Hot take: "Trump directed a witness to commit perjury" is a better impeachment case than "Trump committed perjury."

Agree with this. I mean, who hasn't lied to congress? But making your lawyer lie to Congress is a bit different. Makes you seem a bit out of touch. Hard to see that playing well in Kansas.

It's obstruction of justice. Like if you could make a picture out of Trump doing that it could go in the law dictionary next to Obstruction of Justice.

I mean, sure, but obstruction of justice is also intimidating witnesses via Twitter and firing the FBI director to squash an investigation. There's a lot more plausible deniability in those two than directing a witness to commit perjury.

I think this is right.

Also, I think this Buzzfeed thing is big!

Hahaha

Rudy also went directly to ad hominem ave without passing Go

Narrator: It didn't matter

William Barr's desk is gonna be pre-cluttered on his first day

If they impeach him in the House and the Senate does not convict, there's a fear that all it would do is rile up Trump's base and drive their turnout up in 2020 on the basis of, "The liberals are coming for our guy!!!!"

You could argue it would also drive turnout on the left/center, but that should be happening anyway. Thus, it's a pretty big loss for Dems if they impeach and the Senate Republicans throw up their hands and cry partisan foul and don't convict.

I'm confident they'd be investigating loudly if they weren't in the midst of a shutdown. One of the benefits for Trump is grinding that process down to a halt.

I was basically going to post the same thing... Senate Republicans would be like, "Listen, we're never convicting Pence on anything if Pelosi is next in line. You want Pence out, confirm a VP..."

At this point, Dems would probably cave and confirm a moderate politician they considered to be relatively harmless as an incumbent in terms of 2020 (or who promised not to run). Ideally you'd be looking for a retired, moderate Republican over the age of 70 who's not particularly charismatic and came out early against Trump. Perhaps John Boehner, although he took a while to turn on Trump.

Problem for Dems in this scenario is that anyone who fits that description can help to heal the Republican Party after it's rocked by this, but by the same token they can also help heal the country so... What Dems should be screaming for is like a Joe Lieberman type... Our base hates him, your base hates him, thus he should be palatable for both of us for a year and a half. He's not going to do anything either base loves. (And I'm no fan of Lieberman, especially after the AOC comments, but I'll take him over the alternatives in such a scenario, and there's zero chance you get anyone left of him in that situation.)

But we're getting reaaalllly hypothetical here. Like West Wing Reboot written while Aaron Sorkin is high as a kite hypothetical.

Surely he didn’t put it in an email, thought he didn’t even use it? Maybe Cohen has it recorded? The complete lack of denials means there is proof.

I don't think Nancy should try to impeach, at least not right now. Not because he doesn't deserve to be impeached-he does, but because I don't think it would end up passing the Senate and would actually worsen the situation going forward both in terms of the state of the country while he remains in power and in the 2020 election.

lol, it’s a lock these clowns documented every single part of this crime.

The recent The Atlantic article on impeachment makes the case that impeachment is a win-win for the Dems. They win if they get a conviction and Trump is gone, and win even if he is acquitted because of how all of Trump's crimes will be all over the news for weeks or months. I'm not sure if that is the case but the Dems do need to come up with a plan that in the event they do impeach, that it is a no-lose scenario for them.

I doubt she's looking at any bombed out schools, or meeting any impacted locals. Whoever is controlling the security will present what they want her to see which is basically what the Pentagon wants her to see. Maybe I'm a cynic but I don't see this type of visit changing anyone's perspective on war.

One thing about the Dems not pursuing impeachment: if they don't, this is going to go in the pile with every other scandal as a relative nothing-burger that gets forgotten in a few months and it's just another example of Trump being Trump. "Man, he makes them liberals mad."

They have to escalate this to solidify the significance imo. Them being weak-willed about going after the STRONGMAN could also deflate fervor for opposition voter turnout. "Why back the cowards, what's the point?"

( twitter | raw text )

What is dumbazz saying (can’t listen currently).

credit where credit's due, this is pretty good

Nailed that one a few days ago

Can’t trust a felon!!

"I want to thank them - whether it's law inforcement of any kind - Border Patrol, ICE - spectacular people thank you for the job you do"

Not FBI obviously...

By the look on his dumb face on these before you click play, I always assume it is going to be "Fire BAD!"

So he dorsnt know that grapes arent grown on farms. Wunderbar!

Did the previous caravan get through? I recall the majority of them still stuck in Tijuana.

I think the right move on impeachment is not to overthink things.

If there is a rock solid case that Trump committed an impeachable offense (e.g., the Buzzfeed article completely checks out and the proof is good), then Democrats should impeach. If the evidence basically amounts to a he said/she said* (e.g., Trump's conversations with Comey), then it probably is not the correct political move.

* I of course realize that Trump is almost certainly the liar in any such dispute.