House votes to initiate public impeachment hearings ....

[_moksha]

You're joking, but I caught some NPR coverage of the vote this morning and the high church of both sides (tm) said this is like the Democrats' Benghazi. It was intended as a neutral description.

Benghazi was basically an empty issue played to the hilt by those expecting Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic candidate. It was an exercise in Republican theatricality. This impeachment inquiry is based on real crimes.

[_EAllusion]

You're joking, but I caught some NPR coverage of the vote this morning and the high church of both sides (tm) said this is like the Democrats' Benghazi. It was intended as a neutral description.

Benghazi was basically an empty issue played to the hilt by those expecting Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic candidate. It was an exercise in Republican theatricality. This impeachment inquiry is based on real crimes.

Well, yeah. One was a mixture of conspiracy theory and fishing expedition meant for political disinformation and the other is based on some of the most scandalous behavior in American history.

So, you know, both sides.

(Ironically, Benghazi was ultimately successful in derailing Clinton, and there's still a good chance Trump gets through this intact.)

[_EAllusion]

I do wonder what the American political scene looks like once Republicans vote to say that it's fine for a President to use foreign policy as a carrot and stick to have foreign countries help them run dirty campaigns (or worse).

I think that wraps a bow around the American experiment in democracy, but what's the competitive scene for foreign assistance look like going forward? What's the bidding war look like?

[_Gunnar]

I'm somewhat surprised that not a single Republican voted for the resolution, given that there has been slowly growing criticism of Trump even by Republicans. I noticed, though, that 3 of the 4 abstentions were Republican. At least those 3 apparently had reservations about voting against the resolution (or, admittedly, voting at all on it). The other abstention was a Democrat.

[_EAllusion]

I'm somewhat surprised that not a single Republican voted for the resolution, given that there has been slowly growing criticism of Trump even by Republicans. I noticed, though, that 3 of the 4 abstentions were Republican. At least those 3 apparently had reservations about voting against the resolution (or, admittedly, voting at all on it). The other abstention was a Democrat.

One of the benefits of having impeachment is it once and for all ends the game where some Republicans in swing districts respond to Trump's behavior by issuing statements of concern while taking no meaningful action to stop the President. Susan Collinsing, if you will. Now those people will be forced, eventually, on an up or down vote. We can see if they will put their money where their furrowed brow is. They probably won't and at least we'll have them on record being all slippery talk.

The safe bet is that he'll be impeached with Republicans overwhelmingly opposed. He'll be acquitted in the Senate probably unanimously by Republicans, but the ones in tougher elections will get to argue something to the effect of, "While what the President did is wrong, it wasn't impeachable. He's pinky swore not to do it again." I'd be less surprised if a few Democrats joined the Republican majority *stares at Joe Manchin* than if more than 3 Republicans broke ranks.

Of course, this isn't set in stone and things could go differently, but that's your median outcome.

[_EAllusion]

So, in that universe, does Chinese manipulation of our elections go to the highest bidder? Seems like it should.

[_EAllusion]

Heh.

So NPR, the national organization, is also calling the impeachment inquiry the Democratic impeachment inquiry to emphasize its partisan nature. You know, just like Benghazi was a Republican investigation. Same thing. (Only, oddly, NPR covered that without emphasizing it was exclusively Republican in nature).

Here's the NPR public editor defending this decision:

https://www.npr.org/sections/publicedit ... t-language

So instead of Congress launching an impeachment inquiry, it's Democrats doing so. This, the argument goes, is fair because the votes are almost perfectly split by party. It's just accurately reporting the partisan breakdown and reflecting the sign-o-the-times intense partisanship in politics.

Only, it's like no trouble at all to find NPR describing the votes won almost exclusively by Republicans as the body they are part of deciding something. Happens all the time. If Democrats do something it's partisan. If Republicans do it, it's Congressional. What gives?

The high priests of both sides explain that one though. Republicans bitch about media coverage more given their much greater ability to leverage the national conversation with allied media, so the fair thing to do side with the framing that advantages them in both cases. Then truly things are fair.

[_moksha]

I'm somewhat surprised that not a single Republican voted for the resolution, ...

Truth to Republicans is like water to a duck's back. They believe that since nothing really matters, they should do whatever they can get away with. I wish this was just a matter of cynicism rather than fact.

[_moksha]

[_Jersey Girl]

They can compel Trump to testify in person can they not? Isn't that what pushed Nixon to resign? WJ Clinton had to testify.

If this is the case, I can NOT wait for this to happen. I want to see his butt in the chair on a hot mic trying to word salad his way out of it all.