[Winstonm]

To those who are noticing that the KoolAid is starting to taste odd, Lawfare provides this:

Quote

This time it’s different.

The misconduct cannot be dismissed as unproven; it screams off the plain text of the White House’s own memorandum detailing the president’s phone conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart. It cannot be disparaged as the result of a “Witch Hunt” or blamed on angry Democrats working for a special counsel or attempting a coup from the depths of the “Deep State.” The revelation did not flow from any investigation at all but, instead, from the complaints of shocked subordinates, complaints that generated pressure that ultimately caused the president himself to fess up and release the document. It cannot be blamed on “The Squad” or on Nancy Pelosi or on Adam Schiff. None of these people made the president say the words that appear in that document. None of them made him take the actions into which the memo offers dramatic visibility. Nor does the president deny that he said those words. He just thinks it’s fine for a president to do so.

And that, really, is the crux of the problem and the crux of the decision before Congress. To do nothing is to agree that this conduct is acceptable.

No one over the age of 8 should be drinking KoolAid, anyway.

[cherdano]

Lindsey Graham has come out in favour of impeachment:

Quote

You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role…. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.

(Yup, he said so already 20 years ago.)

[y66]

They don't come any more hypocritical than Graham and that includes Trump and all the trolls on this thread. It's not close.

[johnu]

y66, on 2019-September-26, 19:27, said:

They don't come any more hypocritical than Graham and that includes Trump and all the trolls on this thread. It's not close.

I personally have trouble ranking the right fringe hypocrites. All the superlatives in the world cannot quantify the lack of integrity and honesty of these people. I will say the of all the hypocrites on the right, Graham is probably the biggest flip flopper who has gone from never trumper to a bootlicking fanboy, and who was all in favor of impeaching Clinton for lying about a sexual encounter that had nothing to do with his duties as president, but anything the Grifter in Chief does is just okay with the Bootlicker from SC.

[johnu]

Another looming piece of the scandal that hasn't got much publicity yet.

Russia Knew In Advance Donald Trump Banned Officials From Ukraine President’s Inaugural, Russian TV Revealed

Quote

Newly elected Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky was inaugurated on May 20, and United States Vice President Mike Pence had been scheduled to travel to Ukraine to attend the inauguration as an official representative of the Donald Trump administration. But Pence cancelled the trip at the last minute, and according to a whistleblower complaint made public on Thursday and posted online by the House Intelligence Committee, the order to snub Zelensky’s inaugural came directly from Trump himself.

But there was someone else who knew that Trump had ordered top United States officials to boycott the Ukraine president’s inauguration, and somehow knew days before the inauguration took place — the Russian government.

According to investigative journalist Julia Davis, who monitors Russian media and posts excerpts from Russian state TV on her Twitter account, commentators on Russia’s government-owned Channel One revealed one week before the inauguration that Trump had barred not only U.S. government officials but also his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani from attending the inaugural.

“Oh my, the Russians weren’t lying,” Davis wrote. “They knew what was taking place behind-the-scenes.”

As the Criminal in Chief was beginning ratcheting up the pressure on Zelensky to launch an investigation of Biden and son, he ordered Pence to snub Zelensky by cancelling the VP's appearance. Hmmm, the Russians knew all about this before anybody else in the US except for the White House. How is that? Why was it kept secret? Was this done by Putin's puppet at the suggestion of Putin? This is more kompromat material for the Kremlin to keep the Manchurian President in line.

Imagine, in the middle of the 2020 election campaign, Putin tells his puppet he needs to let Russia take over another big part of Ukraine, or maybe lift all the US sanctions on Russia, or maybe give Russia the names of all the secret agents working in Russia. The Manchurian President probably wouldn't have any problem with doing this, but just in case he did balk, Putin could threaten to expose his collusion with Ukraine right before the election which would almost certainly assure the Democrat would win the election.

[Winstonm]

johnu, on 2019-September-26, 20:45, said:

Another looming piece of the scandal that hasn't got much publicity yet.

Russia Knew In Advance Donald Trump Banned Officials From Ukraine President’s Inaugural, Russian TV Revealed


As the Criminal in Chief was beginning ratcheting up the pressure on Zelensky to launch an investigation of Biden and son, he ordered Pence to snub Zelensky by cancelling the VP's appearance. Hmmm, the Russians knew all about this before anybody else in the US except for the White House. How is that? Why was it kept secret? Was this done by Putin's puppet at the suggestion of Putin? This is more kompromat material for the Kremlin to keep the Manchurian President in line.

In light of this WB complaint, the Helsinki notes that Trump confiscated as well as the testimony of the interpreter used might be of value.

To refresh memories, from June 2019:

Quote

Ahead of his expected meeting with Putin on the sidelines of this weekend’s G-20 Summit in Osaka, Japan, the president told reporters that while he expected to have a positive conversation with Putin, he would not divulge whether he will press the adversarial leader about election interference.

“I will have a very good conversation with him,” Trump said, adding, “What I say to him is none of your business.”

In context, the president was speaking specifically to a White House reporter, but the larger problem is that Trump doesn’t seem to think his Putin chats are anyone’s business.

Circling back to our earlier coverage, ahead of his July 2018 summit with the Russian leader, Trump insisted that the meeting be limited to a one-on-one discussion, with no other U.S. officials, even members of the Trump cabinet, participating. The White House never fully explained why, but the assumption throughout the government was that the Republican would brief U.S. officials on the details of the meeting afterwards.

That didn’t happen. White House officials, military leaders, and even Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats all conceded in the days following the summit that they didn’t fully know what transpired behind closed doors.

It wasn’t an isolated incident. The Washington Post later reported that Trump has “gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations” with the Russian autocrat who attacked our elections in 2016 in order to put the Republican in power – at one point even “talking possession” of his own interpreter’s notes after a conversation with Putin.

[rmnka447]

hrothgar, on 2019-September-26, 13:15, said:

Words have meaning

When one is dealing with nuanced issues such as the law, impeachable offenses and the like, precision is a good thing.
The suspect that the reason that people are adopting a standardized descriptions is the desire to be precise about their claims.

The reason that these claims seem to be popular and are being advanced by a lot of people is far more likely to reflect the fact that they are true than some kind of grand scheme on the part of the Democrats.

In other words, all these media people decide that they must phrase everything the same in lockstep. Don't be absurd!

We've all probably played the game where something is whispered in your ear and you whisper to the next person. It's interesting to see how the original statement changes at the end.

So when everyone uses the same catch phrase, it either has to be scripted or because there's some tacit understanding to do so. The worst part is that the catch phrase often comes from a "what if" statement by an "analyst" (Trump hater) on the conspiracy news networks.

[rmnka447]

hrothgar, on 2019-September-26, 12:28, said:

Fine. It's a boring day at work. Let's try to step through this all and see where the disconnect is happening.

I make the following claims

1. President Trump solicited a foreign government to intervene in a US Presidential campaign
2. President Trump solicited a foreign government to conduct investigations into the affairs of a private US citizen
3. President Trump solicited a foreign government to investigate a US citizen for political purposes

Do you

A. Agree that this is shown by the transcript
B. Deny that this is shown by the transcript
C. Deny that these are impeachable offenses
D. Other

1. Did Trump say anything about a Presidential campaign? No! So this is a conclusion you've arrived at and not a fact.

2. Joe Biden isn't exactly just a "private US citizen". He's a former VP who was in charge of US affairs with the Ukraine and subject to some scrutiny especially if any questions have arisen about possible criminal wrongdoing or abuse of those powers.

3. Again, this is a conclusion you've arrived at and not a fact. Prove that what Trump asked was for political purposes. The Prez is charged by the Constitution to faithfully
execute and enforce the laws of the US. As such, he must ensure that possible corruption/criminality be investigated. So asking for help to do so may be required to meet his obligations as President under the Constitution.

[hrothgar]

rmnka447, on 2019-September-27, 00:12, said:

1. Did Trump say anything about a Presidential campaign? No! So this is a conclusion you've arrived at and not a fact.

The standard that you are using is nonsensical.

Launching an investigation into the leading Presidential candidate of a major party, is definitionally intervening into a presidential campaign. This doesn't depend on uttering "magic words", rather it depends on the set of actions that are taken.

Quote

2. Joe Biden isn't exactly just a "private US citizen". He's a former VP who was in charge of US affairs with the Ukraine and subject to some scrutiny especially if any questions have arisen about possible criminal wrongdoing or abuse of those powers.

Even if I agreed with you here, Hunter Biden is most certainly a private citizen

Quote

3. Again, this is a conclusion you've arrived at and not a fact. Prove that what Trump asked was for political purposes.

Trump told the President of Ukraine to follow up with Rudy Giuliani.
Giuliani is not part of the US government, rather he is Trump's private attorney and part of Trump's re-election campaign.
He has neither that right nor the authority to negotiate policy for the United States.

Quote

The Prez is charged by the Constitution to faithfully execute and enforce the laws of the US. As such, he must ensure that possible corruption/criminality be investigated. So asking for help to do so may be required to meet his obligations as President under the Constitution.

The fact that the President has the power and authority to take some action does not mean that any exercise of that power is justified.

In this case, there are two very significant points that need to be noted

1. The President's powers to order law enforcement to investigate US citizens are extremely constrained.
The President can not launch such investigations on a whim.
He must follow very strict and specific protocols.

2. The President can not sidestep these restrictions by farming his dirty work out to foreign governments.

[hrothgar]

andrei, on 2019-September-26, 10:14, said:

I have never seen/heard anything, but unnamed sources have told me that ....

Of course, you neglect to mention:

1. Here is a transcript of a call that confirms all of the claims
2. Both the Inspector General and the Acting DNI both looked at the Whistleblower's complaints and evaluated these as credible claims, worth following up on

Neither the AG not the acting DNI are "Democrats" or Deep State. These are political appointees chosen by Trump himself.
Both used words like "Serious", "Credible", and "Urgent" to describe the whistleblower's complaint

[kenberg]

rmnka447, on 2019-September-27, 00:12, said:

1. Did Trump say anything about a Presidential campaign? No! So this is a conclusion you've arrived at and not a fact.

2. Joe Biden isn't exactly just a "private US citizen". He's a former VP who was in charge of US affairs with the Ukraine and subject to some scrutiny especially if any questions have arisen about possible criminal wrongdoing or abuse of those powers.

3. Again, this is a conclusion you've arrived at and not a fact. Prove that what Trump asked was for political purposes. The Prez is charged by the Constitution to faithfully
execute and enforce the laws of the US. As such, he must ensure that possible corruption/criminality be investigated. So asking for help to do so may be required to meet his obligations as President under the Constitution.

I was skeptical of the wisdom of impeachment until this stuff with Ukraine hit. I'll say a bit.

People understand implied threats and implied rewards. Sometimes it can get subtle, but not in this case.

As to Hunter Biden, I have no trouble believing that one of his implicit qualifications for the job was that his father was vice-president. I have no trouble believing that people who are looking for favors from the administration think staying in Trump hotels is a good idea. This isn't good, but it is also not surprising. Having your father be the VP can be both a blessing and a curse. It can open doors, but it can also create the impression of favoritism. This is hardly unique to the Bidens. But none of this changes or excuses Trump's actions.

My previous resistance to impeachment was partly on principal, partly practical. The presidency should be decided by election, that's the brief version of the principle involved. As to the practical, it's related to the principle. If ousting Trump is seen as political rather than principled then their will be electoral consequences that we will not like.

A further practical issue with impeachment is that it diverts Dems from some fundamental questions. One way of putting it: Was the loss in 2016 because the voters did not like Hillary Clinton or was the loss because the voters did not like the Democratic Party? Yes, I know, she won the popular vote and other such excuses, but the electoral college is not going away any time soon so the Dems need to figure this out. Impeachment could well become a distraction from thinking through some necessary issues.

I have found Trump repulsive from the beginning. I have hoped, and to some extent expected, that more people would come around to my way of thinking. And I think to some extent this has happened. But we cannot just let this Ukraine business pass. I had hoped this could all go to a vote in 2020 but Ukraine has forced the issue.

[y66]

Ramesh Ponnuru at Bloomberg began his column today by calling out Peter DeFazio (D-OR) for asserting that Trump's phone call was treasonous. It wasn't according to the Constitution's definition. He goes on to say:

Quote

Those of us who consume a lot of conservative media are, however, seeing even more flawed arguments in defense of Trump. Here are a few of the leading ones.

There was no quid pro quo in Trump’s call with Ukrainian president Volodomyr Zelenskiy. It takes willful naiveté to read the memorandum of the call released by the White House that way – especially given that the Trump administration had held up some aid to Ukraine at the time of the call. In the conversation, Trump said that the U.S. had been good to Ukraine, noted that the relationship was not reciprocal, and then asked for “a favor” and an “other thing.”

The “favor” concerned Ukrainian cooperation with an effort by Attorney General Bill Barr to look into a conspiracy theory involving Ukraine and the 2016 elections. The “other thing” was to help Barr and Trump’s personal attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, “get to the bottom” of whether Vice President Joe Biden had intervened to stop a prosecution affecting his son.

It’s fine for the president to ask for Ukrainian help in uprooting corruption. It’s the administration’s right to set its foreign-policy priorities, and fighting corruption has been a low one. The president’s interest here was obviously personal. Otherwise there would have been no reason to involve Giuliani, a private lawyer, who had already said that he was “meddling in an investigation” to help his client.

The news media has edited the memorandum of the phone call to make Trump look worse. This is correct. Some outlets have used ellipses to jump from Trump’s request for a favor directly to his comment about Biden. In skipping over the conspiracy-theory part of Trump’s comment, they made the evidence that Trump was pressuring Ukraine over Biden look stronger than it is. An accurate recounting of the memorandum, though, is strong enough.

Democratic senators interfered with Ukrainian prosecutors, too. Not really. Three Democratic senators sent a letter urging Ukraine to cooperate with an ongoing investigation by the U.S. government rather than to succumb to any pressure from Trump to withhold cooperation. There was no threat of U.S. policy changes adversely affecting Ukraine, either. So no quo, and a less problematic quid.

It was just a phone call. There’s no reason a phone call can’t be enough to be worth investigating, or even removing an official from office. But what’s under investigation isn’t just a phone call anyway. We need to know the motives for the administration’s temporary withholding of aid, which are disputed. And Giuliani’s comment about meddling came more than two months before the phone call.

The “whistleblower complaint” contains a lot of hearsay. That’s true, but the allegations are of sufficiently troubling acts as to be worth investigating.

Russiagate was a hoax, and the same people who spread it are yelling about this. Russia interfered in the 2016 election; the president has repeatedly denied that point; and top aides expressed their willingness to get election help from the Russian government. The idea that there was something worth looking into was no hoax, even if Robert Mueller was unable to show that Trump was involved in a criminal conspiracy.

The multiplicity of grounds Trump’s enemies have cited to call for impeachment shows they are just after him for partisan reasons. Partisanship is definitely playing a large role, just as Hamilton predicted. Note, though, that this defense of Trump is similar to one Hillary Clinton’s fans made over her emails: They’ve alleged one thing after another about her for decades, so why take this one seriously? It wasn’t wrong for Clinton’s defenders to point to Republican partisanship. But Clinton also had a history of ethical corner-cutting that kept leading to accusations, some of them justified and some of them unjustified. Trump seems to have a habit of confusing his interests with the country’s, and it too is leading to scandal after scandal.

Trump’s enemies are trying to annul an election; they can’t accept his legitimacy. Trump is the legitimate president, and some of his opponents have foolishly denied it. He was elected fair and square under the process our Constitution lays out. If he’s removed from office after an impeachment trial, he’ll have exited the presidency under another process the Constitution lays out. And Hillary Clinton won’t become president.

Removing a president for high crimes and misdemeanors is not something to be done lightly. There is plenty of room for debate over what counts as an impeachment-worthy offense. It may be wiser to leave a judgment of Trump’s conduct to the next election. But if Congress chooses to leave him in office, it shouldn’t be based on the weak arguments his defenders are currently making.

[y66]

Zelensky, Zelenskyy, Zelenskyi or Zelenskiy? wikipedia explains:

Quote

Zelensky's name lacks an established Latin-alphabet spelling, and it has been romanized in various ways: for example Volodymyr Zelenskyi or Zelenskyy from Ukrainian, or Vladimir Zelenskiy from Russian. Zelenskyy is the spelling in his passport and his administration has used it since May 2019, but his spokesperson - Iuliia Mendel - does not object to other spellings

[barmar]

andrei, on 2019-September-26, 10:14, said:

I have never seen/heard anything, but unnamed sources have told me that ....

Hearsay is not admissable evidence in a criminal trial. But that doesn't mean it's irrelevant. IANAL, but I think it's acceptable as probable cause to start an investigation. And consistent hearsay from multiple sources is more credible.

Furthermore, impeachment is not a criminal trial. The Constitution does not set any standard for the reasons for beginning an impeachment investigation. The House has wide latitude, there's no presumption of innocence.

[Winstonm]

I found this history of the arguments and reasons for including impeachment in the Constitution of value. It is long, so I will try to separate it to make skimming easier if a full read is too much.

Quote

Comments in the state ratifying conventions also suggest that those who adopted the Constitution viewed impeachment as a remedy for usurpation or abuse of power or serious breach of trust.

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina stated that the impeachment power of the House reaches "those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust."

Edmund Randolph said in the Virgina convention that the President may be impeached if he "misbehaves."61 He later cited the example of the President's receipt of presents or emoluments from a foreign power in violation of the constitutional prohibition of Article I, section 9.

George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection."

Quote

Edmund Randolph referred to the checks upon the President:

It has too often happened that powers delegated for the purpose of promoting the happiness of a community have been perverted to the advancement of the personal emoluments of the agents of the people; but the powers of the President are too well guarded and checked to warrant this illiberal aspersion.

Quote

James Iredell made a similar distinction in the North Carolina convention, and on the basis of this principle said, "I suppose the only instances, in which the President would be liable to impeachment, would be where he had received a bribe, or had acted from some corrupt motive or other.

Quote

But he went on to argue "that the President

Must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated

Quote

In short the framers who discussed impeachment in the state ratifying conventions, as well as other delegates who favored the Constitution, implied that it reached offenses against the government, and especially abuses of constitutional duties. The opponents did not argue that the grounds for impeachment had been limited to criminal offenses.

my emphasis.

Donald Trump seems to get a check mark beside each category listed, even suggesting to use the pardon power as a gift or to pardon himself. That impeachment is a political solution rather than criminal solution is a given and has to be partly parisan by its nature.

[Winstonm]

Interesting. CNN is now reporting that the WH also restricted access to telephone conversations Trump had with Putin and Mohammed bin Salmon.

Could those conversations be the ones mentioned by the WB as others that were stored in the code-word access storage system?

[johnu]

The Manchurian President and his cronies can't keep their distance from Putin and the Kremlin.

Giuliani cancels paid appearance next week at Kremlin-backed conference

Quote

Giuliani’s decision to take part in the conference astounded national security experts. His appearance would have come days after the release of a whistleblower complaint accusing Trump and Giuliani of pressuring Ukrainian officials for damaging information about Democrats.

Trump this summer withheld military aid from Ukraine, which counts on U.S. support to help fend off pro-Moscow separatists in the country’s eastern provinces. As part of his efforts in Ukraine, Giuliani has said the focus on Russia’s interference in the 2016 election has overlooked what he claims was meddling by Kiev.

[johnu]

There are crimes and there is committing treason against your own country.

Trump Told Russian Officials He Was Unconcerned by Moscow’s Election Interference: Report

Quote

President Trump reportedly told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 meeting that he was not concerned about Russian interference in the 2016 election. According to The Washington Post, Trump made the comments to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the same May 2017 meeting where he came under fire for revealing highly classified information that exposed an intelligence source on the Islamic State. Three former U.S. officials cited by the Post said the president told Lavrov and Kislyak he was unfazed by Moscow's election interference because America has done the same thing in other countries. He also reportedly said the firing of ex-FBI Director James Comey got rid of “great pressure” on him.

The remarks prompted officials to restrict access to a memo about the meeting to only a “few officials with the highest security clearances” to keep his comments from the public, according to the report.

As I have previously said, why worry about foreign spies in this country when you have a traitor in the most powerful position in this country.

[y66]

From Ross Douthat at NYT:

Quote

Ask an intelligent Republican staffer what they imagine awaits their party after Donald Trump, and you’ll get an interesting disquisition on the factions and figures that might shape conservatism, the political and policy arguments to come.

Ask that same staffer what happens if Trump is re-elected, and you’ll get a heavy sigh, a thousand-yard stare and then a hopeful “Well, maybe we can just pretend he isn’t there …?”

This is the state of Republican politics with impeachment suddenly looming. People are ready for the after, the reckoning to come, the attempted restorations and Trumpisms-without-Trump, the great Nikki Haley-Tucker Carlson brawl.

But if Trump survives impeachment and somehow gets re-elected, there will be no after Trump, not yet and not for four long years. Instead Trump will bestride his party like a decaying colossus, and his administration’s accelerative deterioration will be the G.O.P.’s as well. There will be no second-term policymaking, no John Kelly to stabilize the ship — just a floating hulk drifting between the icebergs of recession and foreign crisis, with all American conservatism onboard.

Outside the ranks of the truest Trump believers, most Republicans anticipate very bad things in 2022 and 2024 if the Trump Show continues uninterrupted. And most would happily fast-forward through that show if the magical remote control from that terrible Adam Sandler movie were suddenly available.

My days of writing high-dudgeon columns demanding that Republicans act in concert against Trump are behind me; cynicism and bemusement define my attitude toward G.O.P. decadence these days.

But in a bored-Roman-aristocrat drawl, I just want to suggest — mildly, dabbling my hands in a convenient finger bowl — that the current impeachment inquiry might, in fact, be that magical remote control: a chance to hit fast-forward and summon the post-Trump future into existence here and now, for the 2020 campaign.

Hitting the button requires only two things: the swift, before-primary-season impeachment schedule House Democrats are entertaining and then 20 Republican votes in the Senate for conviction, if the Trump-Giuliani operation in Ukraine looks as bad in a few months as it does today.

Of course the second thing is a political near-impossibility. But we’re fantasizing here, my dear Petronius, so we can imagine how it might happen. Start with Mitt Romney, add the four retiring Republican senators, plus the most embattled purple-state 2020 incumbents, plus a clutch of Republicans most at risk in 2022, plus the handful of the senators who don’t face the voters till 2024 … and then you’re just a few Republicans of principle away from 20.

In voting to remove Trump (and to bar him, as an impeachment can, from simply running for president again immediately), these 20 would allow the other 33 Republican senators to stand by him, thank him for his service and promise to Make America Great Again themselves. And the more ambitious among the latter group of senators would then compete to succeed Trump, while his wrath was concentrated against the treacherous 20.

That competition would be the next phase of our fast-forward: With Trump gone, everyone from Haley and Carlson to Marco Rubio and Josh Hawley could jump into an accelerated primary campaign against the unloved Republican “incumbent,” Mike Pence. The result would be, in effect, the 2024 G.O.P. primary four years early — with the possibility of either pre-empting a President Elizabeth Warren or preventing a Trump second term’s likely demolition of the G.O.P.

Of course this is just a pleasant conceit, whose mere description by a Trump critic like myself will irritate the many conservatives for whom it’s absurd to imagine any upside to allowing Democrats and the media to eject a fighting conservative president from office.

I think these conservatives underestimate, as liberals did with Bill Clinton long ago, the advantages in jettisoning a corrupt leader. (An Al Gore presidency was a better timeline for Democrats, even though it would have required the horror of letting Ken Starr win.) But I certainly can see ways in which, after so much elite failure and populist anger, having elites (indeed, the C … I … A!) work to remove a populist president just before his re-election campaign could make our toxic politics that much worse.

But I would still ask — swirling my wine and adjusting my NeverTrumper toga — worse than what? Worse than a world where Trump survives impeachment, the Ukraine miasma chokes Biden’s campaign, Warren proves less electable than her supporters hope, we replay 2016 with the Electoral College and enter a second Trump term with the ship of state rudderless, Democrats yet more radicalized, and all those icebergs looming for the country and the G.O.P. alike?

In the event we do arrive in that world, consider this column a casually tossed marker for the Republican Senators who will probably vote to keep Trump in office, in case they find themselves very unhappy with the ultimate result.

You can’t say that you didn’t have an early exit from the Trump era. You can’t say you didn’t have a choice.

[Winstonm]

From the "Couldn't Happen to a Nicer Group" department:

Quote

Fox News personalities are facing heckles, insults and criticism for their coverage this week of President Donald Trump and the impeachment inquiry.

And that’s just from their own colleagues.

In an unusual airing of intramural grievances, Fox News anchors and pundits have let loose at one another in full public view — lobbing attacks across time slots and offering a rare glimpse into tensions behind the scenes at the top-rated cable news network.