meeting last October, capturing the moment when she told Trump, "All roads with you lead to Putin." Again, from Politico:

    "[A]t age 79 and in her 17th term in the House, Pelosi has never been better, according to interviews with nearly two dozen Democrats. Her command of legislation, her control over her caucus, her ability to confront a historically hostile president and GOP-run Senate on equal terms are unparalleled. She's the one person in Washington who can beat Trump at his own game, though she never wanted to play it."

    Should Democrats eventually persevere in this challenging era and blunt the clear and present threat that the Trump administration poses to our democratic institutions, it will be due in great part to Speaker Pelosi's exemplary leadership.


    Tulsi votes present (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 18, 2019 at 07:21:54 PM EST

    Of course she did (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 18, 2019 at 08:06:39 PM EST
    She was right to take offense at being called a Russian asset and "useful idiot".

    She's not remotely useful.


    That's my congresswoman. (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 19, 2019 at 01:07:52 PM EST
    Talking this morning to my friends and neighbors here in Hilo, I don't think Tulsi has a friggin' clue how acutely embarrassed many people around here are -- particularly those residents of Japanese ancestry -- at the public spectacle she's created of herself on a national stage. They are ashamed for her. She's pretty much foreclosed on any possibility of ever being taken seriously again in these parts.

    What a stupid thing to do. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 19, 2019 at 01:17:07 PM EST
    It seems worse politically than voting either way.  I mean if you don't have an opinion on this what do you have an opinion on?

    It suggests she could not vote yes because of her Russian handlers but she could not vote no because, voters.

    That said,  it would be a mistake to not "take her seriously"

    The last Russian candidate we did not take seriously didn't work out well for us.


    She has no political base, either here in Hawaii or anywhere else, so she's not going anywhere. Remember, Trump had enjoyed decades of celebrityhood before entering the 2016. Tulsi enjoys no such advantage, and she has no money to speak of. The only thing she has going for her is what she inherited from her homophobic crackpot father, Hawaii State Sen. Mike Gabbard -- an arrogant demeanor, delusions of grandeur, and an unhealthy contempt for other people's viewpoints and opinions.

    The only reason why Tulsi ever became a congresswoman in the first place is the fortuitous circumstance she had back in 2012, being the only other candidate running in that year's HI-2 Democratic congressional primary against the extraordinarily unpopular Honolulu Mayor Muliufi Hannemann, who she trounced by a nearly 20-pt. margin. But as it was made pretty clear in subsequent local polls conducted immediately following that contest (which was considered an upset), an overwhelming majority of HI-2 citizens voted for Tulsi in that race simply because she wasn't Hannemann.

    And now, that vaingloriously silly woman has frittered that goodwill away and worse, she's seen around here as being cut from the exact same cloth as the arrogant Mr. Hannemann, who likely couldn't get himself elected to a local PTA board right now. (He's also the subject of a current federal investigation into Honolulu's fiscally disastrous rail project, but that's another story for another day.)



    She will be sorely (none / 0) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 19, 2019 at 02:50:30 PM EST
    missed at tonight's Democratic debate. Right?  Tulsi joins Bennet, Bloomberg, Booker, Delaney. Patrick, Castro, and Williamson  in the did not qualify category.  

    I certainly won't ever miss her. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Dec 20, 2019 at 12:57:18 PM EST
    As far as I'm concerned, Tulsi Gabbard needed to go away yesterday, last week, last month and last year. So, she can't depart the public stage fast enough to suit me. And if we could also toss her gay-bashing father head-first into the orchestra pit, that would simply be icing on the cake.

    I can think of (none / 0) (#30)
    by Zorba on Fri Dec 20, 2019 at 01:48:46 PM EST
    Somewhere else that's worse than an orchestra pit to toss her gay-bashing father head first into.
    Lasciate Ogni Speranza, Voi Ch'entrate.
    And Tulsi can join him there, as far as I'm concerned.

    Dante say that I (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Peter G on Fri Dec 20, 2019 at 08:07:26 PM EST
    didn't warn ya.

    Angling for Fox News? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 20, 2019 at 04:21:50 PM EST
    Bottle of Clairol #10 and she'd fit right in.

    Stupid (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 19, 2019 at 02:22:45 PM EST
    Not sure why anyone would vote for her for president before and definitely question anyone's judgement who would donate and vote for her now.

    Her so called explanation for her vote was even dumber than the actual vote, if possible.


    The only reason (none / 0) (#19)
    by CST on Thu Dec 19, 2019 at 02:48:44 PM EST
    Anyone would vote for her in the Democratic primary is because there isn't a Republican primary this year to vote in.  IOW, trolls.  I expect her to do better in states with open primaries.