The smoke was thick

The Democrats are talking about censuring AG Wiliam Barr if he doesn’t testify before the House Judicial Committee. Melissa McEwan of Shakesville wrote, after the censure, then what?

So, more discussion of impeachment.

McEwan says that because we’re debating whether the nasty guy should be impeached, that’s a reason to impeach.

If, four years ago, someone described a hypothetical president who has done the crimes the nasty guy has done members of Congress of both parties would not hesitate in saying the president should be impeached.

Now two years into his term he has shifted the parameters so much that faced with those same crimes all we do is debate.

That discrepancy is a reason to impeach.



Eric Schmeltzer tweeted a thread:

Fact is, no one knows what will happen to impeachment numbers in polls, if Congress begins inquiry hearings. It is all guessing! But, it was the same in 1973, when polling said, after the Saturday Night Massacre, only 37 percent favored removal of Nixon.

He includes a chart of Nixon’s approval rating along with the percent of those who think he should be removed. Towards the end of July 1974 those who want him gone cross 50% and are at 57% by the time Nixon resigned.

Back then, like today, Dems (and everyone else) had no idea if pursuing impeachment would change those numbers, or backfire.

What Dems did know is that the smoke was thick around Nixon, and investigation and impeachment hearings may find the fire -- so it was their duty to pursue it. They had basically NO GOP support at the outset.

The idea that they had a cooperative GOP for impeachment is a myth.
...
Dems can either convince themselves that the risks aren't hypothetical, but real as the sun rising, or they can say they do not know, and the only certain thing is that they're running out of options, as Trump defies subpoenas.

In 1973 and 74, no one knew where impeachment would go.

They DID know they didn't have polls, or Senate GOP votes, on their side.

But, they did what was right, and polls slowly joined them.

Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund tweeted a thread on the news that the nasty guy and AG Barr are ordering federal employees to ignore congressional subpoenas:

There are so many outrages, but at the level of whether our democracy survives intact, this is the most important story of today, tomorrow & the forseeable future. And I cannot understand the silence of most of my profession at this dangerous, frontal challenge to the rule of law. The rule of law is not partisan. Neither is separation of powers. Speaking up for the rule of law should not fall to civil rights lawyers, Democratic Party lawyers or Never Trumpers. Every lawyer who has taken the oath to defend the Constitution must speak, must stand. I have been waiting for the full measure of voices who lead our profession to speak powerfully, unequivocally & publicly. The law firm partners. The former govt. attorneys. The law profs. Our profession will not recover from the failure to fight collectively for the rule of law.