Category: APR

Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: The impeachment sham trial has an end but not an exoneration.

Posted on by Greg Dworkin

NY Times:

To Senate Republicans, a Vote for Witnesses Is a Vote for Trouble

Lawmakers fear allowing new testimony would tie up the Senate indefinitely and open the door to a cascade of new accusations.

“We don’t need Mr. Bolton to come in and to extend this show longer, along with any other witnesses people might want, and occupy all of our time here in the Senate for the next few weeks, maybe even months,” Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas and a close ally of Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said Tuesday evening on Fox.

Josh Holmes, a former chief of staff and a top outside adviser to Mr. McConnell, made it clear that Republicans viewed the idea of calling witnesses as a disaster in the making.

“More witnesses = Hindenburg,” Mr. Holmes wrote Wednesday on Twitter, showing a picture of the flaming airship. “None of it changes ultimate acquittal.”

They are afraid of the facts. Now, Republicans will be patting themselves on the back today about how clever they are but meanwhile …

Yoni Appelbaum/Atlantic:

Trump has led his party to this dead end, and it may well cost him his chance for reelection, presuming he is not removed through impeachment. But the president’s defeat would likely only deepen the despair that fueled his rise, confirming his supporters’ fear that the demographic tide has turned against them. That fear is the single greatest threat facing American democracy, the force that is already battering down precedents, leveling norms, and demolishing guardrails. When a group that has traditionally exercised power comes to believe that its eclipse is inevitable, and that the destruction of all it holds dear will follow, it will fight to preserve what it has—whatever the cost.

Tim Alberta had a very pointed thread on Lamar Alexander (who said the House managers proved their case, so he’s a ‘no’ on witnesses for that reason, and a ‘no’ on impeachment because what Trump did is bad but not impeachable bad):

I’ve spent a LOT of time with retired (and retiring) congressional Rs since 2016. Most feel zero sense of liberation to bash Trump on the way out. If anything, they’re even more cowed & cautious, fearing that being out of favor w: POTUS (and his party) limits their earning power.  And it’s not just about money. I’ve had numerous retiring Rs talk warily — sometimes fearfully — about the “cult” of Trump supporters back home. They worry about harassment of their families, loss of standing in local communities, estranged relationships, etc.  If you think this is a bunch of weak-ass excuse making from people who ought to rise above it and do what they think is right..... well, no argument here. I’m just explaining the reality for these Rs. They feel trapped, most of them—and retirement isn’t the escape we might think. 

But Lamar was right about one thing. The House managers proved their case:

x

Lamar’s epitaph:

x

x

x

x

That message was aimed at ex-Republicans.

x

That’s our message: make them pay in November and yes, we are pissed.

Tom Nichols/USA today:

Trump is being impeached over an extortion scheme, not a 'policy dispute'

Trump was shaking down Zelensky while trying to keep the rest of the government in the dark. That’s not a 'policy,' that’s a conspiracy.

This scheme (it is too misleading even to call it a “policy”) was a rogue operation against Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, conducted by Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and a squad of shady characters, none of whom were answerable to anyone but Trump himself. (One wonders how Sen. Lee’s constitutionalism squares with foreign operations being conducted by the likes of Giuliani and Lev Parnas, out of sight of pesky members of Congress and their annoying questions.)

x

Quin Hillyer/Washington Examiner:

The longer GOP blocks Bolton, the more he will hurt them

Senate Republicans covering for Trump are letting all their chips ride on the intensity of the voters from Trump's base to carry them through to reelection, but that’s a risky bet. Especially with highly controversial candidates, those supporters can suddenly reach a breaking point where enough is enough. I’ve seen numerous elections where support for high-risk candidates suddenly evaporated, resulting in massive, sudden swings in the polls — one from a dead heat to a 25-point loss in just three weeks.

Republicans who don’t hedge their bets by at least allowing witnesses will have no chance to survive if Trump takes a dive. The remaining Republicans would face increasing odds of finding themselves a powerless minority against an enraged and emboldened Democratic majority absolutely out for blood.

x

G Elliott Morris on what the data for electability (fwiw) says, from the Economist ($$):

Who will be Donald Trump’s most forceful foe?

Data suggest that one Democratic candidate would do better than others against the president in November

Here, Mr Biden looks strong. YouGov’s polling reveals that Americans view him as the most moderate Democrat, on average. They perceive all the other major Democratic contenders as more extreme than Mr Trump (see chart).

Untitled.png
This is what YouGov respondents say

x

x

A majority, but a shaky one. Then again, everything about America is shaky these days.

Dennis Aftergut/USA Today:

Dear Mr. Dershowitz, 'mixed motives' is no impeachment defense when there's corrupt intent

Taken together, Donald Trump's actions — at least seven of them — contradict the defense claim that he had any legitimate national interest in mind.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, opened the question-and-answer portion of the Senate impeachment trial by asking whether President Donald Trump was guilty if he had "mixed motives." In other words, what if he was protecting both American interests by seeking an investigation of alleged foreign corruption and protecting his own interests because the investigation — and its announcement — would smear rival Joe Biden?

The president's lawyers responded that the Senate cannot properly convict a president for a "mixed motive" quid pro quo. After all, professor Alan Dershowitz argued, all elected officials take action to help their electoral prospects, and all believe that the nation is best served by their reelection. Presidents may not be removed from office for self-serving actions that also advance the public interest.

This absurdist argument is raised as a smokescreen to avoid what makes a trial a trial: hearing testimony from firsthand witnesses such as former national security adviser John Bolton, who says the president told him he would only allow military aid if Ukraine investigated former Vice President Biden and his son Hunter.

x

WaPo:

World Health Organization declares coronavirus outbreak a ‘public health emergency’

The World Health Organization announced Thursday that it was declaring the coronavirus outbreak a “public health emergency,” setting in motion a plan for global coordination to stem the spread of the virus, which originated last month in Wuhan, China.

Chinese officials announced more than 1,900 new cases of the coronavirus on the same day, as the total number of people infected in mainland China reached over 8,000 and surpassed those infected with SARS during the 2002-2003 epidemic.

The United States confirmed a sixth U.S. case of the Wuhan coronavirus on Thursday, marking the first time the virus has spread from person to person in the United States.

With experts saying a vaccine is still a long way off, more international cases of the illness have appeared. Australia, Vietnam and South Korea all announced new coronavirus infections, while India and the Philippines had their first ones. Here’s what we know so far:

One thing we know is it’s an evolving situation so what I write today might not be true in a month, but at the moment, flu seems worse, at least in the US. In China, well, that is another story. 

x

One thing of concern is that personal protective supplies are running short there, and eventually here (that’s where some of it is made).

x

With airline cancellations and border closures, look for economic effects soon. And don’t assume it’s over.

In the meantime, follow CDC, trusted medical sources, and be wary of internet memes and self-styled  ‘experts’. And get your flu shot and wash your hands.

x

NEJM is making all coronavirus articles free, no paywall. Not a new policy, they do that with big public health issues.The Lancet has, as well. 

Back to politics:

x

x

Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: The cover-up rests, as Senators figure just what they can get away with

Posted on by Greg Dworkin

We know Mitch McConnell doesn’t want witnesses. We know he controls everything about this trial. But what the voters want is something else. So, see you in November, Mr Current Majority Leader.

Perhaps the main thing to come out of impeachment is that whereas before we strongly suspected the Congressional GOP were lying knaves in it for power, we now know for certain Congressional GOP are lying knaves in it for power.

David Rothkopf/USA Today:

Even if the Senate does not remove Donald Trump, this impeachment is far from a mistake

The judgment of the court of public opinion will matter more to history and the 2020 elections than the verdict in the Senate impeachment trial.

I would most emphatically suggest that undertaking the impeachment investigation was far from a mistake. Even with the deck stacked against a just outcome by a GOP leadership that has lost sight of the most basic ideals associated with public service, much good has come out of this process and might come out of it even in the event of an acquittal.

First, the mere pursuit of the facts by the House has both underscored the importance of accountability, and it has, in a very systematic and public way, revealed the facts of this case. Trump, McConnell and the army of parrots spouting White House talking points may repeatedly say otherwise, but the president’s wrongdoing has been made crystal clear, and many of those detailing or corroborating it have been witnesses who are above reproach, objective and distinguished. Many of them are Trump appointees or apolitical career public servants. Today, poll after poll reveals that a substantial majority of Americans believe that the president is guilty of wrongdoing, and about half believe he should be removed from office.

When facts are bad:

x

So, will we have witnesses?

x

And that about sums it up. So keep calling your Senators.

x

Herald-Tribune:

Former Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly tells Sarasota crowd ‘I believe John Bolton’

President Donald Trump is denying that he told former National Security Advisor John Bolton he wanted to withhold military aid from Ukraine until the country launched investigations into Joe Biden and his son, allegations that Bolton levies in his new book, according to news reports.

But one of Trump’s former top aides told a Sarasota audience Monday evening that if the reporting on what Bolton wrote is accurate, he believes Bolton.

“If John Bolton says that in the book, I believe John Bolton,” said retired Gen. John Kelly, who served as Trump’s chief of staff for 18 months.

Maybe that will get McMaster and Mattis off the fence.

x

Barbara McQuade/WaPo:

Trump waived executive privilege when he called Bolton a liar

If the Senate decides to summon the former national security adviser, the president won’t have much recourse left.

President Trump refers to himself as a counterpuncher. This time, he might have punched too hard.

In a series of tweets just after midnight Monday, Trump responded to weekend reporting about a forthcoming book by his former national security adviser John Bolton. The book reportedly reveals that Trump tied military aid for Ukraine to his demands for investigations into his political rivals. Trump’s tweets directly dispute the truth of these claims. He may have been hoping to push wavering Senate Republicans away from agreeing to call Bolton to testify in the impeachment trial. But in the process, Trump probably waived any executive privilege that he could have claimed to keep Bolton quiet if that gambit fails.

x

Nancy LeTourneau/Washington Monthly:

Republicans Are Trying to Interfere in the 2020 Democratic Primary

Here’s the quote:

Iowa caucuses are this next Monday evening and I’m really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters. Those Democratic caucus goers — will they be supporting Vice President Biden at this point? Not as certain about that.

In other words, the smear campaign against Joe Biden is an attempt by Republicans to interfere in the Democratic primary to knock him out of contention.

Democratic voters are free to make of this what they will. But the one thing they can’t do is to allow this kind of disinformation campaign based on conspiracy theories to be effective. Lying about opponents is now the modus operandi of Republicans because they are steeped in having to defend the most corrupt president in this country’s history. Disinformation is all they’ve got and they will use it mercilessly—especially against an opponent they fear.

x

Gail Collins and Bret Stephens/NY Times:

Always Look on the Bright Side of Impeachment

Not to mention the Democratic presidential race. It can be done, if you put your mind to it.

Gail: I have to admit the Bolton revelation — which, as you point out, is a big moment but not exactly a big surprise — perked me up. But one of the many downsides of the Senate trial is the amount of time people are having to spend contemplating the heart and mind of Susan Collins.

x

Helen Branswell/STAT vis Scientific American:

The Coronavirus Questions that Scientists are Racing to Answer

Although scientists have learned a lot so far, there is still much they do not know about the novel virus spreading in China and other countries

HOW DANGEROUS IS THIS INFECTION?

The reports emerging suggest a pretty significant portion of cases are seriously ill. For instance, in a report China’s national health authorities posted Monday, about 17% of total cases were severely ill. And about 3% of confirmed cases had died.

Those are frightening numbers. But if the confirmed cases represent only a fraction of the total cases — and they likely do — that could really change the math. Until we have a better handle on the total number of cases it’s premature to draw conclusions.

x

Elanah Uretsky/WaPo:

Is China ready for this major global health challenge?

Beijing invested heavily in public health around the world — but left troubling gaps at home

Is China protecting its global image — or its citizens?

Chinese officials have been working hard since SARS to build up the country’s reputation as a global health leader. Indeed, China’s investments in global health help make up for funding shortfalls, including recent reductions in global health commitment from countries such as the United States.

But the stigma of the SARS coverups at home in 2003 may overpower the impact of these global assistance efforts. China is receiving big hits to its domestic and international reputation because of its lack of preparedness to fight yet another outbreak of a strange pneumonia-like virus within its borders.

This kind of pressure speaks to Chinese leaders, who don’t want to be “forever nailed to history’s pillar of shame,” as one Communist Party statement explained last week. Ultimately, it is this type of pressure that might help China figure out how to balance its commitment to global health with that of domestic preparedness.

x

x

Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: Trump is losing the witness argument

Posted on by Greg Dworkin

NY Times:

Republicans are angrily pressing the White House in private about the revelations from the manuscript, saying they were blindsided by the former adviser’s account — especially because the administration has had a copy of it since Dec. 30. Many Republicans have adopted the arguments offered by Mr. Trump’s defense team, but Mr. Bolton’s assertions directly contradict them.

x

Don’t miss the forest for the trees. We went from “no witnesses, absolutely not” to threats about “if Bolton, then Hunter Biden and Obama” to “WH prepares for witnesses” in 24 hours. That’s… pretty amazing. Look, we all know what the GOP wants, but they may not get what the script calls for. Their problem is they do not know how to ad lib.

My heart breaks for them. Meanwhile, the witness vote is likely Friday.

x

x

Jonathan Bernstein/Bloomberg:

Here We Have It. The Trump Impeachment Smoking Gun.

A report about a book by John Bolton makes the president’s Republican defenders look like liars and fools. Maybe they’ll be fine with that.

And then, Sunday night, it fell apart. The New York Times reported that former National Security Adviser John Bolton has written in his upcoming book that Trump made explicit the quid pro quo that his lawyers are denying: that Trump told him directly that he wanted to keep the military aid frozen until the Ukrainian government agreed to help with investigations of Democrats. Not only that, but apparently the White House has had Bolton’s manuscript all month. Trump’s team knew this was coming.

While I certainly don’t expect the president’s support in Congress to collapse, it’s impossible not to see close parallels to the “smoking gun” tape that ended Richard Nixon’s presidency in 1974. That tape, proving that Nixon ordered his staff to have the Central Intelligence Agency block the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s inquiry into the Watergate scandal and released to Congress and the public after the House Judiciary Committee had passed articles of impeachment, was so devastating for Nixon not so much because it was proof of his crimes; plenty of proof of plenty of crimes had long since been placed in the record. Instead, it became the moment when conservative Republicans realized that Nixon had deliberately set them up with false arguments even though Nixon knew that the evidence, if released, would undermine those arguments and make them look like liars and fools.

x

Nikolas Bowie/NY Times:

Don’t Be Confused by Trump’s Defense. What He Is Accused of Are Crimes.

Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress have long been considered criminal and merit impeachment.

President Trump’s defense falls apart for precisely the same reason. As with burglary, American legal treatises and judicial opinions have long recognized the criminal offense of “abuse of power,” sometimes called “misconduct in office.” In 1846, the first edition of the pre-eminent treatise on American criminal law defined this common-law offense as when “a public officer, entrusted with definite powers to be exercised for the benefit of the community, wickedly abuses or fraudulently exceeds them.” The treatise noted that such an officer “is punishable by indictment, though no injurious effects result to any individual from his misconduct.”

x

Frank Figliuzzi and Karen Schwartz/NBC opinion:

Trump impeachment defense lawyers Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz share disturbing problem

While the president still stands accused of sexual misconduct by more than 20 women, two of his lawyers are embroiled in their own sexual misconduct and assault scandals.

There is a theorem that "creeps of a feather flock together." But there's more to it than the affinity bad men share for each other. The commonality between Trump's approach to life and the posture of the people he's selected to defend him echoes the "Access Hollywood" tape: "When you're a star, they let you do it."

Except now they — Trump, Starr and Dershowitz — are trying to collectively assault us all by defiling our Constitution. That should have every one of us, men and women alike, equally outraged.

x

Andrew McCarthy/NRO makes the case for shoddy defense work:

Bolton Blows Up Trump Team’s Foolhardy Quid Pro Quo Defense

They advanced an argument they didn’t need to make, and now it will cost them.

Don’t build your fortress on quicksand.

That’s been my unsolicited advice for President Trump and his legal team. You always want the foundation of your defense to be something that is true, that you are sure you can prove, and that will not change.

Instead, the president and his team decided to make a stand on ground that could not be defended, on facts that were unfolding and bound to change. Last night, that ground predictably shifted. In a soon-to-be-published memoir, former White House national-security adviser John Bolton asserts that the president withheld $391 million in defense aid in order to pressure Ukraine into investigating Trump’s potential 2020 election opponent, former vice president Joe Biden.

x

Neal K. Katyal, Joshua A. Geltzer and Mickey Edwards/NY Times:

John Roberts Can Call Witnesses to Trump’s Trial. Will He?

Democratic House managers should ask the chief justice to issue subpoenas for John Bolton and others.

The framers’ wisdom in giving this responsibility to a member of the judiciary expected to be apolitical and impartial has never been clearer. With key Republican senators having told the American people that they prejudged the case against President Trump before it began and even working with Mr. Trump’s lawyers to build the very defense for which they’re supposed to be the audience, the notion that they’re doing the “impartial justice” they’ve sworn to do is very much in question.

The Democrats’ impeachment managers should immediately ask the chief justice to issue subpoenas for key witnesses and documents, insisting that the Senate rules make him and him alone the decision maker about whether to “make and enforce” those subpoenas. That’s his prerogative — and his responsibility, one he can’t simply shift to the senators as permitted for evidentiary questions under the Rule VII carve-out.

What happens next won’t be totally within Democrats’ or the chief justice’s control. As Representative Adam Schiff acknowledged Thursday, the chief justice can decide evidence questions like executive privilege, but his determinations can be overruled by a majority of senators.

x

In Iowa news, Nate Cohn/NY Times:

Biden’s Iowa Problem: Our Poll Suggests His Voters Aren’t the Caucusing Type

Why there’s a wide split in recent surveys in the state.

This mismatch — between the voters who say they will participate in a caucus, and the voters who typically show up in primaries — may be at the heart of the wide split in recent Iowa polls.

Many pollsters rely, in some way, on past vote history to conduct their surveys. Some pollsters use it to define which voters could be selected to participate in a survey, like a recent Monmouth University poll that selected registered Democrats or independents who turned out in 2018 or in a recent primary, or who registered since 2018. A Neighborhood Research and Media poll was even more limited in its model for who was likely to vote: voters who turned out in either the 2016 or 2018 primary. These polls in Iowa showed Mr. Biden with the lead, and the Times/Siena poll also found Mr. Biden tied or ahead among these groups.

But new voters/young voters… 

x

Bloomberg is passing Pete in the polls. More importantly, he’s on message and will fund beyond his candidacy.

x

Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: Impeachment and thuggish behavior not playing well with the public

Posted on by Greg Dworkin

The big stories from a not-so-quiet Sunday are the death of Kobe Bryant in company of others, the spread of coronavirus and the bombshell leak of what’s in John Bolton’s book (making Republican Senators scramble), but the pundits haven’t fully caught up with all of that yet.

Aaron Blake/WaPo:

Mike Pompeo’s blatant gaslighting attempt

“It is shameful that this reporter chose to violate the basic rules of journalism and decency,” Pompeo said. “This is another example of how unhinged the media has become in its quest to hurt President Trump and this administration. It is no wonder that the American people distrust many in the media when they so consistently demonstrate their agenda and their absence of integrity.”

The most remarkable portion of Pompeo’s statement, though, came at the end.

“It is worth noting that Bangladesh is NOT Ukraine," Pompeo said in it.

The implication is unmistakable: Kelly couldn’t correctly identify the location of Ukraine on the map, and she instead pointed to Bangladesh.

Here’s why there is absolutely no way that happened.

Axios:

Republicans fear "floodgates" if Bolton testifies

There may be enough new pressure on Senate Republicans to allow witnesses at President Trump's impeachment trial, after the leak from a forthcoming book by former national security adviser John Bolton that contradicts what the White House has been telling the country.

Why it matters: This is a dramatic, 11th-hour inflection point for the trial, with an eyewitness rebuttal to Trump's claim that he never tied the hold-up of Ukrainian aid to investigations into Joe Biden.

GOP sources say the revelation could be enough to sway the four Republican senators needed for witnesses — especially since Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine have already strongly signaled they’d vote for witnesses. ...

The state of play: Republican sources tell Axios that party leaders and the White House will still try to resist witnesses because, as one top aide put it, "there is a sense in the Senate that if one witness is allowed, the floodgates are open."

"If [Bolton] says stuff that implicates, say Mick [Mulvaney] or [Mike] Pompeo, then calls for them will intensify," the aide said.

In other words, it would spoil their cover-up. Smoking guns are so annoying.

x

x

x

NPR:

And in a Saturday interview with All Things Considered, NPR President and CEO John Lansing also came to Kelly's defense.

"Mary Louise Kelly is one of the most respected, truthful, factual, professional and ethical journalists in the United States, and that's known by the entire press corps," Lansing told host Michel Martin. "And I stand behind her and I stand behind the NPR newsroom, and the statement from the secretary of state is blatantly false."

Lansing allowed that tensions can and do arise when journalists ask officials hard questions.

"But this goes well beyond tension — this goes toward intimidation," Lansing said. "And let me just say this: We will not be intimidated. Mary Louise Kelly won't be intimidated, and NPR won't be intimidated."

x

x

x

Ron Brownstein/CNN:

Boom and bust: Economy and impeachment capture the forces that will determine Trump's fate

"From the beginning of the [University of Michigan] survey through the administration of President George W. Bush, there was a fairly straightforward relationship: Higher scores on this [economic]  index equal better approval ratings," Sides wrote recently in The Washington Post. That relationship began to fray under President Barack Obama. Most experts attributed the change to the nation's increasing political polarization: Polls show that Republicans and Democrats are now more likely to view the economy positively when their party controls the White House. That meant Obama didn't benefit as much as many scholars expected when the economy slowly recovered after the crash of 2008. But Trump, as with many things, has pushed this dynamic to a new peak. Polls capture an unmistakable improvement in voter attitudes about the economy, but those same surveys show that Trump's standing is much weaker than that of any of his recent predecessors among the voters who express such economic contentment… The latest CNN/SSRS poll, released this week, illuminates the same trends from another angle. In the poll, 55% of respondents said they approved of how Trump is handling the economy, a robust number that might normally predict smooth sailing to reelection for an incumbent president. But 29% of the respondents who approved of Trump's economic performance say he abused his power in his dealings with Ukraine, and 23% said they still disapproved of his overall job performance, according to detailed figures provided by the CNN polling unit. The result of this resistance is that despite the spike in positive attitudes about the economy, Trump's overall approval rating has increased by only about 1 percentage point over the past year in the cumulative index maintained by fivethirtyeight.com.

In support of Brownstein’s piece, this am’s poll: even with strong economic support Trump at best breaks even where anyone else would handily lead:

x

x

Edward Isaac-Dovere/Atlantic:

Obama’s 2016 Warning: Trump Is a ‘Fascist’

The newly revealed comment is one of the former president’s strongest known critiques of his successor.

Obama has never gone as far as using the word fascist in public, even though that’s not an uncommon opinion, especially on the left. Journalists and academics who have lived in and studied fascist regimes regularly point to the traits Trump seems to share with those leaders, including demanding fealty, deliberately spreading misinformation, and adopting Joseph Stalin’s slur that the press is the “enemy of the people.” And that’s not to mention Trump’s apparent admiration for living authoritarians, such as Russia’s Putin, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. “He speaks, and his people sit up at attention,” Trump gushed about Kim in a 2018 interview on Fox & Friends. “I want my people to do the same.”

In the footage from Hillary, Kaine seems to suggest that Obama wanted him to be more aggressive against Trump. “He knows me and knows I tend to” hold back, Kaine says. (This past November, Kaine referred to Trump as a “tyrant” in an interview on the Radio Atlantic podcast.)

In the Sundance interview, Clinton said that Obama had never used the word fascist in conversations with her about Trump. But, she said, what Obama “observed was this populism untethered to facts, evidence, or truth; this total rejection of so much of the progress that America has made, in order to incite a cultural reaction that would play into the fear and the anxiety and the insecurity of people—predominantly in small-town and rural areas—who felt like they were losing something. And [Trump] gave them a voice for what they were losing and who was responsible.”

x

Gary Langer/ABC:

Biden holds steady, Warren slips in national poll as Iowa caucuses approach

Joe Biden holds his ground in the new national ABC News/Washington Post poll.

With the Feb. 3 Iowa caucuses drawing near, 77% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents nationally say they’re satisfied with their choice of candidates. Far fewer, 24%, are very satisfied, although that’s near the average in ABC/Post polls since 2000.

See PDF for full results, charts and tables.

This poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds plenty of room for movement: Just about half of leaned Democrats are very enthusiastic about their choice, and 53% say they’d consider supporting a different candidate. Warren, while weaker as a first choice, leads in second-choice preference.

ABC primary polling 2020
Seven months later, looks much like July 2019

x

Leonard Pitts, Jr/Miami Herald:

No, it’s not the economy, stupid. Trump supporters fear a black and brown America.

This column is presented as a service for those progressive readers who are struggling with something I said in this space. Namely, that I see no point in trying to reason with Trump voters. I first wrote that over a month ago, and I am still hearing how “disappointed” they are at my refusal to reach out. So I thought it might be valuable to hear from the people I’ve failed to reach out to.

I’m sure some of you think those emails were cherry-picked to highlight the intolerance of Trump voters. They weren’t. They are, in fact, a representative sampling from a single day in May, culled by my assistant, Judi.

It’s still an article of faith for many that the Trump phenomenon was born out of fiscal insecurity, the primal scream of working people left behind by a changing economy. But I don’t think I’ve ever, not once, seen an email from a Trump supporter who explained himself in terms of the factory or the coal mine shutting down.

I have, however, heard from hundreds like “Matthew,” who worries about “immigrants” and “Gerald,” who thinks people of color have an “alliance” against him. Such people validate the verdict of a growing body of scholarship that says, in the words of a new study by University of Kansas professors David N. Smith and Eric Hanley, “The decisive reason that white, male, older and less educated voters were disproportionately pro-Trump is that they shared his prejudices and wanted domineering, aggressive leaders …”

x

Ezra Klein/NY Times:

Why Democrats Still Have to Appeal to the Center, but Republicans Don’t

Polarization has changed the two parties — just not in the same way.

As a result, winning the Democratic primary means winning liberal whites in New Hampshire and traditionalist blacks in South Carolina. It means talking to Irish Catholics in Boston and atheists in San Francisco. It means inspiring liberals without arousing the fears of moderates. It’s important preparation for the difficult, pluralistic work of governing, in which the needs and concerns of many different groups must be balanced against one another.

The Democratic Party is not just more diverse in who it represents; it’s also more diverse in whom it listens to. A new Pew survey tested Democratic and Republican trust in 30 different media sources, ranging from left to right. Democrats trusted 22 of the 30 sources, including center-right outlets like The Wall Street Journal. Republicans trusted only seven of the 30 sources, with PBS, the BBC and The Wall Street Journal the only mainstream outlets with significant trust. (The other trusted sources, in case you were wondering, were Fox News, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart.)

Matt Grossmann and David A Hopkins made this observation a while ago, but it is worth revisiting.

x

Abbreviated pundit roundup: Democrats continue to argue a meticulous legal and factual case

Posted on by Georgia Logothetis

We begin today’s roundup with analysis by Sam Brodey, Erin Banco, and Jackie Kucinich at The Daily Beast on the Democrats’ Senate trial strategy:

[I]f the Democratic impeachment managers’ presentations on Wednesday were meant to appeal to the Senate’s sense of constitutional responsibility, Thursday’s were designed as an evidence-packed pre-rebuttal to what senators may hear from the White House when Trump’s defense team outlines their case in the coming days. [...] 

Intent on packing as much evidence as possible into the 24 hours of floor time, spread over three days, that they have been allotted to make their case, Democrats leveraged their video privileges for a novel purpose: turning senators’ own words from the last impeachment against them.

Michelle Cottle at The New York Times dives into the constitutional arguments made yesterday and highlight’s the Democrats’ preparedness:

Their preparedness is impressive. Even Representative Matt Gaetz, the devoted Trump cheerleader from Florida, observed earlier this week that, thus far, the Democrats’ presentation looked as though it was “cable news” while the president’s defense team’s looked like “an eighth-grade book report.” [...]

Significant time was devoted to anticipating — and shooting down — the defenses that Team Trump is likely to offer, including the president’s unsubstantiated claims about the Biden family’s corruption and the nutty conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine rather than Russia that hacked the 2016 election.

Gail Collins looks at how the founding fathers would have viewed Donald Trump’s misconduct:

Schiff elevated the saga with a lot of American history. He mentioned the founding fathers 28 times in the first 15 minutes. On this front, it doesn’t seem as if he’s going to get much competition. Earlier, when Republicans had a chance to talk, the founders only came up a handful of times, once in a quote from Chuck Schumer.

For much of our modern history Republicans have tended to be the ones continually quoting the founding fathers, usually in regard to the dangers of an over-powerful federal government. Now the tables have turned. Clearly Mitch McConnell and his minions need to come up with some early American heroes who wouldn’t have seen a problem with a president who tries to make secret deals with a foreign power in order to enhance his chances for re-election.

Eugene Robinson calls the GOP defense “as mushy as apple pie”:

The GOP threat to also call former vice president Joe Biden or his son Hunter Biden as witnesses is a big bluff, and Democrats should call them on it. Republicans control the Senate, which means they have subpoena power. They could have summoned the Bidens to testify at a committee hearing whenever they chose. They don’t really want the Bidens’ testimony, which they know would be irrelevant to Trump’s conduct. They’re just in desperate search of a talking point. [...]

I’m realistic. I know that Republicans have the votes to acquit Trump regardless of the evidence, if that’s what they decide to do. But the House impeachment managers’ skillful presentation of their case has made it much less politically attractive for GOP senators — especially those with tough reelection races — to say they won’t even cast their eyes upon evidence that’s being presented to them on a silver platter.

At The Atlantic, Kim Wehle argues the Democrats should add Chief Justice Roberts to their trial strategy:

the Constitution would not have specifically instructed the chief justice to preside if his only role were to sit quietly and do nothing. As the lawyer Martin London credibly argued in Time earlier this week, Roberts has the power and duty to make judgments about the conduct of the trial. [...] 

In early proceedings, Roberts made it clear that he will not exercise that power unbidden. Nothing, however, prevents the House managers from making motions—either orally or in writing—to force the chief justice to take a stronger hand in the proceedings. And the Democrats have nothing to lose by trying.

Ryan Cooper at The Week explains the necessity of holding Trump accountable:

[T]he Constitution is still the law of the land, and impeachment is the process we have for dealing with a criminal president. As Schiff argues, Trump will certainly take acquittal as a license to further undermine American democracy. He "has shown no willingness to be constrained by the rule of law and has demonstrated that he will continue to abuse his power and obstruct investigations into himself causing further damage to the pillars of our democracy if he is not held accountable," Schiff said.

And it is a fairly short step from using U.S. taxpayer money to blackmail a foreign country to simply rigging the 2020 vote outright. 

On a final note, John Cassidy pens another must-read piece on the cowardice of Republicans to stand up for democracy:

Much has been made of the concessions that a group of Republican moderates, including Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney, elicited from McConnell on how the trial would be conducted. However, McConnell merely agreed that evidence collected in the House is admissible here and that both sides would have three days rather than two to present their cases. The only potentially significant climbdown came when he agreed to another vote on calling witnesses after the first stages of the trial have been completed.

But this concession will matter only if, between now and next week, at least four Republican senators summon the will to break with Trump on an issue he cares about more than anything—his own survival. “This is a moment, I think, of reckoning, not just for the country and for the rule of law and for the Constitution. It’s a very specific day of reckoning for the Republican senators who took this oath, and for the Republican Party generally,” Conway said in his CNN interview. “Are they going to stand for lies instead of truth? Are they going to stand for gaslighting instead of reality? Are they going to just do the bidding of this one man and put his interests over those of the country? That’s what this is about.”

Posted in APR

Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: A fair trial must include witnesses and documents

Posted on by Greg Dworkin

NY Times:

‘Constitutional Nonsense’: Trump’s Impeachment Defense Defies Legal Consensus

As President Trump’s impeachment trial opens, his lawyers have increasingly emphasized a striking argument: Even if he did abuse his powers in an attempt to bully Ukraine into interfering in the 2020 election on his behalf, it would not matter because the House never accused him of committing an ordinary crime.

Their argument is widely disputed. It cuts against the consensus among scholars that impeachment exists to remove officials who abuse power. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” means a serious violation of public trust that need not also be an ordinary crime, said Frank O. Bowman III, a University of Missouri law professor and the author of a recent book on the topic.

“This argument is constitutional nonsense,” Mr. Bowman said. “The almost universal consensus — in Great Britain, in the colonies, in the American states between 1776 and 1787, at the Constitutional Convention and since — has been that criminal conduct is not required for impeachment.”

Don’t buy the nonsense that Rs are impervious to public pressure. Keep hammering them.

WaPo:

Senate Democrats privately mull Biden-for-Bolton trade in impeachment trial

“Biden and his people don’t want to give it credibility, so there is a stalemate right now, in terms of doing anything new,” one Biden associate said regarding whether the former vice president or his son would testify.

Throw in a second round pick and a player to be named later, and maybe there is a deal to be had.

x

NY Times:

McConnell’s changes to the trial rules came after concerns from Republican senators.

Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, made changes to the proposed rules for the trial after Republicans senators, including Susan Collins of Maine, raised concerns about two provisions, according to a spokeswoman for Ms. Collins.

The aide, Annie Clark, said the Maine Republican wanted to ensure that the resolution as closely resembled the rules adopted by the Senate in the 1999 trial of President Bill Clinton as possible.

Mr. McConnell’s initial plans had deviated in several ways from those carried out in Mr. Clinton’s case.

Consensus is that McConnell was bluffing and his caucus forced these changes.

x

More to come as America digests what they heard and saw yesterday.

x

Jennifer Rubin/WaPo:

Democrats already have these four victories in the impeachment trial

In his calm and methodical presentation, Schiff scored a victory: Democrats have effectively built the case that the Senate would be guilty of a coverup if it allows Trump to continue to conceal witnesses and documents. (Since the public already believes by huge margins that witnesses should be allowed, Schiff has the wind of public opinion at his back.)…

Schiff and his fellow impeachment managers understand that Trump has been impeached, that a majority of the public believes he obstructed Congress and abused his power and that a really big majority want a real trial. They know Republicans are going to vote to acquit, so the purpose is not a favorable verdict. Rather, it is to hammer home to every persuadable voter that Trump violated his oath and engaged in a coverup, which Senate Republicans are enabling.

The jury is not really the Senate; it’s the public. The defendant is not really Trump; it’s the Republican senators. Understanding this, Schiff got off to a strong start.

x

David Mastio and Jill Lawrence/USA Today:

Get ready for the Trump Senate impeachment trial as partisan farce

Here's hoping that Republicans prove us wrong and decide they've had enough of Donald Trump.

[Maastio]: They’ll be standing by Trump whatever comes in the Senate trial, new witnesses or not. Damning new facts or not. And when you are talking to Republicans, even in private, they do a pretty good imitation of being true believers in Trump. Why’s that? In the short term, Trump is the only route to clinging to power.

Pence is viewed as weak tea in rallying the base. And after years of Trump, there’s not much hope on the right for reaching out to the middle in the coming presidential election. Blue-collar Democrats aren’t going to defect to Pence’s traditional brand of Republicanism and he can’t really fake populism with Trump’s verve. Without Trump winning at the top of the ticket, hopes for keeping a grip on the Senate are not high.

I don’t care how damaged Trump is by the Senate impeachment trial next week, there’s no hope his Republican backers will abandon him.  

[Lawrence]: That is a dark view of the party, and probably justified. But until it’s over, as Bill Clinton used to say before The Troubles descended upon him, I still believe in a place called Hope.

x

Barbara McQuade/USA Today:

3 top witnesses I'd call in Trump impeachment trial and what I'd ask: Ex-US attorney

It would be tempting to call Rudy Giuliani, Mike Pence and Donald Trump. But John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney and Mike Pompeo would be better witnesses.

How to get the truth on Ukraine

Three other witnesses are essential to getting to the bottom of what happened in the Ukraine affair — Bolton, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Because they have not been questioned, House managers would have to violate a prosecutor’s general rule to never ask a question to which they do not already know the answer. But sometimes risk is necessary for reward. These are the key questions these witnesses should be asked.

Questions for all three witnesses:

►Were you aware of any request to any Ukrainian official to investigate Burisma, Hunter or Joe Biden or the role of Ukraine in interfering with the 2016 U.S. presidential election?

►If so, what was the role of President Trump in that request?

►Why was the Trump administration interested in investigating these matters?

x

x

Conservative columnist:

x

x

In other news:

Will Bunch/philly.com:

Call Richmond’s MLK Day gun rally what it was: An outbreak of terrorism on American soil 

As they marched a stone’s throw from what had been the capitol of the Confederacy, the marchers argued to a man (and they were virtually all men) that, in essence, they want their country back. “I don’t like what they are doing to our rights,” Raymond Pfaff, an 85-year-old man from Louisa County, Va. — where the public schools remained segregated until Pfaff was in his late 30s — told the New York Times at the rally, adding: “I’m a patriotic American. The left is going so far left right now.”

Wason Center for Public Policy:

State of the Commonwealth 2020 Survey Report (Virginia)

Voters strongly support requiring background checks on all gun sales (86%-13%) and passing a ‘red flag’ law (73%-23%); a slight majority (54%-44%) support banning assault-style weapons Voters strongly back the Equal Rights Amendment (80%-13%) A slight majority oppose giving localities authority to remove or alter Confederate monuments (51%-44%) Voters strongly support decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana (83%-14%) Voters strongly support raising the minimum wage (72%-28%) Voters strongly support automatic voter registration (64%-31%), but slightly oppose no-excuse absentee voting (74%-23%) Voters strongly support second passage of the redistricting reform constitutional amendment (70%-15%)

Important, given the gun rights rally yesterday.

x

x