May 31 Open Thread: Maybe Trump Is Impeachable
Almost everybody assumes that, even if Democrats retake the House in November, impeachment is a non-starter because two-thirds of the Senate would have to vote in favor of removing him from office, and there’s been no sign so far that even overwhelming evidence would get enough Republicans to go along. Lucian Truscott, writing at Salon, begs to disagree. Few Senators have defended Trump, and those on the Senate Intelligence Committee, in stark contrast to their House counterparts, have given indications that they take this as seriously as the Democrats on the committee do. And they don’t like how Trump has treated their longtime colleague, Jeff Sessions.
While generally incompetent, Trump does know how to play the media, so it’s not surprising to learn that he told Cowboys owner Jerry Jones that the controversy over players protesting during the national anthem was a winning issue for him. This came out in court proceedings as part of Colin Kaepernick’s case alleging coordination among owners to blackball him from the NFL.
Eric Greitens, the ex-Navy Seal-turned-Missouri governor, abruptly resigned yesterday, and not because of lurid allegations that he blackmailed his mistress. He resigned, as Josh Marshall notes in a TPM Prime piece, on about an hour’s notice after a court ordered him to turn over documents from his dark money political group to the state House committee investigating wrongdoing for a potential impeachment trial. It’s not yet clear whether this will keep the records in the dark.
There have been suggestions that the outgoing South Carolina Congressman change his name to Even Trey Gowdy, as in “Even Trey Gowdy thinks “spygate” is bullshit.” Indeed, Gowdy’s blunt dismissal of the lie is one of the signs Truscott seizes on for his pro-impeachment argument.
Today’s schadenfreude moment comes courtesy of court proceedings in one of the Michael Cohen cases: Prosecutors told a judge that the FBI is reconstructing shredded documents seized in the raid on Cohen’s office
Democrats who think politicians can cozy up to corporations and still be progressive get a wakeup call from climate activist Bill McKibben, who notes that liberal darling Justin Trudeau just nationalized a pipeline from Alberta’s tar sands to the coast despite what that would do to hasten the doom of life on Earth. Why? The same reason corporate Democrats always do it: For the money.
But you can count on Democrats to keep their troops entertained with what they do best, the Grand Empty Gesture. To that end, the Illinois legislature did what Delaware’s General Assembly couldn’t and passed the Equal Rights Amendment, a mere 36 years after the deadline for it to matter. The importance was summed up thus by one lawmaker:
“The main reason for adopting the Equal Rights Amendment today … would be the symbolic importance of it. The rejection of it is in some ways insulting. So, the symbolic importance of it is to who we are as a nation — what our aspirations are, what our values are. That in itself is an important affirmation of who we are.”
It should be noted that the Illinois government is ranked as one of the most corrupt in the nation, but hey, the citizens now have an important affirmation of who they are. Which is nice.
The Republicans heaved a collective sigh of relief when Greitens left of his own accord without having to be impeached, pity as “lurid” is far to kind to describe his actions. Trey Gowdy is yet another example of congressmen telling the truth once their headed for the exit, if he was seeking another term he would have been jumping up and down on the “Spygate” bandwagon. As for Spygate it seems to be falling flat just like the Commission on Voter Integrity, suspect they’ll be moving on to new lies shortly.
The Missouri GOP wasn’t reluctant to impeach him. He won the office by running against their corruption, so he had no allies at all.
Trump announced a pardon of conservative propagandist/Islamophobe Dinesh D’Souza, who admitted his guilt in blatantly violating campaign donation limits to a conservative candidate who lost to Kirsten Gillibrand by 43 percentage points. Money well spent!
I don’t care if the Senate won’t convict him, a Democratic House can impeach, and they should. It will be important to choose wisely which articles of impeachment to use. Impeachment as strategic bombing.
What campaign contribution limits? Limits? Now that is a quaint idea!
@A “Democrats who think politicians can cozy up to corporations and still be progressive get a wakeup call from climate activist Bill McKibben, who notes that liberal darling Justin Trudeau just nationalized a pipeline from Alberta’s tar sands to the coast despite what that would do to hasten the doom of life on Earth. Why? The same reason corporate Democrats always do it: For the money.”
That’s a little bit disingenuous. The new pipeline follows the exact same path as an old leaky one. If the objection if oil abstraction in general, then say so, and campaign against all fossil fuel usage. But if the objection is that it will foul the pristine landscape, it’s way too late for that.
Bill McKibben on Tom Carper:
“Climate activist Bill McKibben, a Vermont author who organized anti-Keystone sit-ins outside the White House in 2011, called Carper a “fake.” In a Monday column on Salon.com, McKibben singled out Carper as part of the reason the goals of the U.S.-China deal will be hard to achieve.
“He’s the guy who joins Weight Watchers and somehow figures that makes it OK to eat a pan of brownies,” McKibben wrote, referring to Carper. “He buys a membership at the gym but spends all weekend in the recliner watching ESPN. He’s the guy – like too many of the Democrats in Congress – who wants it both ways.”
@”Prosecutors told a judge that the FBI is reconstructing shredded documents seized in the raid on Cohen’s office.”
Where is Chuck McGill when you really need him?
https://medium.com/@wsiegelman/trump-creditors-ladder-capital-financial-deutsche-bank-658d97d2e2dc
Mr. McGill, he dead. Alas. But Slippin’ Jimmy and the others return Aug. 6. About time. There was some thought that “Saul” wouldn’t be back at all.
spoilers much? ass.
Chuck died last season. If you didn’t know that you’re not much of a fan. Pre-season announcements don’t say he’s been resurrected. Go mope about something else.
“The new pipeline follows the exact same path as an old leaky one.”
Actually, it is the old leaky one.
“If the objection if oil abstraction in general, then say so, and campaign against all fossil fuel usage.”
Ah, I see. Unless you’re an absolutist, shut up, eh? But yes, I’m against oil extraction in general, and McKibben certainly is. Campaigning against this is part of a campaign against all further extraction.
“But if the objection is that it will foul the pristine landscape, it’s way too late for that.”
Absolutism again. So we shouldn’t have capped the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico because hey, the damage was already done? Think about your arguments again and see if you can spot the holes in them. Hint: They involve the straw man you like to set up: If you don’t agree with A, then you believe Z, an argument that ignores the existence of the rest of the alphabet.
@nathan:
But is he really dead? We’ll have to wait until August to find out. ‘S all good, man!
I wish they would figure out a way to bring him back. The network refers to his “death” last season. But who knows? It’s TV. If I somehow knew he would be back and said so, that would be spoiling. Not sure what Ben was on about.
Yeah. That’s what im sayin. He was in a burning house. No body, no death. Learn to t.v. better.
What’s wrong with you? They made it look like he was dead. They *say* he’s dead. They did leave themselves an out, so maybe they find a way to bring him back. If they do, nothing I said would have spoiled it for you. And if they don’t I didn’t spoil anything either. Do you think I have inside knowledge? Geez.
I believe you folks all understand that this issue is at least as important as Russian collusion.
@Ben-
Peter Gould and Vince Gilligan confirmed that Chuck is dead in at least 1 podcast.
@A “Think about your arguments again and see if you can spot the holes in them. Hint: They involve the straw man you like to set up…”
Huh? I gave two separate reasons. One was not predicated on the other.
We all know that humanity will only stop pulling oil out of the ground when it’s basically all gone. That will actually be a good day for humanity.
But to forget that there are several multi-billion dollar industries determined to bring us to that day as soon as possible, is somewhat naive. Protesting to extend that date further into the future seems rather pointless to me.
And whether “doom” truly lives beyond that date is still open to question.
What I imagine going on in your mind is very funny to me. Like both Ediths in Grey Gardens chatting with each other.
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/01/election-hacking-voting-systems-email/?utm_source=The+Intercept+Newsletter&utm_campaign=a65ac5275c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_06_02&utm_
Good for you, Liz Allen. Don’t follow these investigations day-to-day. Just letting it play out.
But you signed it.
Respect.
“We all know that humanity will only stop pulling oil out of the ground when it’s basically all gone. That will actually be a good day for humanity.”
Wrong. “Humanity” will stop pumping oil when it stops being profitable, assuming capitalism persists. We will be extinct before it’s gone. This is what I mean by absolutism. Unless you mean it as hyperbole, your opening assumption is simply illogical as well as unsupported by evidence. The desire is not to burn fossil fuels but to profit.
“But to forget that there are several multi-billion dollar industries determined to bring us to that day as soon as possible, is somewhat naive.”
Those industries are determined to stay profitable. One of those industries, coal, is being driven out of business because it is no longer profitable.
As costs of storms like Sandy increase in frequency, insurance companies will look for a bailout. It likely will come in the form of oil companies knowing about global warming and then lying about it for 30 years. Courts probably will find them liable. Fossil fuels will, at some point, be made unprofitable by the cost of insurance, which is how we usually end up destroying the profitability of unwanted industries.
Fossil fuel corporations won’t care if they can profitably monopolize renewable energy. They exist to make a profit, whether from oil or the sun.
The key to all this is gaining control of the government and enacting the laws that will allow this to happen, or else Republicans will indemnify oil companies as they have gun manufacturers.
“Protesting to extend that date further into the future seems rather pointless to me.”
Because you either don’t care about the issue or you don’t understand how to solve it. Extending that date — slowing the rate of fossil fuel consumption — is the only chance we have of surviving.
If by some miracle we stopped emitting carbon overnight, the effects of the existing level of CO2 would continue to worsen for the rest of the century. I expect we won’t get serious about stopping until sometime around 2050, when the effects will become overwhelming in terms of destruction. It will be too late for a great many species by then, and many human communities as well. The longer we keep pumping, the lower the odds we will survive at all.
The single type of straw man you set up is the false premise that the only possible outcomes are A or Z — for example, they won’t stop until ALL the oil is gone. Everything’s all or nothing. Your failure to recognize other options doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
It’s official, Trumpolini is above the law, all law. He and his lawyers just delivered a 20 page communicado, the President can not be held a accountable for anything. He is the law, therefore he cant break it, and can not be subpoened or forced to testify. Obviously it will go to the Supeme Court, and we know how that worked out.
The letter was sent in January, and you have no idea what will happen. When will you learn to stop having your panic attacks in public?
Oh, and “Trumpolini”? It’s not funny, it’s juvenile.
This is why following this day to day is futile.
@A “Wrong. “Humanity” will stop pumping oil when it stops being profitable…”
“…humanity will only stop pulling oil out of the ground when it’s basically all gone.”
Sorry… I fail to see any meaningful difference between these.
It’s clear to me that it will only get too expensive when it’s basically gone.
Which Edith?
“It’s clear to me that it will only get too expensive when it’s basically gone.”
In that case, I don’t think you understand the business.
There are ways of making it unprofitable before that, but I’m not going to try to convince you. Let’s just leave it at your inability to see the difference doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
Meanwhile, the first natural gas-powered plant with carbon capture just started production in Texas:
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/1/17416444/net-power-natural-gas-carbon-air-pollution-allam-cycle
It’s only hopeless if you give up hope.