Animals, one of my favorite things about having the most read website on the internet* is that sometimes when I post a genius take, you holler at me and tell me how I can be even more of a genius. Some people call this “criticism” but I personally view it as my apostles laying gifts of frankincense and myrrh at my feet due to the fact that that is how you treat a prophet (which I am).
Those of you who are true savages saw my analysis of Adam Schiff aka Trump’s Wicked Witch of the West’s November 25 “Dear Colleague” letter and the Intelligence Committee’s very boring report. But the #1 improvement you have offered to my genius is this: I should get woke to the fact that TWO impeachment articles are just as likely as THREE, and far more likely than FOUR. So I spent last night doing what I always do when it is time to predict the future: slamming Modelos and getting dirty AF with some primary sources.
THE CASE FOR TWO IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES
with help from the SSG Mad Dawgs
First of all, the House Intelligence Committee’s report summarized it’s finding in just two categories– not three or four:
That basically says two articles: Obstruction and Election Interference.
The “Preface” of this very boring report also says some interesting things. I personally think that politicians are not morons and are always sure to say the thing they care about the most first. This is due to the fact that 99 percent of people who are watching them on CSPAN or reading about them in the Fake News Media are usually within 60 seconds of changing the channel or popping another Xanex. You might not have known that but politicians are very aware of this data. They realize that basically no one will remember talking points 2-5. So it is telling that on p.3 of the Executive Summary, Schiff says this:
Keep in mind that this is the first page of the report that is not devoted to jerking off the Founding Fathers and thanking the underpaid staffers in terrible suits who did all the work writing this report. So “interference” and “obstruction” are once again Schiff’s first pitch.
Schiff is also using talking points that support “two” articles when he makes appearances on the Fake News Media. Check this out:
The first talking point is: “The evidence is quite overwhelming that the President used the power of his office, $400 million of taxpayer military assistance, to help an ally fighting the Russians, as well as a desperately-sought meeting in the White House to coerce an ally into doing his political dirty work… the president will have to answer for that.”
Then there are his remarks at the press conference he did earlier in the day:
Skip to 14:30 for the highlights– again we are in election interference land.
Speaker Pelosi also had some interesting things to say in her Dec. 5 press conference.
“This has been a couple years — two and a half– since the initial investigation into the Russian involvement in America’s election which started much of this and then led to other things… the a-ha moment for the country was the action taken by a President Trump appointee… who said there was a credible report from a whistleblower of grave concern and Congress should be aware of that. And that is the facts of the Ukraine situation.”
She does go on to talk about withholding aid and possible bribery charges. So umm… idk?
What is the Answer?
There are definitely two big daddy charges here: (1) Interference and (2) Obstruction.
What is hard to predict is whether or not the Democrats will split these into two subcharges, according to the respective “crimes” they think Trump committed. Those are (1) election interference; (2) bribery; (3) Obstruction of Congress; and (4) Witness intimidation. Or if they’ll split one subset but not the other. Is is truly mind-boggling.
I watched a very boring PBS panel to get some insight this.
The TL:DR is that it is going to be harder to prove and be persuasive about specific crimes, like witness intimidation and bribery, than it is to finish a PBS segment without jamming a week’s worth of Adderral up your nose. That is probably an exaggeration but take it with a grain of salt.
So it sounds to me like there is a great case for the Dems to keep things broad and make impeachment about Election Interference and Obstruction, since those are way easier to explain to people who get bored after one minute of watching CSPAN or the FNM and turn to beer and amphetamines to forget the horror they just witnessed.
The case for TWO is also strong.