tonight's/tomorrow morning's editorial in the WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/defining-impeachment-down-11572563952?mod=hp_opin_pos_1 Defining Impeachment Down The House vote resolution and vote reveal a partisan inquiry. By The Editorial Board Oct. 31, 2019 7:19 pm ET Democrats on Thursday finally held a vote on their impeachment inquiry against President Trump, but the resolution and the party-line vote already foretell the likely outcome. This is a partisan impeachment driven mainly by hatred of Mr. Trump that, barring new facts, will fail in the Senate and have to be settled by the voters next November. “It’s a sad day because nobody comes to Congress to impeach a President of the United States. No one,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Thursday. This is insincere even by the standards of Congress. Democrats have wanted to impeach Mr. Trump since Inauguration Day in 2017. Her resolution of inquiry is merely a formality on the superhighway to a foregone conclusion. The one political virtue of Thursday’s vote is that at least the House had to go on record. This meant Members in swing districts could no longer hide, and all but two House Democrats supported the resolution in the 232-196 vote. The exceptions were New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew and Minnesota Democrat Collin Peterson, whose district was carried by Mr. Trump by 31 points. Not a single Republican voted in favor, not even Members who are retiring from Congress next year, which is notably different from the last two presidential impeachments. The House resolution authorizing an inquiry into Richard Nixon passed 410-4, and the resolution offered by a Republican-controlled House against Bill Clinton passed 258-176, with 31 Democrats in support. The text of the resolution, which was finally unveiled Tuesday, shows that Democrats didn’t even try to attract GOP votes. The resolution essentially keeps Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff in charge and able to continue his secret hearings as long as he wants. Mr. Schiff’s main obligation to public disclosure is sending a report to the Judiciary Committee with his “findings and any recommendations,” which can include whatever his committee “may deem appropriate.” He is under no obligation to make the hearing transcripts public—even after Democrats have spent weeks selectively leaking what they claim witnesses said. His committee can leak opening statements, as it has, while keeping questions and answers secret, as it has. This is unprecedented in an inquiry to remove a sitting President. The resolution makes a pretense of honoring minority rights by saying the GOP can seek to subpoena witnesses. But the request is subject to “the concurrence of the chair” of the Intelligence or Judiciary Committees. This Democratic veto power means that you should not expect Hunter Biden to make an appearance. The Nixon and Clinton resolutions gave the majority and minority equal power to subpoena witnesses. Democrats and the impeachment press dismiss these objections as obfuscation over mere “process.” But the U.S. Constitution is dedicated to process because rules are crucial to democratic accountability. Article I doesn’t define rules for impeachment, but on a matter as grave as ousting a President the public deserves to know that the process is fair and transparent. Any process run by the hyper-partisan Mr. Schiff and under the terms of Thursday’s House resolution is likely to be neither. *** The question is why Mrs. Pelosi thinks this helps the impeachment cause. She must know that a partisan impeachment will be less credible with the public. It is unlikely to change the minds of swing voters, much less of Republicans who could sway Senators. Then again, maybe she and Democrats don’t care. Perhaps they believe, in these polarized times, that they are unlikely to change many minds. Maybe they want to charge ahead on a partisan basis simply to satisfy the Democratic voters and interest groups that have long wanted Mr. Trump gone. Brand the President with the scarlet I and use that as another tool for motivating Democratic voters in 2020. This is defining impeachment down. Holding Presidents accountable under the Constitution is among the most serious issues in American democracy. Bill Clinton committed a crime by lying under oath to a grand jury. Democrats said that wasn’t impeachable. Richard Nixon was forced to resign when the tapes revealed he had obstructed justice by ordering a cover-up of the Watergate break-in. When the facts were fully known, Republicans and most of the country agreed. Democrats want to impeach Mr. Trump for asking a foreign government to investigate his political rival for corruption, though the probe never happened, and for withholding aid to Ukraine that in the end wasn’t withheld. Assuming the facts bear this out, the attempt was self-serving and reckless and a long way from the “perfect” behavior Mr. Trump claims. But Democrats will need more than the facts on the public record so far to justify short-circuiting a Presidency. Their partisan rush to impeachment suggests that their real purpose is revenge for the humiliation of having lost in 2016 to a man they think is unworthy of the office. The impeachers have the burden of showing why this shouldn’t all be left to the judgment of American voters in 2020.
Crying partisanship is silly on every possible front. 1. It isn't different than what different partisans have done. 2. Partisanship has zero to do with the overwhelming evidence we've seen presented by people from both parties and with long and distinguished careers in service to our nation including sacrificing their time, family, and personal security to our country. But of course the evidence against the President who has personally infringed on first amendment freedoms matters as much a whacky Democrat passing a bill full of zany that won't have any effect on anyone.
Yep, interesting folks (like WSJ editors) keep finding ways to complain procedurally while cowardly avoiding the real topic, a wayward president and what to do about him. His party could actually be part of the constitutionally required congressional conversation but they’re too terrified of him.
I'm dissapointed in people like Will Hurd. Who has said that an inquiry is necessary. We've heard a lot of talk about the need for accountability and how questionable what the President has done from several Republicans yet they are afraid to cross him when it comes to actually doing something. This is again why Justin Amash is the person I most admire right now in Congress. He actually has put his political future on the line for what he believes is right.
another way to look at it is as a healthy reminder that not all the major media (and their followers/readers/consumers) are marching in lockstep on this one.
I am going to call out the WSJ editorial board for ignoring the facts including much of what has been reported by their own news board. I agree this is a very serious issue and one that deserves more than just crying partisanship. The Mueller report outlined 10 instances of obstruction of justice. That Congress failed to act on that was a failure of Congressional leadership especially Nancy Pelosi. And there has been a parade of witnesses saying this very thing including in the very transcript that was released by the Trump Administration saying they are asking for a favor in the context of military aid. People like the WSJ board keep on acknowledging that there are shady things going on with this Administration yet when it comes down it keep on falling back on partisanship.
This is arguing journalistic freedom as a cover for partisan excuses.. They are entitled to whatever opinion they want but journalistic integrity would require they honor the facts. The facts, that they have reported, is that there is daily stream of evidence saying that what the President is accused of he did actually do. Perhaps it is a credit to their organization that the newsroom is showing independence from the editorial board.
For those who remember the history of the impeachment the proceedings being outlined are giving for more deference to the defense. The impeachment proceedings of Nixon and Clinton in the house didn't grant this level of deference. Constitutionally the House doesn't have to grant any of this. As stated in Federalist Papers the House has the power of impeachment and the rules are decided by the House. The trial of the Senate is where the defense get's to present.
Facepalm. The author would have us believe that if someone tried to commit murder, but failed, then is it really such a crime? Ugh. "Assuming the facts bear this out", this was a big fat crime. For the 1000th time: Merely asking for assistance from a foreign government or national for assistance with an election is a federal crime; a serious one. Whether the foreign power agrees or not, or whether the influence is effective or not, is immaterial. This is a serious crime and absolutely worthy of impeachment. Asking foreign leaders to dig dirt on opponents (leveraging your political power in order to secure your personal power) is tinpot dictator bullsh*t. Making a meeting with the WH and 391 millions dollars in military aid contingent upon a public statement that raises the stakes an order of magnitude. How could the author possibly say this?? The facts point to serious crimes. How is that not enough to justify impeachment??? There wasn't a rush, *******- Nancy had to be dragged into this kicking and screaming. We already have the guy on 10 counts of obstruction, emoluments, and likely a lot more if we dared to investigate. Nancy didn't want to because it would hurt dem chances in 2020. Nancy was forced to do this because the president had become so brazenly lawless that doing nothing could hurt us all just as much as hurting dems in 2020. You know what? Let's say it's partisan (as if the author is above it himself.) That doesn't change the facts. Corroborating testimony under oath from multiple parties points to serious crimes. Crying partisanship is your way to avoid that. THE IMPEACHERS are doing that by running an investigation that has corroborating testimony from numerous parties illustrating a crime. It's a shame that my fellow Americans on the right are doing everything they can to avoid this fact, and instead use arguments of process or accusations of partisanship to avoid facing it.
...look... ...we can show all the evidence in the world... ...from here...to Muslim-loving Iran...to Vodka-loving Russia... ...the the earth we all live on is well and truly indeed NOT, in fact, flat... ...and all anybody with their own two eyes has to do is look out of their window... ...check to make sure that their broken clock is synched up with everyone else's working ones... ...and claim that the earth still looks flat to them, and you can't make them believe otherwise. Especially if you happen to be some godless, motherless socialist despot. Or some reverse-racist, ungrateful Negro, like me....
LOL... claiming this was "partisan" since no republicans dared to stand up for the simple principle that no one, not even the president, is above the law? btw, the Andrew Jackson impeachment involved 35 "yea" votes, all from republicans (none of the nine Democrats voted "yea").
it’s like: everyone knows the good ship America has hit an iceberg. Everyone. But some of the crew wants to ignore it because they don’t like the exact wording and timing of the distress calls.
The Titanic sending up distress flares, the crew thinking, "Please rescue ship show up, please rescue ship show up, we're *****d otherwise...." I really don't know if or when this country will ever recover from what Trump has done to the presidency.
