Ron Brownstein/WaPo:
Why Trump's impeachment inquiry will be more divisive than Nixon/Clinton
Looking at the gap that instantly opened between Democratic concern over Trump's actions and the refusal of more than a handful of elected Republicans to raise any questions, Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher is even more apprehensive than Abramowitz. Given "the outright collapse of time honored common sense political norms that once gave us at least a modicum of protection from cult like runaway partisanship,"
he tweeted last week, "u have to wonder if our Republic will ever recover."
Compared with 1974 or even 1998, the impeachment inquiry into Trump begins with the two political parties sorted much more distinctly along ideological, demographic, generational and geographic lines...
"They believe the barbarians are at the gate, and when the barbarians are breaking down the gate, nothing else matters," says Belcher. "That's the point where we are in our politics, and why Trump can get away with it."
Before it's over, the impeachment inquiry may force both sides to acknowledge that the capacity, and even interest, of red and blue America in reaching common understandings has eroded to a dangerous level. It may especially illuminate how much of the Republican coalition now rejects an underpinning of shared facts required to even pursue a dialogue with contrasting viewpoints -- as Jordan and McCarthy demonstrated in their bewildering television appearances last weekend.
Politicians in both parties, at their most uplifting moments, are fond of declaring that what unites Americans is much greater than what divides them. The blast-force pressure of the coming Trump impeachment battle will test that proposition even more than the battles over removing Nixon and Clinton from office.
The intensity is there on both sides, so expect a GOP surge as well as a D surge.
Of course you were, and you are up the creek.
From the Bulwark newsletter, commentary on wide vs narrow impeachment:
Today I want to look at the best-case scenario for Trump, just to game out how that might work….
Really, Trump's only defense was to try to elide the known facts of his call and shift the question from "did he do this thing" to "can you absolutely prove it was an explicit quid pro quo."
Which is not great ground to fight on.
But over the last couple days the battlespace has widened. Suddenly we're re-litigating the Mueller report. And talking about Bill Barr and Australia. And the Hunter Biden aspect of the story keeps being pushed relentlessly by conservative media.
These are all positive developments for Trump because they widen the scope of the discussion and allow more room for him and his allies to muddy the waters.
And the media is going to continue to report out every angle they can find, even if Democrats are desperate to keep the impeachment investigation narrow.
Better to be narrow, it says, but that choice might not belong to Democrats.
Listen, don’t overread it, but the Senate Rs do not like Trump. and for those who missed it, the civil war tweet story is here.
Aaron Blake/WaPo:
The Ukraine story appears to be hurting Trump — and possibly Biden, too
But if you dig a little deeper, the Ukraine story doesn’t seem to have completely registered with people in the way Democrats would hope. The poll shows just 45 percent think Trump either “made any promises” to Zelensky or “put any pressure on” him to investigate Biden. Zelensky has said he didn’t feel pressured on the call. But shortly before asking for the investigations, Trump repeatedly noted how good the United States had been to Ukraine. There was no explicit quid pro quo, but Trump seemed to be linking U.S. assistance to his requests in a way that at least implied pressure.
Part of the reason for that low number is that many people simply haven’t consumed the news. About 1 in 5 Americans say they haven’t even heard about the Ukraine story. And in all, there are still more Americans saying Trump at least applied pressure on Zelensky (45 percent) than those who definitely say he didn’t (36 percent).
Main message: it’s early.
Philip Rotner/The Bulwark:
It’s Not Just Trump
The entire executive branch of the government has been corrupted by our corrupt president
The essential facts around that episode are not in dispute. They are set out in plain English in the White House’s own summary of the July 25 telephone call between Trump and the president of Ukraine, the whistleblower’s report, the findings of Intelligence Community Inspector General, and Trump’s own clumsy admissions.
So far, this may sound like it falls on Trump alone. But it may not. The corruption may extend throughout executive branch of the government and beyond.
According to the whistleblower, “the President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort,” and “Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.” We will see if these allegations are borne out over the course of the impeachment inquiry.
But meanwhile it is also alleged that “multiple White House officials” had “direct knowledge” of the call. According to the Washington Post, 12 to 13 people, including at least three people from the Situation Room, at least two or three members of the national security adviser’s leadership team, a State Department surrogate for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and a senior representative from the Russia and Ukraine directorate were listening in.
Jacqueline Alemany/WaPo:
Trump's right-wing media darlings go to war during impeachment inquiry
The conservative media bubble is also putting intense pressure on the rest of the Republican Party.
- Limbaugh criticized Mitch McConnell for following the rule of law after the Senate Majority Leader confirmed that he would have “no choice” but to launch a trial if the House votes to impeach: “The Turtle said, 'Hey, if we do it, there’s gotta be a trial.' There’s nobody in official Republican strata that’s trying to refute this! They’re all dealing with it as though it’s a fait accompli. It’s not a fait accompli. But, see, there’s a whole different mentality about this stuff when you live in the Beltway,” Limbaugh shouted during his three hour radio show.
- Reality check: McConnell tamped down on speculation he could simply ignore the prospect of putting Trump on trial, per our colleague Seung Min Kim. “The Senate impeachment rules are very clear,” McConnell said. “The Senate would have to take up an impeachment resolution if it came over from the House.”
NBC First Read:
GOP is playing a weak hand in defending Trump on Ukraine
In a political debate, you can usually tell who’s winning and losing — just by looking at the arguments and counterarguments.
And right now, the GOP isn’t winning.
Kurt Bardella/USA Today:
Impeachment whine: Trump thinks Republicans weren't tough on Obama. Believe me, we were.
What would Republicans have done to Barack Obama? Everything Democrats are doing to Trump and more. I know because I choreographed the GOP barrage.
I pointed to this quote from Rep. Jim Jordan back in February and it’s worth revisiting given the frequency with which Jordan now defends Trump. During Holder’s contempt proceeding, Jordan pointedly asked, “How can you ignore the facts when you don’t get the facts? … I just want to get the information. … We just want the information so we have the facts.”
In case Trump is suffering from an acute attack of amnesia, he should be reminded that in the summer of 2012, House Republicans filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration in federal court over its use of executive privilege and ultimately won, with Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruling that “Congress could seek to enforce its duly issued subpoena.”
Philip Bump/WaPo:
We’ll add another overarching caveat here: Even in the context of this moment, setting aside any historical comparisons, it’s worth looking at all this with a few grains of salt. Things are evolving rapidly; there were multiple news developments on this subject as this article was being written. Analysis at FiveThirtyEight also reminds us that big, dramatic news developments can, at least temporarily, break polling.
Stay tuned. We’re writing the history books on this one as we go.
By the way, that FiveThirtyEight piece is by pollster Mark Blumenthal, the Mystery Pollster. He’s back.
Here’s a guy whose reputation is now shit and who should have resigned along time ago:
Meanwhile...
And as a PSA: