Woodward Says New Evidence Needed for Impeachment

[brooklynite]

Politico

Bob Woodward told Mike Allen that there would need to be tapes or other dramatic new evidence as “propellant” before impeachment of President Trump became realistic.

Said Woodward: “There will be a pursuit for new evidence, tapes, testimony, as there should be. But it takes a critical mass get a president out of office. It happened with Nixon because of the tapes. You had a quality of evidence that does not exist in the Mueller report and the Trump case… Now, that could change this afternoon.”

He added: “I don’t know whether notes can do it. Because what shocked the country about Nixon wasn’t just the actions, but playing those tapes and hearing the language. Hate ruled the story, and people saw the hate.”

[htuttle]

1. He hasn't even seen the evidence

Nobody has outside SCO, DOJ and Trump. Well, probably Putin's been appraised of it as well.

[brooklynite]

2. Nobody here has seen the evidence either...but are ready to leap to Impeachment today

[Nevermypresident]

16. I just read hundreds of pages of evidence gathered by Mueller AND

trump's interview with Lester Holt re Comey, etc.etc.etc.etc.etc. over the last 2 years.

Please...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

30. Seriously!! I'm callin bullshit on Woodward's bullshit!! It's bullshit!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[USALiberal]

62. I think maybe Woodward knows more about this than you do. Nt

[BeyondGeography]

3. Hey Bob, the whole country heard Trump say grab 'em by the p***y

And he became President anyway.

We’ll work with what we have plus public hearings, thank you.

[brooklynite]

4. Your argument to be flipped to say...

...Americans know what Trump did and don't care enough (at this point) to pressure their Senators to vote to convict on Impeachment charges.

[BeyondGeography]

5. That's the purely political approach

Here’s what Elizabeth Drew (quite rightly IMO) had to say about that yesterday:

Madison and Hamilton didn’t say anything about holding off on impeachment because it would be politically risky. It’s hard to imagine they’d put political convenience on the same footing as the security of the Constitution. And the Democrats who prefer to substitute the 2020 election for an impeachment fight don’t appear to have considered the implications if Mr. Trump were to win: Would that not condone his constitutional abuses and encourage his authoritarian instincts?

...The Democrats may succeed in avoiding a tumultuous, divisive fight over impeachment now. But if they choose to ignore clear abuses of the Constitution, they’ll also turn a blind eye to the precedent they’re setting and how feckless they’ll look in history.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/opinion/trump-impeachment.html

[brooklynite]

6. You know what will look WORSE to History

Allowing Trump to serve a second term by winning after the Senate "acquits" him in the eyes of the average (not hanging out in a political blog) voter.

[BeyondGeography]

7. You'd rather let 22 Republican Senators avoid taking a public stand against the Constitution

They’ll like you for that next fall.

[brooklynite]

8. Have you evaluated who those Senators are? Because I have

We're not talking about picking off Collins and Murkowski; you need TWENTY Republicans to join the Democrats. And tyhey are almost entirely SAFE R and LIKELY R Senators from deep red States who's voters will not punish them for refusing to convict Trump.

[BeyondGeography]

11. Let's make their task even easier...great strategy

And let’s make it easier for Trump too while we’re at it.

So you obviously see the Senate as a lost cause and you don’t want to initiate impeachment proceedings. Stand pat and hope for the best. A centrist Dem in the WH and Mitch McConnell lifting his leg on bipartisanship for another four years. How about living a little? What’s the point of having power, using it or maintaining a meager and next to meaningless hold on it?

[brooklynite]

12. MY strategy is to beat Donald Trump at the ballot box...

As for "living a little", I weigh daring action against the possible outcome if it fails.

[BeyondGeography]

13. You're cool with letting him wipe his ass with the Constitution all the way until next November

and letting our party give him the green light to do that. Not to mention the counter-narrative he will build with his sham investigation of the investigation, which will go unopposed if we don’t start playing offense really soon.

This is how we become irrelevant.

[brooklynite]

14. I'm cool with actually solving the problem.

This is just a guess, but you sound...angry. And that's understandable, but one thing I've learned after 40 years of being engaged in politics is not to get angry. Even with Reagan. Even with Bush. The reason is, when you're angry, you make angry (and emotional) decisions, which may be satisfying but aren't always rational. I try to make the best decision to address the problem.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

22. That's the opposite of what you're doing. The reason these fucks got away

with Iraq is that nothing was done about Iran-Contra. Which is the reason why this new crop of fucks know they'll get away with their bullshit and on and on. You're not addressing the problem at all.

That clownstick in the WH is a symptom of a systematically corrupt and increasingly fascistic cult. Which gets off on breaking the law and then pretending to give a shit about the law the minute someone with a D after their name manages to get in the WH. Getting the presidency once a decade has done nothing to mitigate their fuckery. It's the opposite. They get bolder and more psychotic every time.

I really can't imagine someone your age is this naive. So I just have to assume the cocktail party bubble is just that thick.

[brooklynite]

23. I've heard Nancy Pelosi called many things...

"Naive" and "in a cocktail bubble" aren't among them.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

24. Wasn't talking about her. nt

[brooklynite]

25. True: but how are our positions different?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

26. You're both wrong. Motivations might be the same. Might be different. But still wrong. Just

like letting the Cheney administration off the hook was wrong. Just like legalizing their spying on citizens program after the fact. On and on. And the worst part is they know Democrats will only go so far. Which is why they continue to get more deranged by the cycle.

[Trumpocalypse]

34. And what would have the impeachment

of Bush and/or Cheney accomplished. They wouldn’t have been convicted.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

40. Put their many, many, many crimes on the record. Let their asshole

accomplices in the Senate get on the record as well. And if politics is what you value over the law. Then there's something in it for you too. Politically it would've put the 'Pukes even more on the defensive. Just like it did with Fore.

[Trumpocalypse]

41. Oh 'On the record'

I didn’t realize that outweighed getting healthcare for millions that didn’t have it before but that’s just politics much less important than the ‘record’.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

42. WTF does that even mean? What does one have to do with the other? That's just

a silly ass non-sequitor.

[Trumpocalypse]

43. A lot

It’s a shame you missed the point.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

44. Because it wasn't worth making. Again what does going after Cheney's

criminal gang have to do with health care?

[Trumpocalypse]

45. Because healthcare helps people

and improves their lives. And that is politics. Sanctimoniously acting above politics ignores the end result of helping people. Going after Cheney with a useless impeachment is just a selfish feel good exercise.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

47. That's quite the stretch. Impeaching these fuckers has dick to do with

achieving health care legislation. Giving people health care is beyond politics. It's why we're here in the first place and continue to evolve and improve society. Don't know where you got that "being above politics" bullshit. 'Cause I never said it.

You still seem unable or unwilling to explain how upholding the rule of law, even for people who think they are above it, keeps others from getting healthcare. Holding criminals to account is smart politics. As well as the right thing to do. And while I'm at it. How the fuck do you intend to give everyone healthcare when we can't even hold on to power?

But by all means let's keep giving these goat fuckers a pass. So that every time they come back stronger to beat our asses again. It's worked beautifully so far. At this rate we'll get some good ol' 1500s healthcare in the next century or so.

[Trumpocalypse]

48. Impeachment without a chance of conviction

is a useless exercise that doesn’t do anything to help people. And never said it was impeachment vs healthcare. Just pointing out that passing healthcare was all about politics and there is nothing wrong with politics if it helps people.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

49. Clinton wasn't convicted. Yet the party was mortally wounded by the

time 2000 rolled around. Because depraved republicans play politics like nobody else.

As to your last sentence. You must be arguing with yourself since no one claimed that.

And if this party can't multi task. Then we're even more fucked than I feared.

[Trumpocalypse]

50. Mortally wounded

How so? The GOP stole the 2000 election.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

51. Would a category 5 moron like Junior have gotten anywhere near being

able to steal it if it wasn't weakened? Gore put distance between him, his best soldier and the best economy the country had experienced in decades. How did that all happen again?...... Oh right.

[Trumpocalypse]

55. So Gore put distance

between himself and the guy that was impeached. So he would have done better if he embraced the guy who was impeached. But that would indicate the opposite of what you are arguing.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

57. No it wouldn't. He fell for the republican bullshit. Because they used

impeachment as a weapon and it worked.

[Trumpocalypse]

58. So the problem was Gore

and not impeachment itself. BTW I thought impeachment was supposed to be above politics.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

59. Clinton's impeachment was bullshit. And it was weaponized. Now we

have real crimes and the best you can do is "Thank you sir! May have another!". Like I said. Keep going with that weak ass bullshit and hopefully we'll be able to to get some real power sometime during the Barron Trump administration.

I don't know why you seem to have such a problem walking and chewing gum at the same time. Impeachment is a political process which can expose real crimes. Given that there is no justice department.

[Trumpocalypse]

60. Yes it was

And the GOP lost seats in Congress in the 98 midterms.

But you don’t need impeachment to expose crimes. You need Congressional investigations. The Senate Watergate hearings were not impeachment hearings and more evidence was exposed during those hearings than than impeachment hearings that followed a year later.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

61. Call them a fucking ham sandwich for all I care. There's plenty of evidence already

out there. You wanna add some more to plate. Have at it. Then what? If the evidence proves what we think it'll prove. What are they supposed to do? They're goddamn duty. If crimes were committed. Wagging your finger at them ain't gonna do dick. Like I said. Your weak ass bullshit just ain't cutting it. After you let this prick get away with it. Who do you think they're gonna put up next? But hey. Maybe a sternly worded letter will get it done.

[Trumpocalypse]

63. Well it was the Senate Watergate hearings

that swayed public opinion which in turn got republican Senators to turn on Nixon and force him to resign.

[at140]

54. Trump will be more depressed losing in 2020 than being impeached

Because losing the election is defeat by American people, versus impeachment in House he will just blame it on partisanship. He already knows there are no 20 GOP senators who will convict. That is why he is acting smug and cocky.

[Trumpocalypse]

33. Name the 20 GOP Senators who will vote guilty

assuming McConnell even allows the trial to take place.

[BeyondGeography]

37. Name one GOP Senator who wouldn't be thrilled if they didn't have to cast that vote at all

[Trumpocalypse]

38. Nice deflection

But you didn’t answer my question.

[TwilightZone]

28. That's exactly the point and it makes Woodward's point perfectly.

What Trump has done thus far has had little impact and he's done an excellent job at normalizing horrible behavior. It's going to take something extraordinary to get through to people.

If what's out there thus far was enough, the support for his impeachment would be higher than the current 35-40%.

[BeyondGeography]

32. Truly pathetic

So we’re supposed to take our cues from an antique Republican like Woodward now and wait until the polls say we can use our constitutional power to stand up to an authoritarian criminal? One thing you’ve got to hand to Trump; he feels utterly uninhibited with 35-40 percent support. But unlike him, we have a higher ceiling. If only the numbers magically moved upwards without showing some moral courage.

[True Blue American]

9. Ask Bernstein

What he thinks!

Woodward has been a Republican butt kisser for years to get them to buy his once a year books.

Bernstein is honest.

[manor321]

10. Woodward is full of shit

Check Seth Abramson's feed a day or two ago for info.

[LiberalFighter]

15. So Woodward is saying that unless there were tapes back in the 1800's

Congress couldn't impeach a President? Wow!

[FakeNoose]

17. He wants to see the pee tape

Well so do we, but it's in a safe place in Pootie's closet. So we have to consider what Mueller has already in the way of evidence. Most of us think it's enough to start Russia-gate hearings. Bob Woodward will NOT be the hero this time, but oh well...

[harumph]

18. I think what we're finding is that our laws are incredibly toothless

if they can't insulate the republic against what would be a prima facie
case of obstruction irrespective of the conspiracy issue...
if this were anybody but the president.

No man should be above the
law. Any legal theory justifying a unitary executive needs to go to the
rubbish heap of history - along with its proponents - and I mean literally.

[Greybnk48]

19. Bernstein is the one with the brain in that duo

not Woodward. Woodward's a right winger and always was.

[diva77]

31. +1,000,000 This!!!

Bernstein

Woodward

[uponit7771]

20. We have the critical mass in Red Don's obstruction of justice and ordering the obstruction of

... Justice.

[NewJeffCT]

21. When the House started hearings about Nixon

support for impeachment of Nixon was around 19%

A little over a year later when Nixon resigned, it was 57%

START THE HEARINGS

The support for impeachment of Donny is already almost double what it was for Nixon - 36%

[Trumpocalypse]

35. Actually that was the Senate Watergate committee

which was an investigation not impeachment hearings. The House impeachment hearings didn’t begin until the spring of 74 After a year of investigation by the Senate committee.

[StarfishSaver]

36. That's not accurate

The impeachment hearings didn't begin until May of 1974.

You're probably thinking of the Watergate hearings, which were not impeachment proceedings. But the testimony and information gleaned therefrom helped to build support for impeachment and by the time the House opened its impeachment inquiry a year later, public opinion had shifted, thanks to the hearings.

I don't think we need to stick to the same timeframe, but it's not correct to claim that impeachment hearings changed public opinion. It was the non-impeachment inquiry that changed public opinion to support impeachment.

[unblock]

27. republican raises hurdle for impeaching republican president. yawn.

"hate ruled the story, and people saw the hate."

wait, what?

we impeached nixon because we caught him hating on tape, we need some fresh revelation to hear donald the hater hate??


yeah, because everyone thinks donald fraud is just a big sweetie

[honest.abe]

29. There very well could be tapes.

Also, not so sure written notes are not enough. Depends what they say and how they are corroborated.

[kentuck]

39. How about violation of emoluments clause and abuse of power?

...and many charges of obstruction?

[misanthrope]

46. "Tapes?" Come on into the 21st century, Bob

Considering his own tendency to squirrel away information in order to retain high-powered access, Woodward doesn't need to be lecturing anyone on transparency or divulgence.

[UniteFightBack]

52. It's a figure of speech. Really nitpicking here. Better never say album or LP right? nt

[misanthrope]

64. I understand what you're saying but your last sentence isn't applicable.

Vinyl LPs are still made and used. I have boxes of them in my office right now and there's an honest-to-goodness record store less than a half-mile from my house.

An album is a collection of pieces issued together as a unit, regardless of medium. It can be on vinyl, a compact disc, magnetic tape or a thumb drive. Same way the concept of a photo album is still valid even if the images are in digital format.

[UniteFightBack]

65. Well then I can say the same thing about "tapes". nt

[misanthrope]

66. Except no one uses magnetic tape for those purposes anymore

they are digitally recorded.

[UniteFightBack]

53. As much as y'all may not like it he is right. Pukes stood by Nixon all along - it was only until

they heard those tapes that moves were made. They were not really that brave after all - more like backed into a corner.

[BumRushDaShow]

68. Remember this guy?

https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-lawyer-accidentally-admitted-there-are-tapes-of-trump-and-cohen-talking-ce1224a8c2d0/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/28/michael-cohen-trump-tapes-what-we-know/852141002/

The House Intelligence Committee has heard some of them in closed session earlier this year. There were also texts and emails. Some of this stuff (specifically the Stormy Daniels things) were pawned off to SDNY.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are others out there who have their own "tapes" (recordings).

Of course folks might recall the release of the "explosive" Access Hollywood "tapes" (video) and it seemed to make no difference to a large chunk of voters, so we're in a different era now when it comes to outrage about certain behavior, given the past 20 years have seen the rise of the "reality tv" bullshit.

[IADEMO2004]

56. Impeachment had me at Helsinki.....

[DFW]

67. He left out a key word

"....needed for a successful impeachment."

A hostile House of Representatives can impeach a sitting president any time they feel like it (just ask Bill Clinton). Impeaching a president with a decent chance of two thirds of the Senate voting to convict and remove from office is another matter entirely. Nixon would probably have been removed, as there were more than a few Republican Senators with a conscience in 1974. Today's Republican Senators would probably not vote to remove Hitler, Mussolini or Pol Pot from office.

[sarabelle]

69. We have the tapes. They were shown to us on the nightly news almost every day and night!

What more do we need? A written confession from Trump that he is a fascist, bully?

[Nevermypresident]

70. I've called all Democrats on the Judicial Committee - I support bringing Articles of Impeachment

against trump even if the repubs don't vote to remove him in the end.

Swing voters could be influenced due to live television impeachment hearings.

At the end of the day, it is not a political calculation for me, it's the appropriate response. Especially since trump is trying to thwart the House's normal oversight duties at every step.

Finally, those of you who assume that our party will be wounded if trump isn't removed...well, that's not set in stone. Show me where it is - comparing Clinton to trump?!

I hear many of you talk about let's just vote him out of office next year. Wonder if he wins? And we didn't try to impeach the worst president in modern history??

really?!!????