This is probably going to be a net negative, though the magnitude may not be too great. But politically, the Democrats would like this to end either towards the beginning of the primary season or after it is completed. Earlier might be better.
Member of the House Democratic leadership:
Worth noting that I don’t think anything happens before Thursday at the earliest. I could be wrong on that and they won’t wait, but Thursday is the deadline for turning over tape/verbatim transcripts of the phone call to the House.
Also, at least one House Democrat is a firm “No” on impeachment.
She’s still looking to be DJT’s VP selection in 2020, I see.
Tulsi, Damascus is on the phone, they are trying to pass you a message from our “mutual friend”
Timex
4142
So, Trump again admitted to doing what the GOP is saying, “If he did this, it’s definitely wrong!”
I’m sure they will hold him accountable.
Skipper
4143
Just want to point out, no Rep Tom Davis. It is if he even ATTEMPTED it, not if it carried through.
rowe33
4144
Can’t wait to see all the pathetic excuses that the various GOP toadies will throw up as a defense.
antlers
4145
I think this is exactly what the House should do. I mean, there’s some things that they should leave off. But they certainly should include Ukraine bribery and the obstruction of justice pertaining thereto, at least some of the Mueller obstruction of justice, obstruction of justice related to Trump’s tax returns lawfully requested by the House committee, unlawful re-appropriation of money for the wall, abuse of emergency powers to impose “security” tariffs on our closest allies and profiteering from the Secret Service and Defense Departments.
Try to schedule things so the House impeaches in the spring, and the trial in the Senate happens in the summer before the conventions.
He’s not going to be removed from office before the election, so control the process so that the media is forced to cover it in a way that inflicts maximum political damage on him and all his supporters.
In my opinion, that would be an unmitigated disaster. Right now the infractions are fairly straightforward: the military aid to the Ukraine, and the (so far) failure to turn over requested tape/transcript of that call.
Easy.
The political success of this particular tilt at windmills is going to rest on public opinion. By all evidence, the public is exhausted by everything that was in the Mueller Report and part of his investigation. They just want to move on from all of it, and Trump and his minions have a ready-made defense of it all that they can wave it away with.
Give voters something easy and simple to digest and it’s easier to package and sell them to gain public support.
Menzo
4148
“Trump bribed the President of the Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden” is certainly a much more digestable soundbite than the whole Mueller business.
I do love the unbelievable hypocrisy of Trump, Guiliani, and the rest of his posse suggesting that Biden’s son had conflicts of interest while doing business in the Ukraine while Biden was VP, meanwhile, Trump’s kids are galavanting around the world blatantly trading on their father’s name.
It’s the whole “what if the other side did this” brought to life right in front of us. We don’t even need to dig into the archives to find the video, it’s happening right now.
Just make it Ukraine. Leave Mueller out of it. Not that there’s “Double Jeopardy” in impeachment, but leave Mueller in the back pocket.
Holy crap, I’ve been on holiday for the last two weeks and only paying loose attention to financial news. Turns out the Overstock/Byrne story got even crazier.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-19/overstock-has-had-a-wild-week
Except it’s not about Russia. The Mueller report concluded Trump didn’t collude. He stuck his toe in the water, but didn’t dive in.
But the Mueller report did document many instances of Trump obstructing justice. For which he should be impeached.
Matt_W
4153
No it didn’t. That you type this is a triumph of Barr’s framing of the report. The special prosecutor declined to pursue charges in the several statutes that relate to campaign coordination with foreign government for a variety of reasons, often simply because he did not think that the government could produce the type and preponderance of evidence required under the relevant laws. (“Collusion” is not a legal term, as Mueller pointed out repeatedly in the report.)
Example:
The Office considered whether to charge Trump Campaign officials with crimes in connection with the June 9 meeting described in Volume I, Section IV.A.5, supra. The Office concluded that, in light of the government’s substantial burden of proof on issues of intent (“knowing” and “willful”), and the difficulty of establishing the value of the offered information, criminal charges would not meet the Justice Manual standard that “the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.” Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
. . .
On the facts here, the government would unlikely be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the June 9 meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful. The investigation has not developed evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban or the application of federal law to the relevant factual context. The government does not have strong evidence of surreptitious behavior or efforts at concealment at the time of the June 9 meeting. While the government has evidence of later efforts to prevent disclosure of the nature of the June 9 meeting that could circumstantially provide support for a showing of scienter, see Volume II, Section II.G, infra, that concealment occurred more than a year later, involved individuals who did not attend the June 9 meeting, and may reflect an intention to avoid political consequences rather than any prior knowledge of illegality. Additionally, in light of the unresolved legal questions about whether giving “documents and information” of the sort offered here constitutes a campaign contribution, Trump Jr. could mount a factual defense that he did not believe his response to the offer and the June 9 meeting itself violated the law. Given his less direct involvement in arranging the June 9 meeting, Kushner could likely mount a similar defense. And, while Manafort is experienced with political campaigns, the Office has not developed evidence showing that he had relevant knowledge of these legal issues.
…and to make the obstruction stick, you have to go through all the Mueller investigation ins and outs to spell out what was done. And with each one of those, you create ways for the President and his handlers to further obfuscate and muddy the waters with their nonsense.
And for a proicess that will rely heavily on public opinion to determine whether this is politically disastrous or not for the Democrats, it probably should be a non starter.
