This issue isn’t just impeachment, it’s war and war powers and the role of Congress.
Big stuff.
USA Today:
Americans say Soleimani's killing made US less safe, Trump 'reckless' on Iran
Americans by more than 2-1 say the killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani has made the United States less safe, a nationwide USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds, amid broad concerns about the potential consequences ahead.
A majority of those surveyed, by 52%-34%, called Trump's behavior with Iran "reckless."
Americans were divided on the wisdom of the drone strike at the Baghdad airport last week that killed Soleimani and others: 42% supported it, 33% opposed it; 25% said they didn't know what to think. Republicans were much more supportive than Democrats; independents were almost evenly split.
But there was overwhelming agreement – in each case by more than 6-1 – that the attack made it more likely Iran would strike American interests in the Middle East (69%), that there would be terrorist attacks on the American homeland (63%), and that the United States and Iran would go to war with each other (62%).
Margaret Sullivan/WaPo:
The media should spotlight a different kind of war expert: Those who voted ‘no’ on Iraq
There she was: Judith Miller, the former New York Times reporter most closely identified with the paper’s flawed reporting in the run-up to the Iraq War, chattering away on Fox News.
Karl Rove, one of the masterminds of that 2003 “shock and awe” invasion and its aftermath — now widely seen as disastrous — was called upon. And why, there was Ari Fleischer, the hawkish spokesman for President George W. Bush — and even the war’s “godfather,” Paul Wolfowitz.
All had recent star turns on Fox News. But that pro-Trump network was far from alone.
Days after President Trump ordered a drone strike that killed an Iranian commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani — thrusting the nation on a potential path to war — the major Sunday news shows were showing their traditional colors, too.
In addition to giving Secretary of State Mike Pompeo his say, the shows also managed to find time for three politicians who had voted in favor of authorizing the 2003 invasion: Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) and former senator Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania Republican.
But here’s who they didn’t talk to: a single one of the 156 members of Congress who voted no to the Iraq War.
Greg Sargent/WaPo:
Trump’s deepening Iran morass all started with one big lie
Iran may have given Trump that off-ramp by launching a strike that apparently didn’t kill Americans. If he de-escalates — perhaps by declaring that Iran blinked in the face of his show of strength — that will be great, as far as it goes.
But the larger point here remains this: None of this has to be happening at all.
…
The short version is that Trump replaced the Iran deal with his own strategy of “maximum pressure,” which meant much tougher sanctions to get Iran to fully capitulate — without any meaningfully clear sense of what Trump thought full capitulation really meant.
Bruin Beutler/Crooked:
SUBPOENA JOHN BOLTON, DEMOCRATS
That trial can’t begin under Senate rules until House Speaker Nancy Pelosi transmits the articles of impeachment to McConnell, which leaves the two leaders deadlocked until she decides what to do next: Let the trial begin, or leave Republicans in limbo while seeking Bolton’s testimony themselves.
“I think the time has past. She should send the articles over,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT).
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer echoed this advice, noting “The speaker has said all along she wanted to see the arena in which she was playing when it came to a trial so she could appoint impeachment managers. Now it’s becoming clear that Mitch McConnell wants to do everything he can to avoid a fair trial so she has some idea of what’s happening.”
Schumer’s view reflects the strategy Democrats set in motion before Bolton chimed in: Delay the trial until Republicans announced whether they would rig it or not. Maximize pressure on them to conduct a fair trial, but make their coverup scheme clear to the world if not. With Bolton’s statement in hand, and Republicans grasping at inane justifications for not issuing him the subpoena he’s requested, House Democrats should change plans: issue him a subpoena themselves, and advise Republicans that the trial won’t begin until Bolton testifies, in one chamber or the other.
Just in case you forgot who’s in charge, it’s the lady from Baltimore and San Francisco.
FiveThirtyEight’s new forecast model is out and…
At the moment Biden followed by Bernie are best positioned.
And speaking of polls, NH Monmouth was yesterday, DMR Iowa is later today.
Alex Pareene/TNR:
How Political Fact-Checkers Distort the Truth
Glenn Kessler and his ilk aren't sticking to the facts. They're promoting a moderate dogma.
The trouble is, fact-checkers have expanded their purview from checking strictly empirical statements to “checking” contestable political statements. As a result, Trump’s most glaring whoppers—such as his ludicrous suggestion last April that wind turbines cause cancer—appear no different than Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s contention that it’s morally wrong to pay people less than a living wage.
Jamelle Bouie/NY Times:
The Trump We Did Not Want to See
When are we going to stop trying to rationalize the irrational?
This is reckless but it isn’t shocking. Trump is not a steady hand. He’s never been one. Three years in office have neither changed his character nor enhanced his capabilities. He is as ignorant and incurious as a president as he was as a candidate (and as a would-be mogul before that). His main goal is self-preservation, and he’ll sacrifice anything to achieve it. His current assault on the authority of Congress — his refusal to have the White House or members of his administration release documents or obey subpoenas — is an attempt to escape responsibility for his own unethical (and potentially illegal) actions. He is self-involved, unethical and unstable — a dangerous combination to have for the commander-in-chief of the world’s most powerful military forces, under pressure from impeachment and a re-election campaign.
I think most observers know this. But the implications are terrifying. They suggest a much more dangerous world than the one we already believe we live in, where in a fit of pique, a single action taken by a single man could have catastrophic consequences for millions of people. This isn’t a new observation. When he was still a rival — and not one of Trump’s most reliable allies — Senator Marco Rubio of Florida warned Republicans that they shouldn’t give “the nuclear codes of the United States” to an “erratic individual.” Hillary Clinton said Trump was “temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility” and that “a man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.”