The Impeachment Deal Between The House And The Senate
Two weeks ago we analyzed the consequences of an impeachment process of President Donal Trump. We found that the Democrats would lose by impeaching him and would therefore likely censure him instead. We were wrong. A week later Pelosi announced that she would proceed with impeachment.
It was only today that I understood where I was wrong and what had since happened. Let me walk you through it.
The earlier conclusion was based on this table of possible outcomes of an impeachment resolution:
If more Democratic swing-state representatives defect from the impeachment camp, which seems likely, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have a big problem. How can she proceed?
- If the House votes down impeachment Donald Trump wins.
- If the House holds no vote on the issue Donald Trump wins.
- If the House votes for censure, Donald Trump will have won on points and the issue will be over.
- If the House votes for impeachment the case goes to the Senate for trial.
The Republican led Senate has two choices:
- It can decide to not open an impeachment trial by simply voting against impeachment. Trump wins.
- It can open a impeachment trial, use it to extensively hurt the Democrats and, in the end, vote against impeachment. Trump wins big time.
Should the House vote for impeachment the Senate is likely to go the second path.
Looking at the choices it is quite curious why Pelosi took that decision and so far there has been no in-depth explanation for it.
The rather short House Resolution (also here) Pelosi let pass has only two articles of impeachment of Trump. The issues over which he is supposed to be impeached are very limited:
Democratic leaders say Trump put his political interests above those of the nation when he asked Ukraine to investigate his rivals, including Democrat Joe Biden, and then withheld $400 million in military aid as the U.S. ally faced an aggressive Russia.
They say he then obstructed Congress by stonewalling the House investigation.
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky himself said that he did not know that Trump withheld the $400 million for Ukraine when he had the phone call with the president in which Trump asked him to dig into the Burisma/Biden affair. The request itself is legitimate as Biden has lots of dirt in Ukraine. But there was no quid-quo-pro and no bribery, at least not in the phone call the CIA 'whistleblower' and some of the witnesses complained about. Where then is the evidence that Trump abused his power?
The obstruction of Congress accusation is equally weak. Trump had rejected the House subpoenas to his staff because he wanted a judicial review of their legality. They might indeed infringe on certain presidential privileges. The court process would take several months but the Democrats simply do not want to wait that long. So who is really obstructing the legal process in this?
Law professor Jonathan Turley, who is not a Trump fan and had testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee, finds both points the Democrats make extremely week:
For three years, the same Democratic leadership told the public that a variety of criminal and impeachable acts were proven in the Mueller investigation. None of those crimes are now part of this impeachment.Why? Because it would have been too easy an impeachment? Hardly.
Instead, the House will go forward on the only two plausible grounds that I outlined in my testimony - abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Unlike the other claims, the problem is not with the legal basis for such impeachable offences but the evidentiary record.
This record remains both incomplete and conflicted. The Democrats have insisted on impeaching by Christmas rather than build a record to support such charges.
...
This is now the fastest investigation with the thinnest record supporting the narrowest impeachment in modern history.
...
The Democrats just gave Trump the best Christmas gift he could hope for under these two circumstances ...
Professor Turley correctly points out that there are several other serious issues over which Trump could (and should) probably be impeached.
So why did House Speaker Pelosi allow only such a narrow and weak impeachment resolution?
The text of the impeachment resolution is currently in the Judiciary Committee where it will be discussed today. The language may still get sharpened a bit but there will be no additions to its core.
The House will then vote on it within the next week. The Senate will launch the impeachment trial in January.
Which brings me back to the possible outcomes table:
The Republican led Senate has two choices:
- It can decide to not open an impeachment trial by simply voting against impeachment. Trump wins.
- It can open a impeachment trial, use it to extensively hurt the Democrats and, in the end, vote against impeachment. Trump wins big time.
The Senate could interrupt the campaigning of several sitting Senators who run in the primaries to stand as the Democratic presidential candidate. It could call Joe and Hunter Biden and the 'whistleblower' as witnesses. It could dig deeper into Russia-gate. The risk for the Democrats during this process would be enormous.
But Pelosi still took that way and allowed for only a very weak impeachment resolutions.
That led me to assume that a deal was made that allowed Pelosi to go that way. But there was no sign that such a deal was made.
Only today do we get the confirmation, as open as we will ever get it, that a deal has indeed been made. The Republican led Senate will not dig into the Democrats but will vote against impeachment without using the process to hit at the political enemy:
Senate Republicans are coalescing around a strategy of holding a short impeachment trial early next year that would include no witnesses, a plan that could clash with President Trump’s desire to stage a public defense of his actions toward Ukraine that would include testimony the White House believes would damage its political rivals.Several GOP senators on Wednesday said it would be better to limit the trial and quickly vote to acquit Trump, rather than engage in what could become a political circus.
“I would say I don’t think the appetite is real high for turning this into a prolonged spectacle,” Senate Majority Whip John Thune (S.D.), the chamber’s second-ranking Republican, told The Washington Post on Wednesday when asked whether Trump will get the witnesses he wants in an impeachment trial.
...
Most notably, a quick, clean trial is broadly perceived to be the preference of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who wants to minimize political distractions in an election year during which Republicans will be working to protect their slim majority in the chamber.
The piece goes on to say that the Republicans allegedly fear that they may not have the votes to call witnesses. That is of course nonsense. The Republicans have 53 Senate seats and the Democrats have 47. And digging into the sleaze of Joe Biden would surely bring additional voter support and not risk any Senate seats.
The only reason why the Senate will go the soft way and just vote the impeachment down is because a deal was made between Leader McConnell and Speaker Pelosi.
The deal prevented an extensive impeachment inquiry and trial that could have hurt both sides with uncertain outcome.
The narrowness and weakness of the impeachment resolution that can not hurt the president was in exchange for a no-fuzz process in the Senate that will not dig into Biden and will not hurt the Democrats during next year's election.
That a deal was made explains why Pelosi has chosen impeachment and not censure even as polls were showing opposition to impeachment. It explains why she allowed only a narrow resolution based on weak evidence. It explains why the House agreed to Trump's ginormous defense budget in the same week that it produced an impeachment resolution against him. It also guarantees that there would be no deeper digging by Democrats against Trump. It guarantees the he will under no circumstances be found guilty and impeached.
Both sides can live with the results of this narrow process. The Democrats demonstrate to their core constituency that they are willing to take on Trump. The Republicans show that they stand with their president and against the lame accusations.
Trump will loudly claim that he does not like that the Senate will shut down the issue as soon as possible. He will twitter that the Senate must tear into Biden and other Democrats. He will play deeply disappointed when it does not do that.
But my hunch is that he is in on the deal. The narrowness of the impeachment resolution prevents any other dirty deals by him might from come to light. It makes another real impeachment process more unlikely. It guarantees his political survival.
The question left is if there were additional elements in this deal. What could those be about?
Posted by b on December 12, 2019 at 18:44 UTC | Permalink
« previous pagevery fond of Bernhardt myself but skeptical on this make-a-deal thesis because it sounds too "normal" to me. Jack Rabbit is making a strong case for the deal (I hadn't known Trump said okay either way, that doesn't sound right to me I mean Trump's accepting such a pusillanimous outcome I thought he was more belligerent) but here's my view as one of the bozos on the bus. The deal sounds like panic to me from the dims and they appear to have good reason to be losing it. In fact this thread itself I think dismantles the view (thanks everybody and b for being decent buddies shooting the shit). Somebody brought up the treaty from the 90's that actually allows investigation via foreign governments cooperating with each other to get into corruption. This is big. Because as far as I know the only transcript on the phone call comes from the Trump forces and that's what IT seems to suggest. Plus Zelensky has said didn't know nothing about the quid pro quo until a month later plus then he got the 390 million anyway. So that whole phone call Ukraine-gate thing is so pissing in the wind weak they've got to let it go. Then there is Durham. Did a shudder pass collectively through the Nadler-Schiff-Pelosi complex? Did they take a look at the Horowitz report and wonder a bit about whether their MSM buddies could wrap a towel around Durham? Notice they've been a little tense, snapping at people here and there, a behavioral suggesting they're worried, and with good reason. So my thesis is "the deal" is essentially panic with a stiff upper lip. Now, we're supposed to believe the Trump people are going to say okay we'll play along because some of our people might go down too if things get too nasty. So let's just move on now and dust this impeachment thing aside after all these years and play nice and be normal with a standard type run up through the primaries to November. That to me strains plausibility. Maybe Trump will wake up if he said do it either way and realize what a fantastic op he has with a trial to take these bozos to task after three years of their BS dribbling down his chin. Then again maybe Trump is getting tired or worried about a grassy knoll coming up at some point if he doesn't play along.
Posted by: joseph k jr | Dec 14 2019 15:49 utc | 102
Really?? @100:
Why do you take up valuable vertical space on the thread with those irritating double exclamation points
1. Double exclamation points look like a rabbit's eyes and ears.
2. The focus on eyes and ears is meant to convey alertness/vigilance.
3. Some people "take up valuable vertical space" by always signing off with their name. No one complains about that.
4. I was signing with "Jackrabbit !!" but after a kind suggestion to tone it down, I now just add the exclamation points.
!!
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 14 2019 16:14 utc | 103
Caitlin Johnstone: America’s Two-Headed One Party System
An indictment of the US political system.
Yet, not even skeptical enough because Americans are not just "selling their Pearl" but being SOLD A BILL OF GOODS via a corporate-owned media that is in bed with government.
!!
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 14 2019 16:48 utc | 104
None of you think like American lawyers. A "long game" is being played.
Start with the basics. It is clear that the current grounds of impeachment are exceedingly narrow. More grounds could have been asserted, but deliberately were not. Moreover, the impeachment proceedings have been rushed. Finally, NO ONE imagines that Trump will lose a Senate vote. NO ONE. All this has been absolutely clear from the beginning.
So why proceed at all? This is all preparation for both the election in 2020, and what happens if Trump gets elected to a second term. Democrats are simply establishing impeachment as a "norm." They will have appeased and energized their base with action, and hope that independents will perceive that Trump has done bad things, and Republicans have let him off the hook all too easily. They are therefore hoping to beat Trump in 2020, or at least capture BOTH the House and Senate.
Even if Trump wins, with control of the Senate they can proceed with impeachment again on more extensive grounds (expecting with some help from courts who find the Emolument Clause applicable to Trump, an issue pending today). The mechanisms of proceedings in the Senate will be in control of Democrats. Even with a supermajority needed to convict, their task will be much easier.
Posted by: zakukommander | Dec 14 2019 17:49 utc | 105
@92 jackrabbit quote - "AFAIK no one has connected the dots as I have." we are all speculating here as i see it.. your speculation is as valid as anyone else's until such time as we have known facts that run counter to the speculation..
really b's speculation on a deal being made between the house leaders is an example of this..it implies collusion of the 2 parties..it's really only 1 party when they have to circle the wagon out of fear the dirty laundry comes out in the open.. caitlin johnstone, for all i know, reads moa.. in fact, i am quite sure she does... she says stuff that many of us here have been saying for some time - there is only really one party in the usa - the war party.. lets wait and see how this unfolds.. nothing would surprise me, least of all trump getting elected a 2nd term..
Posted by: james | Dec 14 2019 18:24 utc | 106
As The Pompous Ass says “We Lie. We cheat. We steal. It is what we do.”
We do not overthrow for democracy. We lie. We cheat. We steal.
All the people we vote in to office have been there so long they know how the system works. They know how to work the system. Talk of a new over throw brings to the surface the rich, addicted to money, power and all the illegal activities they love to be part of.
In Ukraine the Bidens, Kerrys and the Pelosis carry large bags made from carpets to haul off the loot.
Here are the Pelosis filling their carpet bags
Posted by: the woodturner | Dec 14 2019 19:16 utc | 107
James 106 and JR
Some people are more interested in the dialectical process: presenting hypotheses, hearing responses, new ideas, new arguments, and trying to synthesize/parse seemingly disparate evidence. They will welcome new info and always be willing to incorporate new ideas and modify old assessments and position. Like our host, b (also like the Saker); willing to review earlier conclusions---not afraid to say "I was wrong about that, and here's why."
Others are more heavily invested in just being right, and being seen to be right.
It is of course always nice to be right. But constantly proclaiming that one is right (esp. when this has not, actually, been established) can raise resistance in others to actually engaging with one's **ideas**.
Regarding the !! "ears," I expect that all who post here are alert, albeit not all picking up exactly the same signals.
Posted by: Really?? | Dec 14 2019 19:50 utc | 108
recommended:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/ig-report-fbi-spying-exposes-scandal-historic-magnitude-us-media
Posted by: joseph k jr | Dec 14 2019 20:58 utc | 109
The Republicans don't want to investigate the Biden's because both sides are getting their kids sweet heart deals as an indirect payoff for betraying the working class. Be interesting to see what kind of goodies the children of the Supreme Court get.
Posted by: Don | Dec 15 2019 9:59 utc | 111
You'll note that Pelosi has a fall guy lined up and ready to go. This is entirely Schiff and Lawfare's play. Nadler skipped out - no fact witnesses, just some beholden law professors. And the end articles of impeachment presumably agreed with Pelosi's blessing, are beyond weak.
The result is none of the carefully constructed impeachment messaging has hit home among 'real' Americans (beyond the rabid activists). Congress hasn't got Giuliani to back off - he's still going for it on Ukraine. Meaning, realistically, Biden is fatally wounded as a candidate. This leaves Democrats in a bind.
Pelosi can hope McConnell puts a swift end to it, giving her 'we impeached him' kudos (I have a feeling that impeachment was necessary not just to satisfy her leftwing, but also because funders and countries who thought they'd paid for a friendly Hillary presidency, are feeling a lot of Trump pain, and want their paid-for Democrat minions working for their money).
However, a second Pelosi option would be to defenestrate Schiff, assuming she has the goods. If she feels she can't get impeachment through the house, leak something about Schiff - possibly about illicit co-ordination with the whistleblower, or leaking classified documents, or manufacturing evidence, or other rumours - and use that then as an excuse for impeachment not passing through the house. Schiff is pretty politically isolated on this, so as a wrap-up-clean-up, it wouldn't have too much negative political impact and might actually make the Democrats look like a credible political party again.
Biden would still be out and Democrats have no other candidate with standing. So having disposed of the impeachment and hardliners, bring in Michelle Obama as a 'clean' candidate (she's been doing a few news rounds to test out popularity) as about the only person credible enough to give Trump a run for his money, and shift policy to a focus on issues, abandoning political scheming.
Posted by: Petri Volk | Dec 15 2019 10:08 utc | 112
@Petri Volk #112
How exactly does Pelosi "defenestrate" Schiff? They're both California Senators, it isn't like Schiff works for Pelosi.
Secondly, how exactly does Michelle Obama become a Democratic Party candidate?
While announcing a presidential run could theoretically occur at any time - in reality, candidates have to register for the various state primaries. Those deadlines generally have passed or will pass by the middle of January 2020.
Don't get me wrong - the only thing I was looking forward to with a Hillary Clinton presidency, was the prospect of having husband/wife presidencies plus father/son presidencies within a 30 year time span. Surely the mark of a democratic nation! /sarc
Posted by: c1ue | Dec 15 2019 10:33 utc | 113
Trump had rejected the House subpoenas to his staff because he wanted a judicial review of their legality. They might indeed infringe on certain presidential privileges.
I think you mean Presidential powers. There is a big difference.
Posted by: Twodees Partain | Dec 15 2019 12:59 utc | 114
Johnny Law @ 65
Deal is as follows:...
Also the negotiations of a mutual defense treaty with Israel are massive. The last one was signed off with Japan in 1960. The Republican establishment is riding Trump like a person with a saddle strapped to a wild boar trying to hang on. It is not fun but they have no choice, if they turn on him their base will dry up and blow away.
The Democrats are riding on a saddle strapped to a pile of bullshit and are expecting it to move. They have to impeach Trump of their base will turn away to other alternatives.
Gruff @ 25
If what Trump is accomplishing is intentional then he is playing this game at a higher level than any President ever. It is a stretch to imagine this to be the case, but then it is also difficult to imagine Trump shrinking America's (illegal) footprint in Syria by accident, or pushing the Korea's together equally by accident. These are enormous geopolitical moves that the entire imperial establishment vehemently opposes and that Trump could not possibly just have stumbled into accidentally, even if it looks like he did.
It appears that Trump is standing in for a wing in the Establishment that fears China. Our policy has been to partner with China and build up their manufacturing base. I believe that was driven by the Republican establishment to weaken the US union base of support and to make a pile of money. China has risen to become a serious future threat to the Establishment. Even the recent NATO conference has listed China as its main concern and seems to soften up on Russia.
It appears the Establishment wants to slowly bring Russia back into Europe where they belong. That would take some time, the anti Russian brainwash campaign has been very effective. China is in negotiations with Mexico over the largest lithium deposit ever found. The Establishment hates China's competition for resources as much as it hates not being able to control Russia's resources.
The agreement might be impeach, avoid trial, and close the books on the whole Russian collusion narrative so we can bring them back in Europe and make them a counterbalance to China's power.
Posted by: dltravers | Dec 15 2019 16:37 utc | 115
Trump want a full enquiry on Ukraine. Here, s, why the republicans wont let it happent. Somme republicans are part of the sam
Former Ukrainian Prosecutor Exposes Yovanovich Perjury, George Kent's Motive To Impeach Trump
Posted by: JCPomerleau | Dec 15 2019 18:07 utc | 116
dltravers @115
"It appears the Establishment wants to slowly bring Russia back into Europe where they belong."
I believe that horse left the barn in Kiev in February, 2014.
See the following for a very well done analysis of Russia's turn to Eurasia:
Russia's Geoeconomic Strategy for a Greater Eurasia
Glenn Diesen
July 2017
Moscow has progressively replaced geopolitics with geoeconomics as power is recognised to derive from the state’s ability to establish a privileged position in strategic markets and transportation corridors. The objective is to bridge the vast Eurasian continent to reposition Russia from the periphery of Europe and Asia to the centre of a new constellation. Moscow’s ‘Greater Europe’ ambition of the previous decades produced a failed Western-centric foreign policy culminating in excessive dependence on the West. Instead of constructing Gorbachev’s ‘Common European Home’, the ‘leaning-to-one-side’ approach deprived Russia of the market value and leverage needed to negotiate a more favourable and inclusive Europe. Eurasian integration offers Russia the opportunity to address this ‘overreliance’ on the West by using the Russia’s position as a Eurasian state to advance its influence in Europe.
Posted by: pogohere | Dec 15 2019 19:12 utc | 117
"The agreement might be impeach, avoid trial, and close the books on the whole Russian collusion narrative so we can bring them back in Europe and make them a counterbalance to China's power."
Yeah, nice try.
I bet Russia is not playing that game.
Posted by: Really?? | Dec 15 2019 19:35 utc | 118
Another possible outcome. There are Republican Senators
in Epstein files. And they play sacrificial pawns.
Anyway — nobody has offered a sensible explanation for
this visceral hate of Trump exhibited by some key Democrats
and then followed by sheep. This level of hate is designed to
burn all bridges, to cause havoc after the next election should
Democrats lose.
Am I being totally wrong in assuming that to Democrats
it seems more important to cause chaos and divisions
violent if at all possible. This will create constitutional
crisis. But who benefits? The Adam Schiffs if this world
are merely tools. Are financial masterminds hoping
crisis would just muddle the issue if financial mess in which
some will make it like bandits., while taxpayers hold the bag.
Posted by: Bianca | Dec 17 2019 6:07 utc | 119
Democrats are betting on the idea that time is on their side. With everything under scrutiny as it's now, just piling on more coming issues and events will build sufficient momentum to come to fruition around election time. This first impeachment trial is accepted to fail because it's already decided that there will be multiple. It's called "wearing the wall down".
Republicans are taking the deal because they bet on the idea nothing else major will surface and they expect Trump can be handled the last year and momentum can be build to present a candidate lording over a booming economy, new treaties and increasing presidential behavior. This is of course a wild bet, some might have to strike the deal with Trump first.
Posted by: John Dowser | Dec 17 2019 20:31 utc | 120
I have a question. Is there a reason Trump is paying for anti-impeachment ads if he will not be negatively affected by them.
Posted by: Eleanor | Dec 19 2019 2:00 utc | 121
The comments to this entry are closed.
@94 etc
I doubt presidents or VP's would ever be looking at jailtime, don't kid yourself. Nixon? nope. Bush-I (Iran Contra)? Nope. Bush-II-Cheney? nope.
Similarly for Trump and Biden.
Embarrassment and a future as a lobbyist are about the worst it can get. They'll throw one of their flunkies (like Stone) in jail to satisfy the process and that will be it.
Nixon was an exception I think. Among other things, he resigned b/c the war was actually a very big deal (middle class kids were getting hurt or even dead), and because he was a strong president making extremely bold moves both domestically (southern strategy which turned the national political alignment upside down, had to sign a ton of Ralph Nader legislation like EPA etc into law) and internationally (China, Kissinger's many messes). Hence plenty of enemies. And finally because of the tapes - which were implicitly threatening to take down the whole Republican leadership with him, so they turned on him to save themselves, but also pardoned him for the same reason.
As for Giuliani, he gets to run around and collect this stuff because he knows where "the bodies are buried" so to speak, from the major event of his time as mayor. So one would think twice before messing with him too much. Except maybe some of the Ukraine BS artists, who rather fearlessly sold stories to the late Obama administration.
More importantly, Giuliani getting rid of some of the Clinton people from the agencies has a major downside (though getting rid of at least some is probably a necessary step for any conceivable future that isn't screwed). But having someone like Giuliani take over that power network is going to be exactly the same problem, except with right-wing flavor. If Giuliani ends up as Trump's Dick Cheney type figure, and starts running what is now likely to be a 2nd Trump Administration, from behind the curtain, you're gonna get another Bush II administration, basically. Giuliani never got the chance the first time around, but now Trump will realizes he needs someone like him to watch his back so it becomes a possibility.
Posted by: ptb | Dec 14 2019 14:05 utc | 101