Hit enter after type your search item
Wzy Word




The big news of the day is that Democrats in the house of representatives have announced to articles of impeachment against president Donald Trump It's happening

This is still merely the beginning, even though it feels like we are, uh, very far into it, including, I mean, we are dozens and dozens of hours into livestreams of all sorts of different hearings, but still, we are only now sort of getting to the real meat of it this morning, a Nancy Pelosi with an initial statement followed by a Jerry Nadler, chairman of the house judiciary committee announcing articles of impeachment followed by Adam Schiff, chair of the house intelligence committee detailing the evidence for each of those two And this is going to be a big battle and it's going to be a political battle Importantly, as much as, as it is going to be a battle around the evidence Two articles of impeachment charging Donald Trump The first article is for abusive power

The president, uh, Democrats say exercising powers of public office to obtain improper personal benefit while ignoring or injuring the national interest What does that mean in practice? Well, this is what they say Donald Trump did when he solicited and pressured Ukraine to influence our election And thus it is impeachable because it violates his oath Say Democrats, this will be now adjudicated in a Senate trial assuming the house votes to go forward consistent with previous, uh, invites that Donald Trump made in 2016 It was noted noted by Jerry Nadler, although that is not actually what Donald Trump is being impeached for

And that is going to be a question Mark, which is when, uh, um, uh, the impeachment hearings started, there were assertions that they should have included the emoluments clause They should have included Trump's dealings with the Yemen fiasco that they should have included Um, some of the obstruction that the Mueller report indicated Donald Trump participated in, but they don't And that is going to be part of Democrats, Republicans, defense We will get to that a little bit later

Now, article two is obstruction of Congress And that actually relates to Donald Trump's reaction When Congress started investigating article one when the impeachment inquiry was started, Donald Trump Democrats say engaged in defiance of the inquiry, which leads to another impeachment article obstruction of Congress Democrats said today that Donald Trump by his, when the inquiry was announced, declared himself above accountability that the American people were subjugated by Donald Trump Uh, his behavior that Donald Trump declared himself above the impeachment power of Congress, which is a constitutionally enshrined power

And that is count number two Now, Adam Schiff explained what the evidence is and one of the things I like about how Adam Schiff is approaching this is that he made it about the evidence tells us we must impeach ignoring the political sitter considerations Now, there are political considerations and I'm going to talk to them, but I have said from the beginning that calculating whether the impeachment process is likely to succeed or not, or how it is likely to affect the democratic primary Those are perfectly reasonable things to discuss But when we are talking about something as serious and infrequently used as not the power of impeachment, but the duty of impeachment when the facts warranted, there should not be political considerations and we're going to get to that now

Adam Schiff continued to lay out the evidence that they have during this morning's announcement, pointing out that Donald Trump's solicited Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into a political opponent or, or a a, an expected political opponent, Joe Biden, in order to help his own campaign This is an abuse of the power of the office of the presidency and that two specific official acts were conditioned upon at least the announcement of those investigations Number one, the release of military aid to Ukraine and number two, a white house meeting for the Ukrainian president Adam Schiff said, this jeopardizes the integrity of the 2020 election It jeopardizes the integrity and sovereignty of the United States to run its own elections free from this type of foreign meddling and Adam Schiff claims to have overwhelming evidence of all of this and then laying out the evidence for count number two, obstruction of Congress that once the news of the impeachment inquiry or potential impeachment inquiry went public, uh, that Donald Trump obstructed Congress shifts as he has all of the evidence Now, one of the critiques all along this entire thing, this entire inquiry, and now the articles should include Donald Trump's emoluments violations, emoluments clause violations

I believe that that is absolutely correct and it is too late for that now and the attempt to add anything in now, whether it's about 2016 interference other than merely providing context or a monuments or whatever else would be no question seized done by Republicans to try to discredit the entire thing saying, look, it was about this, and you said it was about this initially and now you're pulling in these other issues I think it would be a strategically a mistake, although politically there may be some benefit to it Donald Trump immediately starting to tweet, including about the U S MCA, this trade deal that he's been talking about for awhile Also upon learning that Democrats would be announcing this today just before the hearing started, Donald Trump tweeting to impeach a president who has proven through results, including producing perhaps the strongest economy in our country's history, to have one of the most successful presidencies ever and more importantly who has done nothing wrong is sheer political madness Hashtag 2020 election

Now, what's important to understand about this is that Donald Trump has refrained, uh, has continued to use this refrain, uh, time and time again at rallies, during interviews, et cetera, which is how do you impeach a president who's doing just such a good job? And that is exactly the misunderstanding about impeachment that Donald Trump and many on the right seem to have impeachment is not about from the point of view of Democrats Can we, is this going to help us or hurt us in 2020, what's this going to do to Bernie and Warren if it pulls them off of the campaign trail to be at a Senate trial? It is not about that It is about what do the facts say given what impeachment is supposed to be for on the same, uh, along the same lines But on the other side is this idea from Trumpists and from Republicans that if the stock market is doing well, the president shouldn't be impeached That is not what this is about

That was never what impeachment was meant to be for Uh, and um, the, the, the continued either misunderstanding or disingenuous, deliberate misstatement about the parameters of impeachment is tricking a lot of trunk pistons A parroting that line The economy's doing really well How, how is it that you can impeach a president? Well, the two things have nothing to do with each other

So now what? Well, now the judiciary committee of the house is going to meet, they will examine the articles and they will make a recommendation to the house Eventually the house will vote Now, there was a report this morning that that vote would happen on December 12th That's just 48 hours from now Uh, I don't know if that still is the plan

Uh, Jerry Nadler didn't mention it during his speech Anyway, we will see Then we would move A importantly that requires only a 50% plus one of vote in the house to move forward We would then be moving forward to a Senate trial

There is speculation that that could be in January As of last week, the Senate's calendar for 2020 starts in February They left January blank presumably to account for the possibility of the impeachment trial and that could lead to a Senate impeachment trial of the president of the United States That wraps up just before the first 2020 democratic primary votes start being cast on February 3rd in Iowa in the Iowa caucus, and that's where we start getting into the political implications, but it's important to separate them We want to separate the political implications and possible repercussions of this impeachment from the duty to do this because the facts say that impeachment is proper shifted

This, he explained we won't get anywhere if we wait There were arguments, politically motivated arguments about maybe it's better to wait The timing could be better This that The other time Adam Schiff pointed out, the white house has been ignoring our requests

It took months just to get a court to say that Donald Trump's attorney, Don McGahn must testify It's still not clear that the guy is going to testify If he does, he is going to assert executive privilege and or invoke his fifth amendment right So that was well said by Schiff saying, let's wait, is saying let's let him maybe cheat again in an election or let's let them cheat one more time in an election and that that doesn't make any sense Adam Schiff rightly framing this as we're defending the constitution, period

That's what we have to do Impeachment has happened only three times before Andrew Johnson and bill Clinton, both of whom were acquitted in the trials In other words, with Andrew Johnson and bill Clinton, the house said via a majority vote simple majority Let's go forward There was a Senate trial and the Senate voted to acquit

You then had Richard Nixon, Richard Nixon resigned before the Senate trial Of course under the assumption, the overwhelming pressure that he was under, knowing that Republicans were going to turn on him in the Senate because Republican voters had turned on him and he resigned to avoid ultimately being convicted on impeachment So there has never been an impeachment conviction for a president in the history of the United States I don't expect there to be one this time and we're going to get into into that We're going to get to that in a second

The Senate trial, which would be held, would be presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme court, John Roberts And then you need two thirds of the Senate to vote to convict, to remove the president of the United States As of right now and in January, which will still be the same Senate That means you need 20 Republicans Where does that math come from? There are 45 Democrats in the Senate

There are two independence, uh, Bernie Sanders and Angus King who caucus with the Democrats and would be expected, or at least for our math, we should assume they vote to impeach That's 47 You need 67 meaning you need 20 Republicans Now, in the most optimistic case Senator from Connecticut, Chris Murphy said, as I told you yesterday, he knows of maybe a handful of Republicans that would consider it, consider voting to convict Donald Trump Even if he's right and you get five even if he gets twice as many and he gets 10 you're still short by 10 so I don't see this as getting Trump out via a conviction, but it does appear to be the correct thing to do simply because it's what the evidence says needs to happen, not necessarily what's most politically advantageous

Now that being said, let's get to the political implications It could be good for Democrats, it could be bad for Democrats A Trump acquittal in the Senate could completely reinvigorate Trump and his followers who say he has been vindicated after the Russia probe and the impeachment hoax as they are calling them And there may even be some 2016 Trump voters who still on paper support Trump, but they're kind of disillusioned and maybe they were planning on staying home It could really reinvigorate the pro Trump electorate

And it could rocket Donald Trump to reelection in 2020 that's one possibility The other way it could go is the Senate trial is devastating to Donald Trump A couple of Republicans do turn, but not enough to convict Donald Trump, and it feels as though this guy has again, escape the consequences and a sense of justice makes people invigorated to go out and vote for somebody else That could also happen I'm not feeling like it's hugely likely

The Republican response and strategy we already know is an effective one, which is attack The entire thing is a preplanned a farce Democrats decided back in 2017 they were going to do this There's no evidence The real story is Hunter Biden

They will say it was all hearsay, which of course is both untrue and misunderstands That hearsay is a type of evidence Remember, these are not criminal proceedings, so that is a red herring, but those have been effective strategies so far Last thing, political implications for Democrats There's an idea floating around that impeachment in total, like from the get go

Impeachment is an establishment democratic strategy to deny Bernie or Warren, their nominations, possible nominations as the democratic nominees The story being the Senate trial is going to pull Bernie and Warren off of the campaign trail at exactly the right time It'll tie them up and it will get Joe Biden more attention It'll leave Joe and Pete, Buddha, judge and other establishment candidates out there by themselves without Bernie or Warren I don't think that that would work

Number one, since Bernie and Warren being part of the trial would get them likely lots of free TV time that could help them Number two, the trial is likely to happen, uh, in the few weeks leading up to the first caucus in Iowa and then they will again be free to go and campaign as we approach super Tuesday and all of those other days So I just don't think if that is the strategy, I think it's a pretty poor strategy to deny Bernie and Warren the nomination a lot here, a lot going on Let me know your thoughts or leave a reply if you're watching on YouTube, of course, after liking this video Otherwise send me a tweet at Dee Pacman

Follow me on Twitter A lot of this stuff Gotcha happening there

Source: Youtube

This div height required for enabling the sticky sidebar