Tuesday I wrote a diary saying that Nancy Pelosi isn’t calling for impeaching Trump because of math. I stand by every word of that diary. But, things do change. The equations don’t change, but the numbers do! The equations produce the answers based on the numbers fed into them.
Let’s review where we were:
435 representatives. A simple majority of 218 is required to pass a resolution.
There are 235 Democrats, 197 Republicans, and 1 independent, Justin "Man Without a Country" Amash. 2 seats are vacant and won't be voting. 235 is way more than 218. So, woo hoo, good guys win, amirite? Not so fast, QuickDraw.
About 85 Dems have publicly stated they're ready to put the impeachment boot up Trump's fat ass. We can presume Amash will also vote to impeach, as will Pelosi if she calls the vote. We can also presume that all 197 assholes on the GOP side will vote against. (You think not? Name one who might, and make the case with something more than “yuh huh.”)
87 for and 197 against. 199, actually -- remember the two vacancies? Yikes. Those two vacancies won’t be voting yes on anything.
218 - 87 = 131. We need 131 more votes. You think 131 Dems will vote to impeach? I wouldn't bet my paycheck on it.
Let's turn it around and look at the votes needed to defeat it. Same number: 218.
218 - 199 = 19. If a mere 19 Dems vote against impeachment, we lose. 19.
What’s changed? Well, this:
95 Democrats voted for impeachment in Al Green (D-TX)’s move to immediately send a measure of impeachment to the Senate.
And some of those who voted to table the measure (essentially killing it, though politely) were not part of the 85 enumerated above.
Why did the numbers change? Well, obviously some of the 150 Democrats who haven’t taken a stand for impeachment as per Tuesday’s numbers are now flying their impeachment flag. I’m all for that. And I would wager that some of the pro-impeachment Dems who voted to table the measure are still for impeachment — they just didn’t think this was the way to handle the issue. (Notice Amash didn’t vote for impeachment. I think he’s still for it. I think he’s one of the ones who thought this measure wasn’t the right way to get it done.)
So what are the numbers now? I’m not sure, and neither is anyone else besides Pelosi.
Does it mean Tuesday’s diary was wrong? No. It means that the numbers have changed. The numbers were always going to change. Those numbers are fluid. We’re talking about 435 human beings who change their minds about everything from their stances on policy to what their favorite pizza topping is. The numbers for, against, and “gee, I dunno” were always going to move.
The equations are not fluid.
The number 435 is not going to change. Neither is the 218 needed to impeach (or name a post office for your Aunt Gertrude).
I don’t know what the number of Democrats who would now vote for a leadership-sponsored impeachment measure is. I can make an educated guess by comparing the list of 85 previously compiled by the news media to the 95 who voted for Green’s measure.
Here are the members of the “85” who did not vote for Green’s measure:
Stanton (AZ), Peters (CA), Porter (CA), Rouda (CA), Himes (CT), Demings (FL), Mucarsel-Powell (FL), Casten (IL), Quigley (IL), Rush (IL), Yarmuth (KY), Malinowski (NJ), Rice (NY), Ryan (OH), Evans (PA), Green (TX), Beyer (VA), and Smith (WA).
(I made this list by comparing the list of 85 as per Emptywheel to the Hill list of the 95 Green impeachers linked above. Someone feel free to check the comparison and post a correction in the comments. “My legs are grey. My ears are gnarled. My eyes are old and bent.” And I have one hell of a headache from doing it.
18 of the 85. Okay. Can we assume all 18 are still for impeachment, but just didn’t get behind Green’s measure? I think — notice the word “think” — that’s a safe assumption. Add Amash to that. You get 19. Add that to Green’s 95.
95 + 19 = 114.
That’s better. Still not 218, but better. Much better.
218 - 114 = 104. We are not there yet, no matter how hard we might kick Aunt Nancy’s seat.
(I was a teacher, but never a math teacher. Someone check my numbers, please.)
How do we get to 218? Same way as with any other bill. If you live in the districts of the House Dems who aren’t for impeachment yet (Emptywheel’s list is very useful here), badger the shit out of them. Email. Phone. Post on Facebook and Twitter. Go to their offices. Make noise. Be polite, but insistent. We. Want. Impeachment. And don’t forget to keep pressuring the ones who have already come out for impeachment. We don’t want any backsliding. The rest of us, well, hell, just do the same. Keep the pressure on.
Some folks who commented in the previous diary drew the hilariously wrong conclusion that I was trying to use grade school math to “prove” that impeachment was never going to happen, and that we should just shut our collective mouths about it. Absolutely, nonsensically wrong. The numbers move. They will always move. We might get to 218 next week or next month, or not until St. Swithin’s Day of 2020, or not ever. I don’t know. No one else knows, not even Pelosi.
But the movement is forward towards impeachment. That gives me hope. Hellfire, we moved as much as 29 votes forward in less than 48 hours. That is huge.
(What about an impeachment inquiry? Well, I learned a few things from the diary and from the Green vote. One, Nadler can indeed open an inquiry in the Judiciary Committee without going through Pelosi or holding a floor vote. And if McCarthy or another House Republican wants to storm the gates with a floor vote, the Dems can vote to table it. So, should Nadler do it against Pelosi’s wishes? I don’t think he will go rogue like that. It’s also easy to envision the Republicans launching one stupid “point of order” and demand for a floor vote after another, over and over and over again, to bring the whole House to a screeching halt. I want an official impeachment inquiry. But I see the justification for not doing it at this time. I still want it, and the justification for doing it is also quite strong. Personally, I think Pelosi should take the brakes off of Nadler and open the inquiry — and be ready to slap the Republicans down when they try to obstruct it. But Pelosi and Nadler know more about the machinations than I do. I respect that knowledge.)
(And what about the Senate? Well, first off, fuck Mitch McConnell. There. Now, I personally advocate Laurence Tribe’s position of holding the impeachment hearings, crucifying Trump seven ways from Tuesday with a tsunami of facts and observations, listing his crimes and the evidence for them, voting to impeach, and then not referring it to the Senate and explaining why. Why? Because McConnell will run the kangarooiest of kangaroo “courts” and shit all over the proceedings before leading his gang of Senate GOP assholes into a march to declare Trump’s white-as-a-Klan-hood purity and innocence. But, as with the plus-delta of the impeachment inquiry question, YMMV.)
Let me end this with a total lack of humility, and quote myself from Tuesday:
For the record, I am 100% for impeachment. Like many others, I see it as our moral duty to impeach his criminal ass. Wait, let me restate: it's our moral duty to win an impeachment. Not take a swing at it and miss.
It’s not time to take that swing yet. But that time is coming.
E pur si muove. — Galileo (maybe)