Funding Trump's concentration camps was inexcusable and horrific and every Democrat who voted to follow Pelosi into it has to live with that-- as do their constituents who vote to reelect them next year. Refusing to impeach Trump, the worst criminal in the history of the American presidency by far, is another issue legislators will have to live with for their whole lives. I would never, under any circumstance, vote for someone who hasn't come out clearly and publicly in favor of impeaching him. Their careers are important to them and their families-- but the country should come first, especially on a matter as existential as this one is. Every now and then the real Tulsi Gabbard pops out-- as it did yesterday on the premiere of Greta Van Susteren's new show, Full Court Press (KTLA here in Los Angeles, KPIX in New York City and KHNL and KGMB in Honolulu). The Democratic congresswoman and presidential candidate-- who once applied for a cabinet post in the Trump regime-- said she opposes impeachment: "I think it’s important for us to think about what is in the best interest of the country and the American people, and continuing to pursue impeachment is something that I think will only further to tear our country apart." She couldn't be more wrong about what's in the best interest of the country, which is exactly why the Founders put impeachment into the Constitution.Michael Owens is running for a suburban Atlanta seat currently occupied by a Trump-friendly Blue Dog, David Scott. Micael doesn't see this the way Tulsi-- or David Scott-- sees it. "Over 130 members of Congress, a majority of the House Democrats," he told me this morning, "understand that it is their constitutional responsibility to pursue an impeachment inquiry. I agree with them that we must begin an inquiry. No one is above the law and with the investigation of Mueller-- and in some cases, Trumps own admissions-- there should be enough to start the inquiry and allow the process to uncover the obstruction and myriad of other things that will come to light. I'm dissappointed, that my opponent, hasn't signed on and continues to remain silent on this issue. Our district is a solid blue district that is calling for change. Impeaching Trump will not immediately fix everything. But impeachment is an investigative process that allows Americans to uncover and see the corruption and greed of this administration and begin restoring faith in this democracy at home and worldwide."Marie Newman is also running for a solid blue seat held by a Trump-friendly Blue Dog, Dan Lipinski, who opposes impeaching Trump. "For me," she said today, "this is simple, the overwhelming majority in my district believe serious crimes have been committed and they want impeachment inquiries to start. I stand with my district."On Friday, Politico's early morning team wrote that "There’s a multi-faceted divide in the Democratic caucus right now but it can easily be broken down like this: From what we can tell, most every Democrat wants to impeach Trump. For the most part, those who are not publicly saying they support impeachment believe the politics do not break in the Democrats’ favor. Few Dems these days oppose impeachment on the merits." In other words, instead of doing what they think is right for the country, they are following Pelosi and her disgraceful-- disgusting-- political calculus that breaks down basically to worrying about reelction bids of half a dozen Blue Dogs in red seats, all of them cowardly scum who vote consistently badly and don't belong in Congress in any case.Later in the day, 3 other Politico reporters wrote about how Jerry Nadler's beleaguered House Judiciary Committee is struggling with this. Kyle Cheney, Heather Caygle and John Bresnahan pointed out that the committee "is preparing to take its first formal vote to define what Chairman Jerry Nadler calls an ongoing 'impeachment investigation' of President Donald Trump, according to multiple sources briefed on the discussions. The panel could vote as early as Wednesday on a resolution to spell out the parameters of its investigation. The precise language is still being hammered out inside the committee and with House leaders. A draft of the resolution is expected to be released Monday morning."
The issue was raised Friday during a conference call among the committee's Democrats. A source familiar with the discussion said any move next week would be intended to increase the “officialness” of the ongoing probe, following a six-week summer recess in which some Democrats struggled to characterize to their constituents that the House had already begun impeachment proceedings. Democrats are hopeful that explicitly defining their impeachment inquiry will heighten their leverage to compel testimony from witnesses.Though the language of the resolution is still in flux, some sources said it could incorporate elements of traditional impeachment probes, such as offering access to the president's attorneys or providing for more time to question witnesses. There was discussion among some Democrats on Friday’s call about the strength of the language in the resolution, according to sources briefed on the call.Advocates of opening a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump have clamored for the Judiciary Committee to more clearly spell out the contours of its investigation-- a move they hope strengthens the House’s hand in a handful of court cases to obtain evidence and testimony against the president.In early August, Nadler publicly declared that his committee had already launched impeachment proceedings despite taking no formal vote to do so. The claim sparked confusion, even among some Democrats, who sought clarification as they faced questions from progressive constituents about the status of the House's effort to recommend Trump's removal from office.The committee has also repeatedly described an ongoing “impeachment investigation” in court filings submitted during the recess, part of legal efforts to compel testimony from witnesses to allegations that Trump attempted to obstruct an investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. By declaring impeachment under active consideration, the committee has sought to convince judges of the urgency of providing Democrats with the evidence they're seeking.But Republicans on the committee protested loudly that impeachment proceedings require a vote, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi's resistance to a formal impeachment inquiry-- despite her support of the Judiciary Committee's legal filings-- has complicated the House's posture further.In addition to probing potential obstruction of justice by Trump, the Judiciary Committee is weighing allegations that Trump directed hush money payments to women accusing him of extramarital affairs in the weeks before the 2016 election, as well as evidence that Trump has sought to steer U.S. and foreign government spending to his luxury resorts, raising questions about whether he has violated the Constitution's Emoluments Clause.Until now, Trump-related investigations had been a patchwork effort by six congressional committees. The Ways and Means Committee, for example, is pursuing Trump's tax returns in court. The Financial Services Committee and Intelligence Committee are seeking Trump's financial records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One. The Foreign Affairs Committee has sought details about Trump's interactions with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who the intelligence community has assessed sought to boost Trump's 2016 electoral prospects. And the Oversight Committee had initially taken the lead on allegations about hush money payments, calling Trump's former personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen to testify in February before he went to prison on charges connected to the scheme.The Judiciary Committee had mostly kept focused on obstruction of justice and the fallout from former special counsel Robert Mueller's report, made public in April, that revealed hundreds of contacts between Russians and Trump campaign associates, as well as repeated attempts by Trump to constrain or shut down the probe altogether. Mueller testified publicly to the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees in late July, days before the House departed for its six-week recess.But his testimony uncorked a surge of support for launching formal impeachment proceedings. More than half of the House's 235 Democrats now support taking that step. The number has grown steadily, even after Nadler suggested impeachment proceedings had begun.But the momentum has been tempered by Pelosi, who warned Democrats in an Aug. 23 call that public sentiment hasn't kept pace. Polls show most Americans still generally oppose opening impeachment proceedings, even though Democratic voters largely support the move.Many of the Democrats who declared support for an impeachment inquiry did so because they said it would help break through Trump's stonewalling of the six committee investigations. They argued that without formal impeachment proceedings, Trump could continue to claim blanket immunity for his top aides and allies, preventing them from testifying or complying with congressional subpoenas. Trump has blocked several of his most senior aides-- including former officials who provided some of Mueller's most damaging testimony-- from speaking to Congress.They include former White House counsel Don McGahn, who told Mueller about multiple attempts by Trump to have the special counsel removed and described an atmosphere of chaos in the West Wing shortly after Mueller's appointment. They also include former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, who provided limited testimony to the committee but refused to discuss her tenure in the White House.
Candidates elected in 2020 are unlikely to have to deal with impeachment because it is highly unlikely Trump will be reelected. But it is still valuable to know how they feel about impeachment when deciding whether or not to support them. So I asked a few, including some from extremely difficult districts.Late last June, Teresa Tomlinson, the progressive candidate in the race for the Georgia Senate seat held by avid Trump enabler David Perdue, used her Kos diary to advance the need to impeach Trump. "I am a lawyer who has worked my entire life fighting for justice and the rule of law. I’ve read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and all 448 pages of the Mueller Report. And I’ve heard the President’s own disturbing and destabilizing words. I have no doubt it’s time for Congress to begin impeachment hearings against President Trump. Even if impeachment results in his acquittal in the Senate, it is the legislative duty of our elected officials to lead in accordance with the oath they swore to defend our Constitution."
It’s not about nullifying or affecting an election: it’s about ensuring power is checked and checked immediately before future abuses occur. The Constitution requires the impeachment process from Congress if, in the words of the Founding Fathers, the President has "abused their confidence.” A president is subject to impeachment when they have "proved themselves to be unworthy of the confidence" placed in them. The Founding Fathers say allowing a President who has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors (which actually means “misdeeds”) to avoid impeachment brings “disgrace” on the Congress for failing to act. (See Federalist Papers, No. 66).What we miss is that the impeachment process is not destabilizing or partisan, as the refusals to pursue it suggests. The impeachment process is elucidating and cathartic to the public and it actually fortifies our system. Thwarting our constitutional checks and balances for polls or election strategy demeans an important underpinning of a representative republic....The U.S. Constitution is the greatest civic document the world has known. Let’s use it.
North Carolina state Senator Erica Smith is the progressive Democrat running for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Trump ally and rubber-stamp Thom Tillis. She was living in Crystal City when the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton on spurious charges and she's told ne she read the entire Mueller Report and felt disgusted by Trump’s "commission of ten impeachable offenses, continuous acts of obstruction, disgraceful conduct, speech, and prideful pontification of 'grabbing women by the p-parts', paying off prostitutes with hush money and denials of his predatory conduct toward past women based on their appearance [and saw] "the overwhelming substantive evidence of his misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance. Impeachment proceedings," she said, "must commence, with deliberate speed and predilection. I, personally, would like to see him defeated in 2020 and tried as a private citizen and imprisoned for his crimes against humanity and our country. However, as our military has court-martialed officers and criminal courts have tried, convicted and imprisoned every day citizens who’ve committed far fewer and less egregious crimes than President Trump-- he should be impeached!"Brianna Wu is running for a Boston area seat where voters are much less inclined to trust Trump than the current congressman, New Dem Stephen Lynch. "This is not about tactics or strategy," said Brainna. "This is about the survival of our republic. Does the Constitution still matter? Does the rule of law still apply? If we don’t act now to hold Trump accountable, history will judge us harshly. The political gamesmanship that delayed impeachment hearings is why Americans don’t trust either party. We have to be bold, and honest and vulnerable with the people that are trusting us to do our constitutional duty. I don’t know what will happen with pursuing impeachment, but I am certain what will happen if we do not."In another up-for-grabs district in the suburbs of Atlanta, Marqus Cole is running in an open seat. He said that "Even in a swing district, I recognize that my unique position as a former prosecutor allows me some latitude to be completely honest. An un-indicted co-conspirator to a federal crime currently resides in the White House. Full stop. Further, the ongoing and public pouring of tax dollars into the President’s private companies is a full blown scandal. Finally, the ten (10) acts of obstruction documented by the Mueller investigation all lead me to the reasonable conclusion that the House should exercise its constitutional power to initiate impeachment proceedings. Leave it to Moscow Mitch and Senators up for re-election to determine if they will put party over country."Eva Putzova is in a hot primary race in Arizona. The incumbent, Blue Dog Tom O'Halleran, is a former Republican state legislature pretending to be a Democrat but opposing impeachment. Eva sees the need to uphold the rule of law by impeaching Trump. "If House Democrats," she told me, "think that President Trump has committed impeachable offenses they have the constitutional obligation to initiate impeachment proceedings. Otherwise, what value are they putting on the 'rule of law?' When I am elected to Congress, and if Trump is still in office, I will support his impeachment based on the evidence collected so far, including obstruction of justice as described in the Mueller Report, and his clear violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution. Our obligation is to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States...,' not ignore that obligation in order to get re-elected. Serving people should be our representatives' top priority and that also means holding our president accountable. I personally believe that the House leadership's political calculation is also misguided and agree with Laurence Tribe: 'An impeached Trump who escapes conviction in the Senate will be weaker in 2020 than a Trump who can brag that not even a Democratically controlled House could impeach him. And GOP Senators who give him a pass will be easier to defeat than ones who’re spared any need to be counted.'"Morgan Harper is running for the Columbus, Ohio House seat (OH-03) occupied by old skool moderate Democrat Joyce Beatty. She was waffling on impeachment before Morgan announce her candidacy but tried jumping on the band wagon once she realized she was been primaries. "Donald Trump has broken the law," Morgan said resolutely, "and is a threat to our country every day he remains in office. I have been clear since the day I launched my campaign that we should impeach him. Getting rid of him is a top priority for many people I meet in Franklin County."Rachel Ventura is running for a Chicagoland seat held by conservative New Dem Bill Foster. This morning, Rachel told us that "Like many Democrats, Bill Foster weighed the politics of impeachment as more important than holding the president of the United States accountable for clear violations of the emoluments clause. Trump has from the beginning of his administration, used his office for private gain, from his hotel in D.C. to his resort Mar-a-Lago in Florida, favorable treatment for his and his family’s trademarks by China and continued business with foreign nationals while serving as president. These are direct violation of the emoluments clause. And until the political calculus changed and I entered the race to give voters in Illinois’ 11th Congressional District a stronger voice, Bill Foster voted against impeachment at least four times. On August 28th, he switched his position and decided to support impeachment. We can’t afford to wait for someone who is always doing the political calculus, especially on the burning issue of climate change where scientists have given us as short as 18 months to act. Are voters really going to endure another decade of inaction on healthcare reform from someone who, at his core opposes Medicare for All? I will be a strong leader with a moral compass, capable of making solid judgement calls and moving the nation forward, not waiting for the political winds to change. As a politician, it is not my job to do what is popular but to do what is right, and make it popular."