Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
I still want to hear from domer if this actually means anything. He's the only one who actually knows ****.
The short answer is yes and no, but more yes than no.
The long answer....Politico Playbook has been crushing this story, rather than just summarize their words, just gonna copy/paste it. It's long, but worth reading:
IT’S HAPPENING. THE HOUSE will begin impeachment proceedings against the president for the third time in American history. We don’t know what he’ll be impeached for. We aren’t sure when. We don’t know what the whistleblower has on President DONALD TRUMP or how significant it is.
BUT what we do know is that PELOSI and her leadership gave into a restive House Democratic Caucus, which was demanding TRUMP be held accountable for a series of what it considers brazen and illegal acts.
SO, yesterday was seismic -- but it was also, in some ways, a bit meaningless.
NOW, TO UNPACK IT … AFTER A LONG DAY OF STANDING in the Capitol basement Tuesday, our colleagues Kyle and Andrew posed this very interesting question in the POLITICO corner of the press gallery: What exactly did PELOSI’S statement -- that the House was launching an impeachment inquiry into TRUMP -- change? Not much at all, they argued.
AT FIRST, we thought they were wrong. But after thinking about it for a minute, we decided there’s a healthy bit of truth to Cheney and Desiderio’s take: PELOSI’S statement didn’t actually change a whole lot. It was mostly window dressing.
HERE’S WHY: House committees have been investigating TRUMP for months. The Judiciary Committee was always readying to draft articles of impeachment. They were always trying to finish it up before 2020. An “impeachment inquiry” is just a name -- it’s not an official process that the House has now begun. There will be no vote on the floor to start the impeachment inquiry process. There’s no magic unleashed now that PELOSI has said she’s begun an impeachment inquiry. So, in many ways, there’s nothing new here.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED -- POLITICALLY. The entire universe has shifted for House Democrats. For months, the leadership was trying to stave off impeachment because they thought it unwise politically, divisive and unnecessary. Now the leadership is full-bore behind it, and the entire caucus is rowing toward a process aimed at removing the president of the United States for how he handled interactions with the leader of Ukraine. Democrats finally believe they found a simple, easy-to-understand charge.
-- NYT’S CARL HULSE on A1: “In contrast to the murkiness of the special counsel’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible obstruction of justice by Mr. Trump, Democrats see the current allegations as damningly clear-cut.
“His refusal so far to provide Congress with an intelligence official’s whistle-blower complaint as required by law, coupled with the possibility that Mr. Trump dangled American military aid as a bargaining chip to win investigation of a political rival by a foreign government, strikes them as a stark case of presidential wrongdoing. They consider it egregious enough that they expect many Americans who had been cool to the idea of moving to oust the president to recognize the imperative for the House to act.” NYT
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE now is all but guaranteed to report out an impeachment package in the next few months -- a set of articles charging the president with high crimes and misdemeanors. Our colleague John Bresnahan has been saying this for months, and our reporting shows that it’s true: If the House starts impeachment proceedings -- hearings and the like, as they are -- it will end up voting on impeachment articles on the House floor. Period. So, the full House will get a chance this year to cast a vote or a set of votes about whether the president committed crimes worthy of his removal.
THERE IS SOME RISK FOR PELOSI AND HOUSE DEMOCRATS. They made a big show Tuesday of the impeachment play. If the transcript and the whistleblower report are duds and they don’t have enough fresh material to justify impeaching impeach Trump, the Dems will have put themselves out on a limb with little to show for it. And if impeachment stretches into 2020 -- which most senior Democratic aides predict it will -- there’s risk in that, as well. Judiciary Chairman JERRY NADLER said in a closed-door meeting Tuesday that he wanted this process to be quick, and finish by year’s end.
THIS SITUATION PLAYS INTO WHAT MANY BELIEVE ARE PELOSI’S STRENGTHS. Like many leaders, she’s strongest when her party is united. And, perhaps for the first time in a while, they are united against this president, both in substance and in process. She has challenges here -- not least managing the process, which could grow unruly quickly. But, unlike a week ago, the entire caucus is working toward a single goal.
WHAT THE LEADERSHIP IS WATCHING FOR: On Tuesday evening, much of the leadership was tired and drained. Almost to a person, they thought that Pelosi had changed the name of the process to “impeachment inquiry,” but not the substance of the investigation. We are in uncharted waters, so it’s not entirely clear to anyone what will happen next.
-- BIG PICTURE: The committees are going to begin funnelling all of their “best” impeachment material to Judiciary, which is going to tie everything into a single package. At the beginning of this Congress, Judiciary began to hire top-notch lawyers in anticipation for an uptick in oversight, so in that sense, it is prepared. WaPo’s Mike DeBonis and Rachael Bade: “House’s move toward impeachment leaves gaping questions about the road ahead”
ONE OF THE DEMOCRATS’ challenges is finding an overarching message and sticking to it. This was a complaint in the Dem caucus yesterday. Rank-and-file Dems are concerned they aren’t articulating a good reason why they’re impeaching Trump. One of leadership and Judiciary’s challenges here is to latch onto a message -- and a messenger -- and carry it through what’s expected to be a long and bruising process. Some have suggested that enumerating concerns about national security should be front and center. Sarah Ferris and Heather Caygle on Dem messaging concerns
-- THIS WEEK: The Dems caucus this morning, the Republicans have their conference meeting and both will hold media availabilities afterwards. Predictably, both sides are in their corners. TRUMP has a press conference at 4 p.m., so everyone will be watching to see his demeanor. Everyone is looking to see what deal HOUSE INTELLIGENCE cuts with the whistleblower, who now is indicating he wants to talk to Congress.
THE TRANSCRIPT … OF COURSE, people are anxious to see the transcript the White House releases of the call between TRUMP and the Ukranian president, but Hill aides caution that it should be seen for what it is — a document released by the White House. First of all, we have no idea if the whistleblower report is solely based on that call. Second, we have no idea if there was only one call, or more. Third, we don’t know if the transcript will be edited at all, let alone whether it will simply be notes rather than a word-for-word transcription. The whistleblower report -- and what the whistleblower tells Congress -- is truly important. The whistleblower’s attorney says he plans to talk to Congress
THURSDAY will be quite the day. At 9 a.m., JOSEPH MAGUIRE, the acting director of national intelligence, will be on Capitol Hill testifying in an open setting. This is probably the biggest public moment so far.
REMEMBER: The House is leaving Friday afternoon for a two-week recess. The next day in session is Oct. 15. This recess is not going to be canceled, our sources tell us.
