Threads and FAQ
To prepare for what’s coming, see my article on Why Trump Supporters Believe [or pretend to believe] every lie he tells.
slate.com/news-and-polit…
This isn’t the Nixon era. Comparisons will lead to disappointment.
The Trump-FOX-GOP is not afraid of a trial in the Senate because they're not afraid of facts.
They don’t want to throw it away.
Not everything is covered. It's still Twitter.
I'll try to include them at the of this thread.
We slam the other side for distorting facts. So let’s not.
Let's listen to her exact words, and consider them:
Laura Underwood (and others) are now in favor, but in this interview, she explains why (as of a few weeks ago) she didn’t.
In a nutshell, reluctant Dems tended to be elected in heavily red or swing districts BECAUSE they promised to go to D.C. to work on healthcare (or whatever issue was important to their constituents).
Many of their . . .
As of 2018, their constituents didn't want to hear about Russia, Mueller, or impeachment.
They didn't say No Impeachment; they said, "We're here to get other things done." For impeachment, they emphasize. . .
They have to bring their constituents along with them.
This takes work.
Democracy takes work.
They want to feel forced by something so egregious that even their constituents will agree that it's time.
Elected government works that way.
Steven Levitsky is a Harvard prof and the author of How Democracies Die (a book on my recommended list).
He is an expert on what kills democracy.
There are obviously important lessons here.
Please have a look.
If you want to see what Hardball looks like, watch the Lewandowski hearing.
It's here: c-span.org/video/?464369-……
The Republicans played hardball.
The Democrats behaved as if they were conducting a fair hearing in a democracy.
💠People in pain watching what this administration, and want it to end.
💠People who don’t understand the process.
There's overlap: Impeachment won't stop the lawbreaking and being acquitting in the Senate would probably embolden Trump further.
💠Pro-Trump bots trying to goad the House into impeaching before they have their hands on the most damning evidence, to prevent them from ever getting it.
💠The Never Trump Republicans who still embrace reactionary politics—they just don’t like Trump.
They want a reactionary⤵️ government without Trump.
So they have a two-fold agenda: Get rid of Trump and weaken the Democratic Party.
More specifically, in their view, the only problem with today's GOP is that the blindly deluded GOP faithful and the bullied and frightened GOP leadership are afraid to go against Trump.
They want to go back. . .
Progressives and liberals have a different view: They see the GOP having morphed into a dangerous reactionary party as a backlash to the New Deal, Civil Rights and Women's Rights movements.
See:
💠It will help destroy Trump.
💠It will weaken the Democratic Party.
💠It will therefore create an opening for them to return to reactionist politics when Trump is gone.
Beware of them.
I get that.
I marched for impeachment in March in Santa Barbara and gave a speech⤵️
terikanefield-blog.com/speech-at-the-…
It's important to remember, though, that impeachment in the Constitution . . .
The House cannot and should not impeach at the first sign of lawbreaking or wrong doing.
The way power to impeach and remove is allocated in the Constitution makes clear that the drafters intended . . .
Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus . . .
What the Democrats needed (and wanted) was to be able to say what Rep. John Lewis said this morning.
Removal is a Huge, Enormous, History-Changing Deal.
No president has ever been removed through this process.
John Lewis said this ⤵️
They wanted to say "we tried every other available means."
The answer has to address two parts:
(1) Can McConnell do this?
(2) Would McConnell do this?
Whether he CAN depends on how we read a phrase from the Constitution. Like all legal questions, the answer. . .
As far as (2) I don't see why McConnell or the Trump-FOX-GOP would do this. See my thread above "Trump's Legal Defenses."
If the GOP continues shielding Trump, I think they . . .
So. . .
(Impeaching and removing Pence before 2020 isn't possible.)
Is the Biden-Ukraine scandal the tipping point for the GOP?
That, my dearies, is the question.
@Tribelaw says it's possible, and even suggested it.
I see this as problematic, with the potential of looking like a partisan trick. Remember Mueller talked about why he didn't want to indict a sitting. . .
Mueller didn't like the idea of accusing someone without. . .
Impeaching and denying a trial in the Senate seems equally problematic to me from fairness / due process perspective.
But would they remove both Pence and Trump and install President Pelosi?
Legally it could happen. Politically? Don't think so.
Let's not go down "what if" rabbit holes.
It's anxiety provoking.
Let's stay grounded in what's happening right now.
Nixon could resign in peace to his estate. Trump can't. His estate is under siege: The NY AG is after him. The NY DA is after him. He's [probably] heavily in debt.
She wanted to sidestep accusations of partisanship, and marshall a majority, not just of Democrats.
What has seemed crystal clear to some . . .
She needed it clear to everyone.
I'll admit I was a wee bit nervous yesterday when she drew a line in the sand ("we'll get the whistleblower complaint by Thurs or else"). . .
I don't exactly know how she did it—but it sure looks like she'll get what she demanded.
Her daughter said she'll cut off your head and you won't even know you're bleeding.
Sorry to go on like this.
I'll admit I have a thing for smart powerful women 😉
Seems like something has been going on behind the scenes for a while, which may be why Pelosi knew she could draw that line in the sand.
There will of course be an Impeachment section on the Twitter Bar Exam. This thread and subthreads will help you prepare.
terikanefield-blog.com/impeachment-q-…