2020 Presidential Election

[JasonEvans]

Details of the whistle blower complaint beginning to leak out, including the allegation that records of Trump's calls with foreign leaders were moved from where they're supposed to be officially stored to a different computer and network.

If true, this suggests a knowledge that what they were doing was illegal and should be hidden. I thought Trump and Giuliani had a somewhat plausible defense centered around "this was just a conversation, not a nefarious scheme." But if there were almost immediately efforts to cover it up that really undercuts that defense. As is often said, it is the cover up, not that crime, that ends up bringing you down.

Polling will begin to come out on all of this. We're well within the polling ranges favoring and disfavoring impeachment now that were present during the Clinton years.

Here is the thing about polling on this issue... the national numbers are meaningless. What really matters are numbers inside the Republican party. We could get to 60%-40% in favor of removing the president from office nation-wide but if that 40% holds firm I really doubt you will see Senators from deep red states voting against the president. The standard to hold an impeachment trial is low (50%+1) in the House, as it should be to ensure a proper investigation, but it is very high (67%) in the Senate to get a conviction.

-Jason "you could flip a dozen GOP senators and still not be all that close to getting a Senate conviction" Evans

[Wander]

Here is the thing about polling on this issue... the national numbers are meaningless. What really matters are numbers inside the Republican party. We could get to 60%-40% in favor of removing the president from office nation-wide but if that 40% holds firm I really doubt you will see Senators from deep red states voting against the president. The standard to hold an impeachment trial is low (50%+1) in the House, as it should be to ensure a proper investigation, but it is very high (67%) in the Senate to get a conviction.

-Jason "you could flip a dozen GOP senators and still not be all that close to getting a Senate conviction" Evans

A former Republican political advisor said "One Republican senator told me if it was a secret vote, 30 Republican senators would vote to impeach Trump". I completely believe that. But it's not a secret vote, and the thing I'm most certain of in this whole mess is that it does not end with Trump being removed from office by the Senate.

[sagegrouse]

If true, this suggests a knowledge that what they were doing was illegal and should be hidden. I thought Trump and Giuliani had a somewhat plausible defense centered around "this was just a conversation, not a nefarious scheme." But if there were almost immediately efforts to cover it up that really undercuts that defense. As is often said, it is the cover up, not that crime, that ends up bringing you down.



Here is the thing about polling on this issue... the national numbers are meaningless. What really matters are numbers inside the Republican party. We could get to 60%-40% in favor of removing the president from office nation-wide but if that 40% holds firm I really doubt you will see Senators from deep red states voting against the president. The standard to hold an impeachment trial is low (50%+1) in the House, as it should be to ensure a proper investigation, but it is very high (67%) in the Senate to get a conviction.

-Jason "you could flip a dozen GOP senators and still not be all that close to getting a Senate conviction" Evans

Don't necessarily agree on your polling point, Jason. A credible bill of particulars on an impeachment charge that resonates with the public (seen via polling) is a really big deal for the 2020 national elections -- presidential, house, and senate. The removal of Trump seems far-fetched, but there are now cracks among Republicans in the senate -- Romney and now Ben Sasse of Nebraska.

[JasonEvans]

A former Republican political advisor said "One Republican senator told me if it was a secret vote, 30 Republican senators would vote to impeach Trump". I completely believe that. But it's not a secret vote, and the thing I'm most certain of in this whole mess is that it does not end with Trump being removed from office by the Senate.

I've said it before and I will say it again, if they could get there in a not too bitter fashion, I absolutely think President Pense is a more viable 2020 option for the GOP than President Trump. But I have a hard time seeing it happening without a bitter fight.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I've said it before and I will say it again, if they could get there in a not too bitter fashion, I absolutely think President Pense is a more viable 2020 option for the GOP than President Trump. But I have a hard time seeing it happening without a bitter fight.

I would think that the GOP would be more open to Pence being primaried (He'd likely still win), but that ship has sailed now that they've cancelled the primaries in at least three states. This is one of the things that makes it so hard for both sides to impeach in the first term. They've locked themselves in between the proverbial rock and a hard place. If it were the 2nd term, like in Clinton's case, the campaigns would be cruising along in the background, and those running on the GOP side could safely distance themselves from Trump much as the Democrats did from Clinton in 2000.
Now, the Republicans are forced to stand gung-ho behind their guy, aside from the fact that if it were all happening in 2022 they'd be jumping ship.

[OldPhiKap]

Just read the report. Wow.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploa...nt_unclass.pdf

Just -- wow.

It's only about 9 pages -- worth spending some time reviewing.

[dudog84]

It's going to be quite a day on the Hill. Details of the whistle blower complaint beginning to leak out, including the allegation that records of Trump's calls with foreign leaders were moved from where they're supposed to be officially stored to a different computer and network. Given the collective pearl clutching of Republicans over Hillary's personal email server, I fully anticipate they'll immediately say, "There won't be any hypocrisy on our watch!' and distance themselves from the president.

Polling will begin to come out on all of this. We're well within the polling ranges favoring and disfavoring impeachment now that were present during the Clinton years. Difficult to discern in hindsight but I don't think the Clinton case offers a great parallel to this one. For one, Clinton wasn't up for reelection but I think its reasonable to suggest the whole scandal added elevation to Gore's climb, not the other way around.

I think we should start guessing at who might flip if this proceeds, particularly on the Senate. I believe 10 or so Republican Senators voted not guilty on Clinton, including a few that are still in office. A few making rumbles are Sasse, Romney, and Toomey. Susan Collins would be a decent bet, too.

Pearl clutching {snort}. Thanks for that visual. Now I can't get Lindsey Graham out of my head.

Re bold, I disagree. Gore was sitting VP in a strong economy. I don't remember any scandal linked to him. Despite Clinton's poll numbers, I think the whole thing brought Gore down. 2000 should have been a slam dunk like H.W. Bush following Reagan. I think Clinton's positive poll numbers were as much against the perceived silliness of the impeachment grounds as an endorsement of him.

A former Republican political advisor said "One Republican senator told me if it was a secret vote, 30 Republican senators would vote to impeach Trump". I completely believe that. But it's not a secret vote, and the thing I'm most certain of in this whole mess is that it does not end with Trump being removed from office by the Senate.

I'm not sure of this. That "transcript" was pretty damning, and there may be a lot more (some already coming out as noted above). If there is blatant malfeasance on a larger scale, can the Rs really go on record supporting that? Or are you saying it would follow the Nixon route, where Senate Rs would tell Trump what was in store and he would resign before a Senate trial? Of course, IF that is the way this moves, would Trump prefer to go down fighting? Nixon did it partly for the Party, would Trump have that same loyalty?

[dudog84]

Just read the report. Wow.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploa...nt_unclass.pdf

Just -- wow.

It's only about 9 pages -- worth spending some time reviewing.

Holy crap! I had to get up and take a walk after the second paragraph!

[golfinesquire]

Re:Gore not only did he win the popular vote but but for the butteryfly ballots in Fla, he would have won the electoral college vote as well

[howardlander]

Holy crap! I had to get up and take a walk after the second paragraph!

I couldn't read anymore. This is really horrific. I'd like to think it wasn't true, but it is unfortunately easy to believe...

[OldPhiKap]

Quick thoughts on the report:

1. The whistleblower is a lawyer.
2. The whistleblower discloses that the AG has opened up an investigation of Biden.
3. You have dirty tricks; documentary evidence; and a cover-up. Plus folks already pointing fingers at each other. This is going down.
4. Guliani better lawyer up.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Wow that's damning.
I get that just about every GOP Senate and House member is going to find a way to stick up for their guy, but they are going to have to stretch to some really low depths to do it. It is also going to be near impossible for any House Democrat to not face the music and push the inquiry towards articles of impeachment.

I'm honestly not a fan of impeachment, at least not before the election. But this is way too damning and our elected officials need to be held accountable, otherwise a very dangerous precedent is set.

[alteran]

Don't necessarily agree on your polling point, Jason. A credible bill of particulars on an impeachment charge that resonates with the public (seen via polling) is a really big deal for the 2020 national elections -- presidential, house, and senate. The removal of Trump seems far-fetched, but there are now cracks among Republicans in the senate -- Romney and now Ben Sasse of Nebraska.

We’ve seen those cracks before.

I think the only thing that will matter is if national polling shows this beginning to eat into the Republican base, or it decreasing Republican enthusiasm.

Both seem like longshots now, but you never know.

[dudog84]

I'm honestly not a fan of impeachment, at least not before the election. But this is way too damning and our elected officials need to be held accountable, otherwise a very dangerous precedent is set.

Ditto. Amen. In Spades.

[OldPhiKap]

I'm honestly not a fan of impeachment, at least not before the election. But this is way too damning and our elected officials need to be held accountable, otherwise a very dangerous precedent is set.

Ditto. Amen. In Spades.

Sign me up to your newsletter, too.

This is significantly different than the complex web of innuendo and supposition that surrounded the Russian issue that Mueller investigated.

* This is direct action by the President and his personal lawyer, not removed parties
* This implicates the DOJ in a cover-up of the whistle-blower complaint
* This implicates the White House (or someone) in the cover-up of the word-for-word transcript
* This discloses that there may be more transcripts hidden for political, not national security, concerns which opens Pandora's Box.
* This discloses that Barr opened up an investigation of Biden, and had associates of the President's personal lawyer working on it.
* This is all describable in seven pages, by a guy or gal who wants to testify before Congress -- not a 484 page tome whose author was a reluctant and sometimes uninformed witness.
* Trump is already saying that you have to ask Rudy what he did. The DNI (or his counsel) will likely say that he wanted to pass this on, but that the DOJ intervened. There are career security folks who are likely to testify honestly if called to do so (despite claims of them being part of the "Deep State").

This is bad. Really, really bad.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I predict it's only a matter of a couple weeks until Trump says he barely knows Rudy, that he was just a guy that did work for him, and that the work he did wasn't all that good.

* Trump is already saying that you have to ask Rudy what he did. The DNI (or his counsel) will likely say that he wanted to pass this on, but that the DOJ intervened. There are career security folks who are likely to testify honestly if called to do so (despite claims of them being part of the "Deep State").

I might have to adjust my "couple weeks" timeline.

[OldPhiKap]

I might have to adjust my "couple weeks" timeline.

"Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times."

[PackMan97]

"Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times."

I think this is an analogy fail. Is Trump supposed to be Peter and Rudy is Jesus? Or do I have that backwards. Either way, it's a bit uncomfortable to think about.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Giuliani is getting thrown under the bus for this - the king of the "perp walk" is likely to be doing his own. I am not a lawyer but it seems like Trump will have a hard time with plausible deniability.

Ironically, I was reading the document while riding a bus past Trump Tower (actually sitting in traffic on a bus - traffic in midtown is brutal while the UN is in session). There was a line of dump trucks in front of Trump Tower for security. As far as I could tell, none of them were on fire at this point. Check back later...

At what point does the Republican party say "to heck with Trump, we can achieve our policy goals without all of the drama attached to him?" Give that he has been polling so well with their base, which seems to get turned on by him, this was a very difficult step for them to take, but at some point, this could change.

[OldPhiKap]

At what point does the Republican party say "to heck with Trump, we can achieve our policy goals without all of the drama attached to him?" Give that he has been polling so well with their base, which seems to get turned on by him, this was a very difficult step for them to take, but at some point, this could change.

That's the dilemma. Trump is really strong with the base, so if you are a R you don't want to cross him. But Trump has polled poorly in general polls so there is concern that he will just bring everyone down with him like (arguably) 2018.

Hence, lots of congressional R retirements in 2018 and more coming in 2020.