munmun410.blogspot.com

I’m quoting “Washington at war: Dems aim for speedy impeachment push as Trump threatens whistleblower” (CNN). I see everything needs to be fast, fast, fast for this to work. If another week passes without the whole country getting the cue to go “frenetic,” maybe the Ukraine phone call will fade away like 100 other impeachable offenses attributed to Trump. I’m put off by the pressure for speed. All the time we devote to electing a President and all the work lavished thus far into the next election, and we’re supposed to suddenly stop everything and throw this bum out? Quick! Don’t think! That makes me want to slow down and think quite a bit. And I’m amused by the war metaphor, “Washington at war,” because I was just reading a diatribe in The Washington Post against Trump for quoting some preacher who used the words “civil war” to describe the impending discord over the impeachment. Real war is truly horrible, so what an outrage to use war as a metaphor! And then CNN tosses off the wa

"He's a showman, into the narrative, and if all his enemies take arms against him, he will know he's the star of this show. He won't slink off like Nixon. And Nixon had his own party turn on him. That hasn't happened to Trump yet, but even if the GOP turned on him, it wouldn't be the same as with Nixon, because the GOP was never really on his side. It just aligned with him when it served its interests. He will be an even more poignantly heroic protagonist if his own party turns on him, and his people will love him to the end." That's something I wrote on Facebook , after someone suggested that the Democrats may be thinking that Trump will, like Nixon, resign.

Rep. Schiff re-writes the call transcript for added drama: "I’m going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good, I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand, lots of it, on this and on that, I’m going to put you in touch with people" pic.twitter.com/1rV7BpEN6o — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) September 26, 2019

"They get nothing done. This should never be allowed to happen to another President. Witch Hunt!" Tweets Trump , setting the narrative, in which he is the protagonist. There are different ways to respond to this cue. Just to pick from the tweets displayed directly under Trump's right now, there's : The democrats hate President Trump more than they love this country. They are so emboldened with hate they are blinded. And: President Trump has weathered many storms, and he will continue to ride high on the seas of destiny. He will eliminate the entire government completely, day by day, one by one. He will reign alone, and within the ruins of the demon-scape his truth will be the only sound #MAGA

I'm trying to understand the terminology, as reported in The Washington Post, in "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces formal impeachment inquiry of Trump, says his actions were a ‘betrayal of national security.'" What does "formal" mean? Pelosi made an announcement "after a closed-door meeting with her caucus." Shouldn't formality entail an open proceeding, with participation of all members of the House? It's funny, there's criticism of Trump for withholding things Congress that he did outside of the public ver and for acting for his own political benefit, but they're operating as a single party behind closed doors, and it certainly seems that what they talked about was their own political advantage.

That's my working theory. I don't know if the Democrats in Congress will go so far as to impeach Trump, but I tend to think that if they do, it will be because they think they're going to lose the election and they need another route toward defeating Trump. Of course, if Trump is impeached by the Democrats who have a majority in the House, he will not be removed from office, because the Republicans control the Senate. We'll be subjected to a horrific blend of legal mystification and political advantage seeking. So why would the Democrats predict that it will advantage them? My answer is: because they feel sure they're losing the actual election, the straightforward political fight. The timing is important. They could wait for the actual election, the normal process of American democracy, or — if they think that won't work — they can start delegitimatizing it now, while they think they have a decent shot at making us believe they're doing something righteous

Censure her? Why would they censure her?! The Hill reports: Those seeking to censure Sinema point to her vote to confirm David Bernhardt, Trump’s nominee to serve as secretary of the Interior, as well as her vote to confirm William Barr as Attorney General, the news outlet notes. Additionally, progressives in the Arizona Democratic Party cite Sinema’s resistance to joining fellow Democrats in trying to reinstate net neutrality rules... Dan O’Neal, the state coordinator for Progressive Democrats of America, told the news outlet that the censure is an effort to push Sinema back toward the left. “Here’s the thing: We really support Kyrsten Sinema... [b]ut the way she is voting is really disappointing. We want Democrats to vote like Democrats and not Republicans.” Those aren't reasons to censure someone! There's no accusation that she's done something wrong , only that her political position is at odds with the rest of her party. Why are Democrats having such a hard time just

"He insists the 'nomenclature' does not matter. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and her leadership team clearly disagree. They assiduously avoid the 'I' word, painting the committee’s work as garden-variety oversight. As a result, even Democratic lawmakers don’t seem to know whether they are engaged in an impeachment inquiry. Representative Pramila Jayapal has said 'yes.' Representative Jim Himes has said 'no.' Last week, Steny Hoyer, the House majority leader, said 'no' — then backtracked, claimed he’d misheard the question and offered a non-answer instead...." From "When Is Impeachment Not Impeachment?/When the speaker of the House thinks it is politically foolhardy" by the NYT The Editorial Board

"'Get real': Senior Democrats shut down Kavanaugh impeachment push/Democratic leaders are panning new demands by the left to oust the Supreme Court justice" (Politico). House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler similarly dismissed the idea of an impeachment inquiry, arguing in a radio interview Monday that the committee is “concentrating our resources on determining whether to impeach the president.” The New York Democrat said it’s one thing for progressives to call for impeachment but for him “it’s a consequential action, which we have to be able to justify.”... Nadler told The New York Times just before Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote in October that he planned to thoroughly investigate the allegations, including subpoenaing White House and FBI records and interviewing the accusers.... But since regaining control of the House in January, Democrats have done little to revisit the issue...

"It's starting to get sad... They've completely given up at this point. It feels like they're not even working on task. It feels like busy work. That's what it is: busy work.... It feels like the Democrats can't figure out anything useful to do, but they have to do something...." The S.E. Cupp thing he's referring to in that clip is, I think, this: