Impeachment May Not Be Happening But Adam Schiff Is
Gregg and I listened to his opening remarks as Gregg dropped me off at my volunteer job at City Hall (as a mediator, doing free dispute resolution for LA residents out of the LA City Attorney's office).
It's a long way there, so I heard almost all of his opening, and I was impressed.
I haven't paid much attention to Schiff before, and I have a generally low opinion of government and many who work in it, but I found Schiff's speech to be resonant in something I haven't heard often from a pol: real values about what this country is about. (I loved the Thomas Paine quote, with the bit about "summer soldiers and sunshine patriots" and the other kind -- the one who rises to the occasion.)
I said to Gregg something like, "Okay, I'm not naive; he surely had some aides writing that. But Gregg said the guy -- who happens to be Gregg's congressman and a former prosecutor -- talks that way extemporaneously.
Schiff did do a very good job of laying out some facts Republicans may not have heard or been open to. Jennifer Rubin details them in the WaPo:
•Trump mentioned the Bidens and Burisma but not "corruption" during the July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.•Trump followed up with a call to Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, on whether the investigations he demanded would happen.
•A text by a Trump appointee to Zelensky's top aide sent 30 minutes before the July 25 call stressed that Trump was looking for an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens.
•When Trump, standing on the White House driveway, told the media that he wanted both Ukraine and China to investigate Joe Biden, he was not pursuing corruption in Ukraine, but rather looking for foreign countries to smear the former vice president.
•The draft statement announcing that Ukraine would undertake corruption investigations was rewritten by Sondland and Trump lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani to specifically include Burisma and the 2016 election (i.e., Crowdstrike).
•Giuliani openly bragged about interfering in an investigation in Ukraine.
•Ukrainian officials threw Trump's corrupt scheme back in our faces when asked not to investigate their political opponents.
•Ukraine was confronted with a cut-off of vital aid in the middle of a hot war.
•The aid was only released when Trump was caught (and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney confirmed it publicly).
Rubin continues:
Schiff was confronting not only the public but also the Republicans with an indisputable factual account for which Trump's lawyers have no answer. So how are they to acquit? Well, there is always the legally insane argument that abuse of power is not impeachable. But Schiff knocked that down as well:...•Alexander Hamilton and other framers of the Constitution made plain they were seeking to prevent breaches of public trust and political crimes.•If abuse of power isn't impeachable, then the president is king.
Schiff was methodically cornering the Republicans. Nope, the claim there is no evidence of a corrupt quid pro quo is unsustainable; in fact, there is overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence. Nope, you do not want to adopt the crackpot theory that abuse of power is not impeachable. Schiff is leaving them no legitimate basis on which to acquit. He mocked Mulvaney's comment that we should just "get over it," challenging the senators to tell their constituents that none of this mattered.
And that is what the trial is about. It's about making clear to the entire country that Trump did exactly what he is accused of, but that his own party, suffering from political cowardice and intellectual corruption, do not have the nerve to stop him. If that is the goal -- prove Trump's guilt and Republicans' complicity -- Schiff hit a grand slam. And we have days more of evidence to hear.
Again, Rubin writes: "Schiff is leaving them no legitimate basis on which to acquit."
Do you think this will make any difference with the sort of people who get elected to office?
"...Do you think this will make any difference with the sort of people who get elected to office?..."
No, but I can guarantee you that this whole debacle is making a great deal of difference to the sort of people who vote.
Stephen Taylor at January 23, 2020 10:31 PM
Choosing somewhat at random:
I think of all the betrayals of trust by government, in most every office in the land, at every payscale in every moment of every day, and certainly from the executive branch historically, and then wonder why Schiff needs to distinguish "political crimes" from plain, old-fashioned crimes. (Answer: Because he's being fast & loose with language.) First of all, says who? Secondly, what other (or novel) patterns of regal behavior do you find being enthused by this administration?… Jewelry & scepters? Jesters & Fooles in funny hats? Bowing and curtsies and weird forms of address? Thirdly, he has been impeached, but this crime might not be worth the distracting prosecution.Schiff's still offering the creaking, sanctimonious rhetoric from which America is turning away, whether in support of Trump or of Bernie.
As regards this proceeding:
I despise Trump, almost as much as I disrespect his smug, oblivious voters.
But against the vast tapestry of continuing government perfidy — Ag policy! Academic lunacy! Military inertia and funding! Regulatory lawmaking! DebtDebtDebt! — this is small potatoes.
And anyone seeking to obscure that disproportion with DC's unctuous platitudes has probably not got my best interests at heart. Al Hamilton spoke for himself, and his intentions need not be gussied up for this occasion.
Crid at January 23, 2020 10:56 PM
> I can guarantee you that this
> whole debacle is making a great
> deal of difference to the sort
> of people who vote.
What exactly is the guarantee?… Because I think I'd like to collect. I doubt it's changing any minds (except perhaps Amy's, if only by the moderate interest she describes in this blog post). "Great deal of difference" is a lot of difference.
It's true that in the galactic perspective, in the Christian-God-In-Heaven knows when we've been sleeping and knows when we're awake sense of the word, it is a 'debacle.' But not a whole lot of damage was done. The Senate (and the House, for that matter) were not going to be doing something useful during this time.
Crid at January 23, 2020 11:05 PM
Confession: I haven't been following the proceedings. He may very well be guilty of horrible crimes. I don't know.
But every. single president. since I've been old enough to vote, and even since before, has had his presidency's legitimacy attacked. Clinton and Monica. Bush and hanging chads. Obama and birth certificates.
Just stop. Fucking stop. Maybe it's a real wolf this time but the bickering shepherds have cried wolf every. single. presidency.
NicoleK at January 24, 2020 1:16 AM
No Amy, this changes nothing. The Democrats know they can't get a removal. They can't even get a censure. The whole point now is to get pictures of various Republicans napping in boredom. That there are as many or even more Democrats doing the same is irrelevant.
If you haven't even got Crid with his endlessly smug hatred of Trump then you probably don't have anything.
Ben at January 24, 2020 6:02 AM
Alternative: Schiff-for-brains has a strained relationship with the truth.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/01/schiff-strikes-again.php
If you think of the media as Democrats with a byline, you won't go far wrong.
I R A Darth Aggie at January 24, 2020 6:23 AM
"Do you think this will make any difference with the sort of people who get elected to office?"
I expect people with poor integrity to act accordingly.
If they firmly believe their own seat will be lost they will adjust their position accordingly.
If there is an impression that the trial was not done properly there will likely be serious political consequences as the vast majority of the public wants to see witness testimony.
Artemis at January 24, 2020 6:29 AM
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/will_an_arkansas_stripper_finally_shut_down_the_schiff_show.html
I R A Darth Aggie at January 24, 2020 6:39 AM
Please do remember that Adam Schiff lied for 3 years about having "absolute proof" that Trump colluded with Russia.
Even though the Mueller investigation found no collusion, Schiff to this day insists there is "evidence" of it.
It is unfortunate that the media will not insist on the disclosure of that "evidence."
Sort of reminds me of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf."
D LivesInTexas at January 24, 2020 7:05 AM
Arty there is already the impression that the House investigation was not done properly. People with with a history of poor integrity like Schiff certainly do continue that history when there is no punishment for it.
Ben at January 24, 2020 7:27 AM
The members of the House are only doing all this because if Trump and Barr can only purge FBI and DOJ of all the traitors still working for Obama, they'll reveal the corruption of the House members.
There's an easy way to judge the honesty of any politician, and that is to look at how his net worth has changed during his time in office. As Harry Truman said, it is simply not possible for an honest man to enrich himself while a politician. Schiff, Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, are all millions richer since they entered politics. Trump has lost more than $1 billion.
If he were doing it for the money, Trump would have stayed in the real estate business.
jdgalt at January 24, 2020 8:38 AM
Ben Says:
"Arty there is already the impression that the House investigation was not done properly. People with with a history of poor integrity like Schiff certainly do continue that history when there is no punishment for it."
That isn't the impression of the majority of the public.
That is very clear from the polling.
If you only get your information from fox news your perception on this point is likely extremely distorted.
Artemis at January 24, 2020 8:56 AM
> even since before, has had
> his presidency's legitimacy
> attacked.
And with the same mechanized sanctimony. (That Amy heard something new in Schiff's voice is a surprise to me: I'll be listening for it but am not hopeful.)
> with his endlessly smug hatred
I used the word smug, you use the word smug: Without me, you're nothing. Otherwise, the Trump enthusiast's desperation to personally identify with his 7th-grader's egotism explains everything. He knows you like teevee heroes. He plays you like a fiddle.
> If there is an impression that
> the trial was not done properly
I doubt history will give one whit about the paperwork.
Crid at January 24, 2020 9:20 AM
"I doubt history will give one whit about the paperwork."
It isn't a bold prediction that if there are no impeachment trial witnesses there are several republican senators who will lose their seats.
When 70+% of the population demands something you are not going to win in a general election in a purple district.
This isn't about paperwork, it is about the perception of integrity and independence of individual legislators.
Artemis at January 24, 2020 9:40 AM
Are you proposing some kind of wager, Orion?
Crid at January 24, 2020 10:03 AM
Please do remember that Adam Schiff lied for 3 years about having "absolute proof" that Trump colluded with Russia.
Even though the Mueller investigation found no collusion, Schiff to this day insists there is "evidence" of it.
This here.
If Schiff has this proof, did he provide it to Herr Mueller? if not, isn't that...*checks notes* obstruction of justice?
I R A Darth Aggie at January 24, 2020 10:39 AM
According to this narrative, it is a crime to investigate your political opponents. For that reason Hilary skated. For this reason it is criminal to investigate Burisma and Joe and Hunter. All you need to do to avoid jail I guess is run for president. And yet, the Dems have been investigating Trump for the past 3 years, so it is ok when they do it.
There was dem party interference with the 2016 election. This led to a bunch of Trump's campaign aides and lawyers going to jail and even his national security adviser (Flynn). Almost all (except Manafort) on trumped up process crimes of lying to the FBI (even after being told they are not the subject of an investigation). Trump has a right to investigate that. But the first thing when he tries to investigate the Steele dossier etc the name Biden comes up and boom, impeachment.
Please do note that 1 of the 2 impeachment articles is because Trump used Executive Priv as every president ever has done. The House could have waited for the Supreme Court to adjudicate but they were in a hurry so they called it "obstruction". Please, that is idiotic.
cc at January 24, 2020 11:23 AM
Also, whence "70%+" ?
"70%+" of what?
I'm not sure 70%+ of Americans 'demanded' breakfast this morning.
Crid at January 24, 2020 12:52 PM
I see Nadler announced today that Trump is a dictator.
What a maroon.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 24, 2020 4:53 PM
Run with it Arty. Yell some more about Fox News!
"it is about the perception of integrity and independence of individual legislators."
And keep ignoring the repeated lies from people in the party you support. That's what you seem to think integrity is.
Ben at January 24, 2020 5:08 PM
Also, whence "70%+" ?
"70%+" of what?
I'm not sure 70%+ of Americans 'demanded' breakfast this morning.
Crid at January 24, 2020 12:52 PM
My guess? Some nonsense from Vox.
Isab at January 24, 2020 7:35 PM
Crid and Isab,
You really need to keep up on polling information instead of constantly talking out of your asses...
The 70% figure doesn't come from "Vox"... it is from a Reuters poll:
https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2020-01-22/let-them-speak-most-americans-want-witnesses-in-trump-impeachment-trial
"About 72% agreed that the trial "should allow witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the impeachment charges to testify," including 84% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans."
There is wide ranging bipartisan support for witness testimony.
Politicians who ignore this are playing with fire from a re-election perspective.
Artemis at January 24, 2020 8:54 PM
Crid,
I don't mind wagers... that being said I don't have the slightest idea what you are predicting that can be measured in a concrete sense.
My only prediction is that if the Republicans stone wall witness testimony entirely, there are several republican senators who operate in purple districts who are likely to lose their seats come November.
The polling data clearly indicates this risk is real... 70% is not a small number when talking about public perception.
Artemis at January 24, 2020 8:58 PM
Schiff is shifty. He even looks and talks like a liar.
This whole impeachment thing is nothing but the Democrats and other Trump haters trying to undo the 2016 election.
I think most Americans are too busy enjoying the Trump economy, after 8 years of Obamanation it is nice to make money, to really care that the Democrats and their supporters have lost their collective minds.
If they think for one minute that this impeachment garbage is helping them they are in for another rude surprise like 2016.
But, of course, they (like Hillary) will blame us basketful of deplorables.
charles at January 24, 2020 9:00 PM
Ben,
You got very touchy all of a sudden when I mentioned the possibility you are getting all of your information from fox.
If that is where you are getting most of your information I can tell you that it is extremely distorted. Rely on the primary sources... see for yourself.
As for a party I support... I don't "support" the Democrats either. I support rule of law... simple as that.
It just so happens that right at this very moment we have a party that might stone wall the gathering of witness testimony during an impeachment trial that is relevant for making informed decisions.
This shouldn't be a controversial issue... and the vast majority of the voting populace agrees with me... including the vast majority of Republicans.
If you don't support calling for witness testimony you are amongst a small minority of political extremists.
Artemis at January 24, 2020 9:04 PM
“There is wide ranging bipartisan support for witness testimony.”
I support it. I want to see Joe and Hunter Biden called to testify about their dealings in the Ukraine, and China.
But I won’t be angry at my Senator if they wrap this thing up without any witnesses at all.
Isab at January 24, 2020 9:14 PM
> I don't have the slightest
> idea what you are predicting
> that can be measured in a
> concrete sense.
Um, dood, you're the one sketching the future:
> …there will likely be serious
> political consequences…
There's not really any reason to think so.
> You really need to keep up
> on polling information
Why? WGAF? Your 'information' is filler, probably from an unpaid intern:
Do you nonetheless believe a single, silly little poll portends a new boner for this proceeding? Because it's not even a single poll: So it's not even the same question of two deeply unrepresentative populations in tiny samplings. And the math thereafter is sketchy indeed: "About." I wonder who paid for this thing, or if that even matters: [Emphasis in original.] And so it does. Read 'em and weep.Golly Orion, I thought you claimed to be a science guy... Or were you 'talking out of your ass'?
Crid at January 24, 2020 10:23 PM
See Kaus tweet w/links:
Crid at January 24, 2020 10:48 PM
Sorry, here's Kaus.
Crid at January 24, 2020 10:56 PM
Isab,
Aren't you supposed to be a lawyer or something?
Surely you recognize how incredibly stupid it is to insist on witnesses unrelated to the accusations under investigation.
Right now we are talking about an impeachment related to the GAO independent findings that withholding funding for Ukraine was illegal:
https://www.justsecurity.org/68124/gao-decided-trumps-hold-on-ukraine-funding-was-illegal-and-it-wasnt-a-tough-call/
It was illegal because the President does not have the constitutional authority to override congressional appropriations in the manner he did.
Nothing the Biden's can say could possibly exonerate the President on this matter.
The only witnesses that matter are those who can speak to the timeline and motivations of the Presidents actions.
What you need to ask yourself is if you care about the constitution or not... it doesn't seem like you do.
Artemis at January 25, 2020 6:45 AM
Crid,
Alright, I'll provide you with a very specific prediction.
The wager is as follows... if I am correct you will forever post on this blog using the name Crud.
If I am wrong you can select a name for me to post under.
If the conditional requirement is not met then the prediction and wager are void in either direction.
My prediction is as follows:
If Susan Collins votes in opposition to collecting relevant witness testimony (i.e., witnesses that can speak to the facts related directly to the articles of impeachment) she will lose her senate seat in the next election.
I don't see this as a particularly bold prediction to be honest, but you seem to think there is no reason to believe anyone will suffer political consequences.
Do you accept the wager?
Artemis at January 25, 2020 6:53 AM
News for you Artie. Trump is going to be re-elected in a landslide. And Republicans will hold the Senate.
Susan Collins’s individual fate as a RINO is of little concern to most of us. Although Shiffty seems to have alienated both her and Murkowski which takes some doin.
But dream on. It is what you do best.
Isab at January 25, 2020 7:13 AM
I'm not touchy Arty. I found you humorous. As I said, run with it. Keep calling names. Always disregard anyone with a different opinion than you. And especially those with facts you don't like. It has worked so well for you so far. Why stop now?
"I don't "support" the Democrats either. I support rule of law" ~Arty
Bullshit. But keep telling yourself that. It's pretty funny too.
Ben at January 25, 2020 7:42 AM
> you will forever post on this
> blog using the name Crud
Little Sister, just slice your wrists with a fruit knife.
Crid at January 25, 2020 7:54 AM
What a prick.
Half-a-generation later, the lunaticand entirely baseless self-confidence of deeply anonymous social media twats is my version of Hitchens' early-morning (well, noontime) rage at waking up to see "All the News That's Fit to Print" atop the front page of the New York Times.
Their infantile twattishness is the fuel for my day.
Crid at January 25, 2020 7:59 AM
Crid,
So do you accept the wager or not?
You talk a big game, but when push comes to shove that's all it is... just talk.
Artemis at January 25, 2020 9:39 AM
Isab,
It is amazing how when I predict that republicans will have trouble in purple districts you are busy asserting that my information comes from Vox... yet when I point out my information comes from credible polling and that my prediction relates to folks like Susan Collins, suddenly she isn't a real Republican and you don't care about her re-election anyway.
You aren't living in reality... and your comments/predictions here are likely going to come back to haunt you in November.
Artemis at January 25, 2020 9:43 AM
Ben,
I never called you any names... why are you lying?
If you have facts please present them, as it stands you haven't actually provided any facts to support anything you have said.
Just to be clear, your opinion on a subject is not the same thing as a fact.
You can have the "opinion" that it is cold outside and that wouldn't change the "fact" that when measured with a thermometer it is 90 degrees.
Present your facts if you have any, your opinions are meaningless to me.
Artemis at January 25, 2020 10:16 AM
> So do you accept the wager
Once I realized you'd dropped your insult-fueled enthusiasm for your bogus "poll," without shame, retraction or apology, only to continue with fresh insults, I stopped reading. You're a defensive child, so discussion is not possiblle: You will never take a point. You should hang with Patrick.
Really.
Crid at January 25, 2020 9:33 PM
Crid,
I'll take that as a no... which is really bizarre because you are the one who suggested a wager in the first place.
I suppose the stakes were too high for you.
Also, there is nothing bogus about a Reuters poll.
That being said, your response is incoherent.
If you are so very confident that the poll my prediction is based off of is bogus then there is little reason for you to think I would win the bet.
You are literally arguing that you refuse to participate in a wager you think you have a good chance of winning.
Just think of all the embarrassing handles you could compel me to go by as part of the wager?... that isn't incentive enough for you after all of the years of your toxic nonsense?
I think you just came to the realization that my position is well supported and there is good reason to believe my prediction would come to pass... so now you are backing down from taking part in the wager you asked for in the first place.
Artemis at January 25, 2020 10:59 PM
Amy, you seem to take leave of your good sense when it comes to Trump.
Dennis at January 28, 2020 7:36 PM
Leave a comment