Pelosi needs to inform Moscow Mitch that Articles will arrive “imminently” and wait 310 days

Since the concept of imminent has become stretched, so should that compliance, if only to make Moscow Mitch sweat, since it appears that he’ll do whatever he pleases. “Imminent” means something, something to Mike Pompeo and that rule should apply. Speaker Pelosi simply needs to delay long enough to not let Trump spike the ball in the SOTU on 4 February.

310 days from 19 December 2019 is 23 October 2020. 310 days was how long Merrick Garland had to wait. Admittedly this is an extreme tactic, but one does need to be reminded of the lengths of McConnell’s perfidy.

Or she could hold one article back because there’s unfortunately far too much on which to impeach now and even into the Trump second term.

The first article of impeachment effectively charges the president with shaking down Ukraine; the second impeaches him for his unprecedented obstruction of Congress. That gives the speaker room to maneuver. She could choose to tweak her announcement and send only the second article, on obstruction, for trial. Or she could transmit them both — along with a House-approved provision advising the Senate that if it fails to obtain adequate witnesses and documents, the House will reopen the investigation into Article I and subpoena that material itself.

[…]

Separating the two articles — our preferred approach — would make perfect sense. When it comes to the second article, all the evidence about Trump’s obstruction is a matter of public record. There’s nothing more to add, so the second article is ripe for trial. But as to the first, although there is plenty of evidence demonstrating Trump’s guilt, his obstruction has prevented all of the evidence from coming to light.

www.washingtonpost.com/…

x

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has now announced that he has the votes to begin President Trump’s impeachment trial with no agreement on whether witnesses will be allowed to testify. In other words, McConnell (R-Ky.) seems intent on making the trial as brief and perfunctory as possible, lest it be allowed to further besmirch Trump’s reputation by airing too much discussion of his misdeeds.

If you’re asking “Can he get away with that?,” the answer is: Of course he can. If you think that he cares how much criticism he gets for it, you don’t know Mitch McConnell. And you don’t know what he knows about how the American public sees the goings-on in Washington.

To clarify, McConnell isn’t saying there definitely won’t be witnesses; he says that after each side makes its opening presentation, the Senate will then decide. But it is clear that if he can get 50 of his Republican colleagues to agree to a trial with no witnesses, that’s exactly what he’ll do.

[…]
But fairness is not, and has never been, something that concerns McConnell.
There are two reasons. First, he simply doesn’t believe in it as an abstract principle. What matters to him is winning, and whether you win fairly or unfairly is irrelevant. Second, he knows that you can use the power you have unfairly — even unethically — and not pay a political price.

www.washingtonpost.com/…

x

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) January 11, 2020

<



p class=”is-empty-p”>