The Path To Impeachment And Removal (Or Resignation)

Lord Jim · Post by **Lord Jim** » Sat Sep 01, 2018 12:14 am

Here's some nice end of the week news for our beleaguered President:

Trouble for Trump: Disapproval at a high, 63% back Mueller, half favor impeachment

Disapproval of Donald Trump is at a new high, support for the Mueller investigation is broad and half of Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll favor Congress initiating impeachment proceedings against the president.

Sixty percent in the national survey disapprove of Trump’s performance in office, numerically the highest of his presidency, albeit by a single point; that includes 53 percent who disapprove strongly, more than half for the first time. Thirty-six percent approve, matching his low.

The results come a week after Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was convicted of fraud, and his former longtime personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to eight felonies, including illegal campaign finance actions that he said Trump directed.

Trump’s average approval rating since taking office is the lowest for any president in modern polling since the 1940s. One factor: Contrary to his “drain the swamp” rhetoric, 45 percent say corruption in Washington has increased under Trump, while just 13 percent say it’s declined.

Suspicions of the president relating to the Mueller investigation are substantial. Sixty-one percent say that if assertions by Cohen are true, Trump broke the law. Fifty-three percent also think Trump obstructed special counsel Robert Mueller’s work.

The national survey, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds that half the public supports Congress initiating impeachment proceedings against Trump, 49-46 percent; support rises to 57 percent among women. And support for the investigation running its course is broader: Americans overall back Mueller’s probe by 63-29 percent. [despite Don and Rudy's relentless smear campaign] Fifty-two percent support it strongly, a high level of strong sentiment.

Mueller prosecuted Manafort and referred the Cohen case to federal prosecutors in New York. Support for Mueller’s investigation peaks at 85 percent among Democrats, but also takes in 67 percent of independents and even a third of Republicans (32 percent). Forty-one percent of conservatives back Mueller, rising to more than seven in 10 moderates and liberals.

In Trump’s dispute with Attorney General Jeff Sessions for allowing the investigation to proceed, the public sides with Sessions, 62-23 percent. Sixty-four percent also oppose the idea of Trump firing Sessions; just 19 percent support it.

Further, while Trump has railed against the Manafort prosecution, Americans call it justified by an overwhelming 67-17 percent, including nearly half of Republicans. The public opposes Trump pardoning Manafort by essentially the same margin, 66-18 percent, with 53 percent strongly opposed. Even among Republicans, 45 percent oppose a Manafort pardon; 36 percent support it.

The damage to Trump on these ethics concerns overwhelms his better rating for handling the economy, an essentially even split, 45-47 percent. That demonstrates that a good economy only makes it possible for a president to be popular – it’s no guarantee.

More:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trouble ... d=57507081

Well, if Trump finds these results too depressing, he can always cheer himself up this weekend by turning on cable news and watching all the tributes to John McCain...

ex-khobar Andy · Post by **ex-khobar Andy** » Sun Sep 02, 2018 3:44 pm

Arthur Schlesinger, in The Atlantic November 1974, three months after Nixon resigned:

Corruption appears to visit the White House in fifty-year cycles. This suggests that exposure and retribution inoculate the presidency against its latent criminal impulses for about half a century. Around the year 2023 the American people will be well advised to go on the alert and start nailing down everything in sight.

Wrong by 5 years or 10%. Not bad.

Econoline · Post by **Econoline** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 12:53 am

RayThom · Post by **RayThom** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:28 am

Econoline wrote:

I'm fairly convinced that Woodward never said what is quoted in this meme.

Do you know what book or interview it's from?

BoSoxGal · Post by **BoSoxGal** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 4:46 am

hy·per·bo·le
hīˈpərbəlē/Submit
noun
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
synonyms: exaggeration, overstatement, magnification, embroidery, embellishment, excess, overkill, rhetoric; More

RayThom · Post by **RayThom** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:16 pm

BoSoxGal wrote:
hy·per·bo·le
hīˈpərbəlē/Submit
noun
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
synonyms: exaggeration, overstatement, magnification, embroidery, embellishment, excess, overkill, rhetoric; More

I was a stickler for attribution when I wrote college papers. I feel it should also apply to memes when quoted material is used.

Maybe it's just me.

MajGenl.Meade · Post by **MajGenl.Meade** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:18 pm

No, it isn't, Ray. But in this case, I think it's clear it is a joke and not meant to be a real quote, no?

Joe Guy · Post by **Joe Guy** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:50 pm

RayThom is being Meade-ish because he knows quotations should not have been used in that meme.

RayThom · Post by **RayThom** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:58 am

MajGenl.Meade wrote:No, it isn't, Ray. But in this case, I think it's clear it is a joke and not meant to be a real quote, no?

Nah, MGM, I'm a fucking hard head, nothing is clear to me. I feel quoted material needs to be accurate, and have attribution -- this meme has neither.

Tell me much slower so I have a chance of understanding what you are saying.

Econoline · Post by **Econoline** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 5:18 am

Just for you, Ray:

(1) Print out this image (below) onto a sheet of paper:

(2) Using an X-Acto knife or a razor blade, *CAREFULLY* trim off everything below the photo *EXCEPT* for the name (Bob Woodward) and date (1972). (NOTE: this should include the colon after 1972 and both the opening and closing quotation marks.)
(3) From the strip which you just trimmed off the bottom, trim off the colon and the quotation marks—again, using an X-Acto knife or a razor blade, and again, *CAREFULLY*—and discard them.

(4) Now, print out this image (below) of a cartoon thought-bubble onto another sheet of paper:

(5) Paste what's left of the strip you trimmed off the bottom of the image (i.e., *NOT* including the colon or the quotation marks) *INSIDE* the cartoon thought-bubble.
(6) Finally, paste the thought-bubble *ABOVE* Mr. Woodward's head on the original image.

See? It's a joke!

(You may now laugh, if you're so inclined.)

MajGenl.Meade · Post by **MajGenl.Meade** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 6:31 am

Econo did it real slow. Geddit?

RayThom · Post by **RayThom** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 4:57 pm

Econoline wrote:
Just for you, Ray:
(1) Print out this image (below) onto a sheet of paper:

(2) Using an X-Acto knife or a razor blade, *CAREFULLY* trim off everything below the photo *EXCEPT* for the name (Bob Woodward) and date (1972). (NOTE: this should include the colon after 1972 and both the opening and closing quotation marks.)
(3) From the strip which you just trimmed off the bottom, trim off the colon and the quotation marks—again, using an X-Acto knife or a razor blade, and again, *CAREFULLY*—and discard them.
(4) Now, print out this image (below) of a cartoon thought-bubble onto another sheet of paper:

(5) Paste what's left of the strip you trimmed off the bottom of the image (i.e., *NOT* including the colon or the quotation marks) *INSIDE* the cartoon thought-bubble.
(6) Finally, paste the thought-bubble *ABOVE* Mr. Woodward's head on the original image.
See? It's a joke!
(You may now laugh, if you're so inclined.)

Oh, fuck me... it was a joke. Thank you Eco, without your help I'd still be in the dark, eyes glazed over, scratching my head, and moaning "what the fuck?" Thank you ever so much.

"Yet is it far better to light the candle than to curse the darkness." Watkinson
(acurate, and acredited. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/03/19/candle/)

Econoline · Post by **Econoline** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:09 pm

You're quite welcome. Happy to help.

"Cursing the darkness gives you something to do while you're trying to find the damn matches." Me
(accurate, but unaccredited)

Lord Jim · Post by **Lord Jim** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:14 pm

" Light a candle, curse the glare"...

-- Jerome J. Garcia

Burning Petard · Post by **Burning Petard** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:54 pm

"Wear a MEGA hat and curse all the Democrats" me.

And bye the by, can anybody accurately identify the Senator my senility cannot recall? The day after the 'anonymous editorial' came out, I saw on one of the tv 'fake news' networks, a senator talking about the op-ed very briefly in a hallway who said words to the affect that anybody who has spent any time working with the people over in the White House knows it is true and any of them could have written it. I think it was Bob Corker of Tennessee, but that doesn't seem correct either.

Anybody else have a recollection of something similar?

snailgate

BoSoxGal · Post by **BoSoxGal** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:58 pm

Yes, it’s Bob Corker - who famously referred to the WH under Trump as a daycare facility.

Econoline · Post by **Econoline** » Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:23 pm

Guinevere wrote:This is not rocket science. Impeachment is after all, not a legal process but a political one.

Two requirements to have even a chance of success (and I’ve been repeating this for more than a year now):

1. Dems take the House.

2. Stock market falls, significantly, and stays down.

Otherwise, it’s nothing more than screaming into the wind.

3. Brett Kavanaugh is installed on the Supreme Court,

a. giving the Republican Congress an iron-clad partisan SC majority guaranteed to uphold any and every thing they have and will have passed between January 2017 and January 2019, and
b. giving Republicans (definitely including Donald Trump himself) an iron-clad partisan SC majority guaranteed *NOT* to hold any of them criminally responsible for anything.

The panicked urgency with which the Republicans are ramming through an unqualified SC nominee without proper vetting, with a razor-thin majority and no filibuster allowed, is evidence that they're ramping up for the downfall of the pResident.

Lord Jim · Post by **Lord Jim** » Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:04 am

Econoline wrote:
3. Brett Kavanaugh is installed on the Supreme Court,
a. giving the Republican Congress an iron-clad partisan SC majority guaranteed to uphold any and every thing they have and will have passed between January 2017 and January 2019, and
b. giving Republicans (definitely including Donald Trump himself) an iron-clad partisan SC majority guaranteed *NOT* to hold any of them criminally responsible for anything.
The panicked urgency with which the Republicans are ramming through an unqualified SC nominee without proper vetting, with a razor-thin majority and no filibuster allowed, is evidence that they're ramping up for the downfall of the pResident.

Gee, lots to uhh, unpack there... (To be honest, that reads a lot like some Jim Wrong puckey...)

a. giving the Republican Congress an iron-clad partisan SC majority guaranteed to uphold any and every thing they have and will have passed between January 2017 and January 2019, and
b. giving Republicans (definitely including Donald Trump himself) an iron-clad partisan SC majority guaranteed *NOT* to hold any of them criminally responsible for anything.

Well for starters, as I pointed out before, a conservative majority on the court is absolutely no guarantee of lockstep votes for Trump's best interests:

Lord Jim wrote:
it also doesn't take a legal genius to figure out the current bench of Supremes would easily rationalize around these precedents and tell Mueller to go pound sand.
I think you'd have a strong point if the previous decisions had been close votes, but they were unanimous, which means there was legal reasoning involved that appealed across the ideological spectrum...

The vote on Trump having to testify before a Grand Jury might not be unanimous, but I think it's a mistake to assume that every conservative jurist would vote against it...

John Roberts in particular strikes me as someone who would be very reluctant to vote to toss aside two unanimous precedents, (you may recall he was also the vote that saved the ACA) and Neil Gorsuch has only been on the court for a little over a year and has already voted against Trump's position in a major case...

an unqualified SC nominee

Gee, I've seen a whole lot of attacks hurled at Kavanaugh, but that's the first time I've seen anyone claim he was "unqualified" (Even shameless grand standers like Cory Booker and Kamala Harris haven't gone that far...)

We learned very little about the nominee that we did not know before. He gave the expected (and welcome) measured answers to questions he could ethically answer, and declined (as all nominees) do to opine on issues that might come before him as a justice.[A tradition begun by Ruth Bader Ginsburg] He showed remarkable calm in the face of almost unprecedented slander and abuse.

We know that he served for 12 years with distinction on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and is highly regarded by appellate lawyers across the political spectrum. He got the American Bar Association’s highest rating. On the first day of the hearings, he was introduced by Lisa Blatt, a former clerk of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and self-described liberal, feminist lawyer who has argued 35 cases before the Supreme Court — more than any other woman. She declares that Kavanaugh is unquestionably well-qualified, brilliant, has integrity and is within the mainstream of legal thought and that the Senate should confirm him. Donald Verrilli, President Barack Obama’s solicitor general, called Kavanaugh a distinguished jurist by any measure. Among nonpolitical lawyers and court observers, those assessments are typical.

On a court with a strong Democrat-appointed majority, he voted with the majority in about 97 percent of the cases. Harvard Law School regularly invites him to teach seminars on separation of powers, judicial process, and other issues, and students of every political stripe appreciate his candor, his depth of analysis, and his balance.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/ope ... 216631.php

a razor-thin majority

Not sure what the point is there...

Should the Senate only consider nominees when the party of the President nominating them has large majorities? It would seem to me that a "razor thin majority" would provide the minority party with the optimal chance of making the case that a nomination should be rejected.

The panicked urgency with which the Republicans are ramming through

Yeah, about that:

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, suggested on ABC’s “This Week” that it has historically taken the Senate more than 67 days to vote on a Supreme Court nominee.

Verdict: False

The Senate has, on average, taken 23 days to vote on all Supreme Court nominees. Current Supreme Court justices were confirmed by the Senate an average of 67 days after nomination.

Fact Check:

President Donald Trump said Saturday that he will announce a Supreme Court nominee on July 9. If confirmed, the nominee will replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, who will retire at the end of the month.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins said on “This Week” Sunday that a nomination in the coming weeks would provide the Senate with enough time to vote on a potential justice in time for the next court term.

“When I look at the average amount of time between a nominee being sent to us and when there is a vote on the nominee, it’s 67 days,” Collins said. “So we’ve just entered July, that would bring us into September, and that would allow a nominee to be confirmed before the Supreme Court reconvenes in early October.”

Later in the show, Klobuchar disputed Collins’ figure for average consideration time. “Every single senator should be able to meet with the nominee. And while Senator Collins used that figure, 65 days, I believe it’s longer when you look back through history at how long it has taken for a judge to actually have a vote on the floor,” she said.

Collins’ figure is correct for the current court. The Senate took an average of 67 days to confirm the nine current Supreme Court justices. It took 66 days to confirm Justice Neil Gorsuch, the most recent appointee. Justice Clarence Thomas took the Senate the longest amount of time to confirm at 99 days.

http://checkyourfact.com/2018/07/03/fac ... t-nominee/

no filibuster allowed

Of course how we got to "no filibuster allowed" for Supreme Court nominees has absolutely nothing to do with the Kavanaugh nomination...

That path began with Senator Slime (formerly D-Nevada) opening the door by eliminating the filibuster for appellate judges (Of course that was a Good Thing, because it was aimed at evil Republicans blocking angelic Democratic nominations, while extending the Reid Rule to Supreme Court nominations is a Bad Thing, because it prevents saintly Democrats from blocking demonic Republican nominations...) and was made inevitable by the positions taken by Chuck Schumer...

Lord Jim wrote:
Given his record, the argument that if the Democrats would try to block Gorsuch's nomination, they would block any Republican nomination, (unless they got to pick the nominee themselves, as Schumer suggested) is an entirely valid one, and it's the reason that not one single Republican, (despite a number of them having strong misgivings about it ) would vote to oppose the nuclear option over a nominee of this high quality.

(In fact Schumer himself strengthened this argument early on when he indicated he'd be perfectly happy to have the seat unfilled for the next four years...)

...I saw Schumer on Meet The Press yesterday...He sounded as out of touch with reality as the Kamikaze Caucus in the House...

His proposed "solution" if Gorsuch's nomination is successfully filibustered is essentially for the Senate GOP (rather than walk through the door that Senator Slime threw wide open) to come to him and let the Democrats pick the nominee...

Chuck must be licking toad...

But actually, because Schumer isn't really crazy, and he has to know that nothing remotely like that is ever going to happen, what's going on is that he's made the political calculation that it's more important to throw red meat to the Democratic base then it is to preserve the filibuster for possible use against a future nominee who is less impressive then Gorsuch, when he might be able to peel off a few Republican votes and actually block a nomination...

So if you've got a problem with the filibuster being unavailable for the Kavanaugh nomination, I suggest you take it up with Reid, Schumer, and the Democratic base...

But other than those few criticisms, your post made excellent points...

Econoline · Post by **Econoline** » Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:04 am

Kavanaugh is and always has been a partisan political creature of the relatively extreme right, beholden to the Republican party, the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, and the anti-abortion (possibly even anti-contraception) movement. Much of his record as Assistant to the President and White House Staff Secretary under Bush remains hidden and considering some of the controversial decisions made by that administration you have to think that the Republican party knows there is something to hide, and there are credible charges that he perjured himself during previous confirmation hearings.

And his work under Kenneth Starr, especially his willingness to expand the definition of perjury (for Bill Clinton, but not for himself) and the allowable scope of a special prosecutor independent counsel under a Democratic POTUS and then conveniently changing his mind under a Republican—not to mention leaking salacious details of that "investigation"—shows him to be a dishonest, hypocritical, hyperpartisan political hack.

Lord Jim wrote:
Econoline wrote: a razor-thin majority

Not sure what the point is there...

The point is that there has been no effort whatsoever by the Senate leadership toward bipartisanship, and (unlike, say, with the nomination of Merrick Garland) no effort whatsoever by the administration to find a "consensus" nominee who would have the support of at least some Democrats, no pretense of anything but raw partisanship and sheer political power.

Oh, and concerning the filibuster: I happen to think that, in the long run, it's better off gone...but the fact remains that the Democrats were not willing to extend the "nuclear option" all the way up to the SC, while McConnell and the Republicans were, and they're the ones who went ahead and did it.

ETA: I'd be delighted to be proven wrong, but I expect that there will be many instances of this new Supreme Court ruling on political questions related to the Trump administration and on Republican legislation, and there will be NO instances of those rulings going against the conservative Republican agenda, and if there is anything that goes against Trump personally, it will not go so far as to involve ANY real legal, financial, or criminal punishment.

Plan B Forum