https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage Same story, but from the Times. This tidbit is interesting: I find this interesting because the recent federal ruling in favor of the Democrats (legitimizing the inquiry) is another sign that they'd likely win more appeals against the White House, compelling testimony from those who have been subpoenaed - but it would take months. The threat of using "the lack of cooperation to bolster their case that President Trump has obstructed Congress’s investigation" is toothless. We already have like 10 counts of obstruction from the Russia report alone, none of the republicans nor the president care. In the end, once the House impeaches, it will just be more numbers on the docket of charges against the president. But on the other hand, we've had bombshell after bombshell, week after week, even with the WH obstructing. (This week alone was Sonderland, Mulvaney, Taylor(!!!), then Sonderlands' lawyers.) The media drip on this has been constant headlines for over a month and shows no sign of stopping. Holding a House vote and public hearings will only intensify this. Headlines for weeks, months. My take is that dem leadership is choosing the media war (keeping Trumps' crimes in the headlines every day for months) over a win in the courts compelling testimony which would result in a lull in headlines (and maybe the WH still wouldn't cooperate even if the courts ruled against them?) I also think Pelosi & Schiff are confident that they have future testimony lined up that they feel will keep producing headlines. (Bolton would be huge.)
witch hunt coup takedown unconstitutional overturning an election repeat repeat repeat Keep it short and simple.
The strategy is to avoid lengthy court fights which could slow down the process. The Democrats have a timetable and as noted they already have a lot of material and even if they can't compel everyone they would like to testify are pretty confident there are still enough out there who will.
Libertarian judge, once considered by trump for the USSC and fox news commentator... Judge Andrew Napolitano: Proof of Trump’s impeachable offenses plain to see https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-hiding-plain-sight
Always amazes me the extent that republicans will lie to defend trump... or, are they just ignorant to the law?
Fox is propaganda it is **** TV....anyone who watches that and expects to learn any truth is a moron. DD
No surprise... trump is used to buying people off, and republican congressmen are used to taking bribes... Trump lures GOP senators on impeachment with cold cash The president is tapping his vast donor network to buck up lawmakers whose support he badly needs — but who also need him. https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2...nators-donor-062084?__twitter_impression=true
Did all of the "open the process" Republicans vote for Pelosi's "open the process" bill? Just curious.
Well, I think the Republicans also want to have this fight in the media. That's the strategy with complaining about process and forcing democrats to make the inquiry official. If they elevate the public exposure, they can make the fight partisan and force voters to think this is a fight about their own identities and not about the facts. If they can make Republicans feel like their own political voice is under threat they can force those voters to support Republican Senators in re-election after they ultimately acquit a criminal despite overwhelming evidence.
The audacity of ivanka to try to compare her father and situation to Thomas Jefferson. A more apt comparison, did Tricia Nixon receive any letters from her dad?
Honestly makes sense if you felt (or at least allege) the open process rules just make a sham open process. It's better to have a closed process than to lend your credibility to a veneer of legitimacy. That said, we could have all predicted how everyone would vote before the resolution was even written. And the "debate" the news outlets pre-empted their regular coverage for were just a bunch of crisis actors (D and R) putting on a show for us and not for the people actually voting in that body. What strikes me as ironic is that Trump wants to say he is treated more unfairly than any president ever and that this witch hunt is an unprecedented attack -- but these attacks go back to the founding of the Republic.
actually the claim in this tweet is not 100% completely accurate, as Ann Althouse observes: October 31, 2019 "The vote is on a resolution that would set rules for the public phase of an impeachment inquiry that has so far been conducted exclusively behind closed doors." The NYT reports. This is not the vote the Republicans have been demanding — that is not "a formal vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry," which is what happened in the cases of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon. So the Democrats are doing some theater of voting out in the open today, but it's not the vote that accords with historical practice. It's not the vote the Republicans have been talking about. It's a vote about what the rules will be. Of course, the House gets to make its own rules — that's in the Constitution — and the majority will win and get what rules they want and can get away with claiming for themselves. Apparently, the idea is to give the President's supporters nothing until the Intelligence Committee has finished its work. The Democrats apparently want the Intelligence Committee to produce a one-sided report, with any balance on the side of the President to come only after the matter is referred to the Judiciary Committee. So the Democrats will be out in the open today, explaining to us Americans why that is fair and why that is about getting to the truth? How will that work out? Here's how the NYT puts it: Or they've heard enough criticism about their partisan, secretive ways and they're yielding to pressure to legitimatize themselves. The NYT's use of the phrase "a vote on the issue" hides the just-admitted reality that it's not a vote on the issue the Republicans demanded — the issue of whether to authorize the impeachment inquiry. It's a vote on procedural rules for continuing the inquiry. The difference in issues is obvious if you think of the consequences of a "no" vote. What would happen if there's a "no" vote on these rules? Things would continue as they've been going, right? But it doesn't call the bluff because it's not a vote on authorizing the inquiry. The Democrats are trying to get something while playing it safe. They're trying to get our opinion of their legitimacy. We'll see how that works out. ADDED: The NYT gives a lot away in saying "They believe it adds an air of legitimacy..." Democrats are only trying for an air of legitimacy, not actual legitimacy. And right now, they see themselves as lacking even an air of legitimacy. . . . Posted by Ann Althouse at 6:39 AM
