Tucker Carlson: Democrats have lost the Trump impeachment war. Even Adam Schiff knows it
Can Trump be defeated?
The New York Times
THE CONVERSATION
Can Anyone or Anything Dislodge Trump From the White House?
Diplomats and Democrats are doing their level best.
By Gail Collins and Bret Stephens
Ms. Collins and Mr. Stephens are opinion columnists. They converse every other week.
Nov. 26, 2019
Fiona Hill, former National Security Council senior director, testifying before the House Intelligence Committee last week.Credit…Damon Winter/The New York Times
Bret Stephens: Hi, Gail. I hope you have plans for a beautiful Thanksgiving.
Gail Collins: Happy holidays to you, Bret. I bet I can guess what you’re not going to be thankful for.
Bret: Bill Belichick?
In the meantime, here’s a riddle for us: Donald Trump just had what most of us thought was, for him, a no good, very bad week. His ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, acknowledged after past equivocations that there was indeed a quid pro quo with Ukraine — and that everyone senior in the administration knew about it. Then Fiona Hill, the Russia expert formerly on the National Security Council, gave a stark warning to congressional Republicans that they risked becoming dupes to Russian propaganda being peddled by the president himself.
So what happens? Trump gets a modest bump in the polls. Are we in Media World just completely misreading the mood in the rest of America regarding this impeachment inquiry?
Gail Collins: Don’t let polls ruin your week. For one thing, they’re not all that reliable, particularly in the short term. For another, I’m pretty sure most of the people who were really paying attention to the impeachment hearings had long since decided how they felt about the president.
The 2020 election will probably be all about turnout. And the recent state contests suggest we’re going to have a heck of a lot of anti-Trump voters showing up next year.
Bret: This is the (inflation adjusted) $64 trillion question. If it’s a turnout contest, then Democrats will do better with a more polarizing candidate, like Elizabeth Warren, though I’m beginning to doubt she can win the nomination, never mind the general election. And yet I still think the race is going to come down to a fairly small number of persuadable voters in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, who will be won over by a centrist Democrat in the same mold of other centrists who helped flip the House in the midterms.
But go on.
Gail: Another observation from the sunny side: My biggest takeaway from the hearings was the quality of the people who testified. You had a bunch of career diplomats nobody had ever heard of, who the right wing might call denizens of the deep state. And they were incredibly impressive — smart and so clearly dedicated to their jobs.
Bret: Agreed. If this is the “deep state,” well then, please, sir, I want some more. And it’s worth pointing out that people like Bill Taylor and Fiona Hill were never a part of any “resistance.” They were public-spirited people who believed that, when the president of the United States asks you to serve, the answer should be yes, no matter who the president may be. That they are now being treated so disdainfully by the G.O.P. is yet another one of those Joseph Welch “have you left no sense of decency” moments.
But we’ve had so many of those in the past three years.
Gail: Let’s gossip for a minute. All of a sudden we’re hearing rumorsthat Mike Pence might be on the way out, that Trump will replace him on the ticket next year with somebody with more appeal, like Nikki Haley. Think there’s any chance?
DEBATABLE
Bret: A strong one, yes. Trump has no sense of loyalty, so the thought of dropping Pence isn’t exactly going to keep him up at night. And Pence is so loyal that when Trump dumps him (probably via Twitter) he’ll just give that constipated nod of his.
Gail: And tell his wife: “Mother, it’s time to go bye-bye.”
Bret: As for Haley, she does everything Pence does in terms of her appeal to the Trump base, including with evangelical voters, and probably widens Trump’s appeal somewhat, for instance with Republican-leaning suburban women. And her new book goes out of its way to showcase how loyal she was to Trump, as opposed to people like the former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the former chief of staff John Kelly. That’s purposely designed to ingratiate herself with the Trump voters who weren’t entirely sure she was onboard the MAGA Express.
Gail: And, of course, to ingratiate herself with the president. Who I’m sure didn’t read the book, but probably got a one-paragraph summary.
Bret: Whatever Trump decides — and whatever she decides — she’s clearly setting herself up for a presidential run in 2024. She’ll be formidable. The shame is that, after being an early Trump critic, she clearly feels she can win the nomination only by drawing closer to the president, not distancing herself. It just shows how thoroughly Trump has captured and corrupted the party.
Meanwhile, Democrats! I thought that last debate was a bit of a snoozefest. The big story, it seems to me, is that Pete Buttigieg is approaching front-runner status, at least when it comes to Iowa. I’m more of a fan than you are. Can he go the distance?
Gail: Don’t think so. And it’s not a good idea. We just talked about the importance of turnout next year, and a lot of that is about making sure younger people and people of color show up to vote. That’s exactly where Mayor Pete is weakest.
Bret: I understand his weakness with African-American voters but remain mystified by why he isn’t polling better with the younger electorate. Even so: Wouldn’t it be nice to have a president who makes you enjoy the English language every time he speaks?
Gail: Mayor Pete is certainly a good speaker, but he’ll be even better when he runs again a few years down the line. I don’t think it’s a rejection if you just feel he could use a little more political experience outside of South Bend.
And speaking of mayors, are you still high on Mike Bloomberg? Talk about terrible poll numbers. How much do you think he’d need to spend to turn things around? More or less than the national budget of Canada?
Bret: He is my first choice by far, whatever misgivings I might have about his micromanaging style. (We former Republicans have to stick together.) I’m convinced he can trounce Trump in a general election, and he would have a winning message to the so-called exhausted majority that is sick of our hyper-ideological, polarized politics. And I wouldn’t read too much into his poll numbers right now. He’s a candidate of the head, not the heart. He has the money to keep going all the way to the convention, which might prove very useful if, as I think is entirely possible, the Democrats wind up with a brokered convention between two or three uncertain or unpalatable front-runners.
Gail: Ah, yes, a brokered convention. The last one was so exciting. King George VI had just died, the hydrogen bomb was about to get its first test and people were talking about the great new picture “Singin’ in the Rain.”
We haven’t had one since 1952, Bret. But tell me what you’re envisioning.
Bret: Imagine a scenario in which Buttigieg wins Iowa, Warren wins New Hampshire, Biden wins South Carolina and then goes on to win Super Tuesday, causing Bernie Sanders to drop out of the race. Some Sandernistas will go to Biden, but I suspect most of his supporters then shift to Warren. The rest of the field drops out for lack of funds — except, of course, for Bloomberg. At that point, the Democratic Party takes a deep breath, clenches some posterior muscles and realizes the former mayor offers the best shot at dethroning Trump, who at that point will be celebrating his impeachment “victory” after an acquittal in the Senate.
Am I 100 percent insane, or just 95 percent?
Gail: Hesitant to dismiss any wild possibility in the current climate. But when crazy stuff happens, it’s always because of Donald Trump. On the Democratic side things are actually pretty boring considering that we’ve got a wide-open presidential race.
Bret: Too boring. I really think posterity will look back at this election as an inflection point. Are Democrats up to their historical responsibility to nominate the candidate most likely to defeat Trump? Or are they too consumed by ideology to appeal to the middle of the country, politically speaking, and win over the voters who aren’t in sync with everything Democrats stand for but are ready for a change?
Gail: Sounds like a post-turkey thought to me, Bret. Enjoy your family and friends. Watch some football games. Think of all our politicians as leftovers you’ll deal with next week.
By Tucker Carlson | Fox News
The Democrats have been talking about impeachment since the very day that President Trump was inaugurated. But until recently, no one here in Washington took that idea very seriously. Maxine Waters would rant about a trial. Then Pilates moms in Santa Monica would fantasize on Twitter about removing Trump by force.
But the adults in the party – Nancy Pelosi, for example, the House Speaker – opposed impeachment on the grounds that it was bad politics, and might boomerang on them.
HOUSE DEM NOW SEES NO ‘VALUE’ IN IMPEACHMENT, AS POLLS SHOW FALLING SUPPORT AMONG INDEPENDENTS
And then in what seemed like a day, everything changed completely. Suddenly, we had impeachment hearings playing out live in TV. Nobody explained why. Looking back, what exactly happened? Well, part of the answer is the Democrats were simply responding to their own cheerleaders on cable news.
Lawrence O’Donnell, host of “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell” on MSNBC: If precedent means anything in the Trump era, Donald Trump will be, must be impeached.
Chris Matthews, host of “Hardball with Chris Matthews” on MSNBC: But if they don’t impeach, Democrats will abdicate a clear, constitutional chance to hold this president fully accountable.
Chris Todd, MSNBC host: The national nightmare is upon us. The basic rules of our democracy are under attack from the president. We begin tonight with a series of admissions by the president that all but assures his impeachment in the House of Representatives.
Nicolle Wallace, MSNBC host: I don’t understand why the fact that impeachment is polarizing is some sort – it makes them just as cowardly as the Republicans.
Eddie Glaude, Princeton University professor and MSNBC contributor: Absolutely. And to my mind, it also is an abdication of their constitutional responsibility.
Don Lemon, CNN host: Will there be any consequences for this president, who is continuing to defy the rule of law?
“The rule of law.” Hear that, Mr. and Mrs. America? It’s a national emergency! And if they don’t impeach, Democrats – listen carefully – Democrats will abdicate their solemn, constitutional responsibility. Democrats literally have no choice but to undo the 2016 election.
Yeah. That’s what the hair hats on TV, the men who wear makeup and yell at their assistants, were telling Democratic leaders night, after night, after night. And remarkably – and it is remarkable looking back – Democrats believed them.
So, what happened next? Let’s see. Have you read the new Vanity Fair? Sorry, rhetorical question. Nobody reads Vanity Fair anymore. It likely won’t exist by this time next year.
But before the title disappears forever, check out this month’s issue. There’s a fascinating piece by Ken Stern that assesses new polling on impeachment. Here’s the headline: Among independents, the only group that matters in an election, support for impeachment – impeaching Trump – has dropped by 10 points since the process started.
How to explain this? In political terms, this is the Andrea Doria, a routine cruise that suddenly becomes a disaster, a debacle. They spent two weeks telling you that Donald Trump is a criminal. And by the end, more people sympathized with Donald Trump.
How’d that happen? Take a close look at the numbers and it’s obvious how it happened. Independent voters were asked to rank 11 issues in order of their importance. First on the list was fiscal health. Seventy-four percent of independent voters said that the budget deficit was their main concern. Seventy-two percent said health care was the main concern. Seventy percent said infrastructure. Pretty conventional.
This is what happens when you let Jeff Zucker run your political party. You start to imagine that CNN’s primetime lineup somehow speaks for America, rather than for a tiny, out of touch little part of it.
Impeachment? That came in dead last, 11 out of 11. Only 37 percent of independents thought it was a priority – at all. By a margin of 3 to 1 – and this is hilarious – independents said that impeachment was more important to politicians and to the media than it was to them.
These are not subtle numbers. So, how did Democrats miss them? Well, because they only talk to each other. This is what happens when you let [CNN President] Jeff Zucker run your political party. You start to imagine that CNN’s prime time lineup somehow speaks for America, rather than for a tiny, out of touch little part of it.
Zucker tells you that impeachment is the only issue that matters. His unit agrees with him. And you believe them. Come fall, you lose the election.
In a moment like this, weirdly, it’s the non-politicians who seem to see things the most clearly. Here’s Andrew Yang after last week’s presidential debate.
Andrew Yang, 2020 presidential candidate: When I talked to voters around the country, well, I have to say, I get very, very few questions about impeachment. I know that there are people who are very intent on the impeachment proceedings day-to-day, but that doesn’t line up with what I’m hearing from voters here on the ground.
New York Times
The beat go on:
New revelations put Trump on shakier ground
Analysis by Maeve Reston, CNN
Updated 10:19 AM EST, Wed November 27, 2019
(CNN) New transcripts of witness testimony and news reports revealing key details on the Ukraine scandal timeline show in vivid detail the way President Donald Trump and top officials maneuvered behind the scenes to block aid to Ukraine as the President sought an investigation into his political rival Joe Biden.
The new revelations, coming at a time when half of Americans support impeaching and removing the President even though impeachment proceedings have not moved the needle of public opinion, underscored the problem for Trump and his supporters in Congress: Public hearings in the impeachment inquiry may be in the rearview mirror, but new details about his pressure campaign on Ukraine continue to trickle out.
The developments on Tuesday illuminated the fact that there’s still much to learn about the President’s actions regarding Ukraine as the House races toward a potential vote on impeachment by Christmas.
Budget official testimony undermines impeachment defense on freezing Ukraine aid
Budget official testimony undermines impeachment defense on freezing Ukraine aid
The President’s claims of innocence looked even more incredulous Tuesday night after The New York Times reported that Trump released the hold on Ukraine aid after he was briefed on the whistleblower report outlining his dealings with Ukraine.
That report and newly released transcripts of impeachment witness testimony undercut key arguments that the Republicans have been making as they have defended the President, who cast the impeachment inquiry during his Florida rally Tuesday night as a “scam,” a “witchhunt” and a “hoax.”
During the impeachment hearings earlier this month, Republicans spooled out various theories about why the White House might have frozen aid to Ukraine – from the notion that Trump was concerned about corruption to the idea that he wanted to see more financial contributions to the Ukraine aid from other foreign countries.
But the timeline revealed Tuesday, in conjunction with the transcript of testimony from Office of Management and Budget Official Mark Sandy, outlines an indisputably clear set of facts about the bizarre way the Ukraine aid was handled.
The confusion that Sandy and other line-level OMB aides felt about why the Ukraine aid was being withheld, along with their inability to get answers, showed how the Trump administration’s unusual enterprise was shrouded in secrecy, even from the very people who were handling the money.
Timeline undercuts Trump’s defense
First the timeline: We now know that White House budget office took its first official action to withhold $250 million in aid to Ukraine on the evening of July 25, according to a House Budget Committee summary of the office’s documents.
That was the very same day that Trump spoke by phone with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, prefacing his request for an investigation of the 2016 election with the now infamous phrase “I would like you to do us a favor, though.” Agencies had been notified at a July 18 meeting that the aid had been frozen by the President, a week before the call.
Sandy, the Office of Management and Budget official who signed off on the initial Ukraine aid freeze before a Trump political appointee took over that task, testified that the President’s interest in the aid dated back to June, but that he couldn’t get an explanation of why the aid was withheld in July or August.
The request was so unusual that Sandy immediately told his boss that the freeze could violate an obscure federal law known as the Impoundment Control Act, which prohibits a sitting president from unilaterally withholding funds that were appropriated by Congress.
Sandy knew that the aid fell into the category of “one-year funds” – meaning the money (totaling nearly $400 million) was only available until September 30. He told his boss, Trump political appointee Michael Duffey, that he wanted to talk to the lawyers at the Office of Management and Budget.
Sandy and other OMB aides were so alarmed by the inexplicable hold that they also sent a memo to Duffey recommending that hold be released because “assistance to Ukraine is consistent with the national security strategy,” Sandy testified, and had the added benefit of “opposing Russian aggression.”
In his closed-door deposition, Sandy also directly debunked the Republican talking point that the hold on the aid was related to Trump’s concern that other nations should be contributing more in national security assistance to Ukraine.
Sandy testified that the White House didn’t ask the budget office for information about how much other nations were contributing until September – months after the hold was placed.
“I recall in early September an email that attributed the hold to the President’s concern about other countries not contributing money to Ukraine,” Sandy testified. By that time, lawmakers were asking questions about the freeze on aid to Ukraine and reports questioning the reasons for the withholding had already hit the press.
New testimony from State Department official Philip Reeker underscores the fact that the administration’s hold on aid to Ukraine was orchestrated at the highest levels of power in the White House.
Reeker, the acting assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, testified that he believed the security assistance to Ukraine was “being held by Mr. Mulvaney, the White House Acting Chief of Staff,” but that he did not have “definitive knowledge that Mulvaney was behind the holdup.”
“Our operating understanding was that this was being held by Mr. Mulvaney, the White House Acting Chief of Staff,” Reeker told lawmakers, according to the transcript.
READ: State Department official Philip Reeker’s closed-door impeachment inquiry testimony
Reeker also testified about the concerns of veteran diplomats like Kurt Volker about the maneuverings of Rudy Giuliani, the President’s personal lawyer, who has been accused of trying to orchestrate the quid pro quo of a White House meeting in exchange for an investigation of the Bidens. There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.
“I do recall him telling me … that, well, he was going to reach out to or was going to speak to Giuliani,” Reeker said of Volker, the former US special representative to Ukraine. “And I think Ambassador Volker felt that there was this very good story to tell about President Zelensky and a new chapter in Ukraine. And that was his goal, was to hopefully take away some of that, what we sense was a negative stream coming from Mr. Giuliani to the President.”
Court of public opinion
It remains unclear whether the new details of the President’s Ukraine timeline will do much to move public opinion.
The inquiry moves to a new phase next week with the Judiciary Committee, holding its first hearing on December 4, and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler has also extended an invitation to Trump and his lawyers to participate in the probe. So far the Trump administration’s strategy has been to stonewall and not participate in the process.
For now, Trump is trying to claim victory after the two weeks of blockbuster testimony by pointing to a new CNN poll showing that 50% of Americans believe that he should be impeached and removed, because that figure was unchanged from mid-October when CNN asked the same question.
At his rally on Tuesday night, Trump described Democrats leading the inquiry as “maniacs” who are “pushing the deranged impeachment.”
“The radical left Democrats are trying to rip our nation apart,” Trump said Tuesday night to boos at his rally in Florida. “First it was the Russia hoax, total hoax. It was a failed overthrow attempt and the biggest fraud in the history of our country and then you look, the Mueller deal, you remember that mess? They had nothing.”
No, the new CNN poll is not good news for Donald Trump on impeachment
“Now the same maniacs are pushing the deranged impeachment – think of this: Impeachment. Impeachment. A witch hunt. … They’re pushing that impeachment witch hunt and a lot of bad things are happening to them. Because you see what’s happening in the polls? Everybody said, that’s really bulls—,” Trump said to cheers and applause.
But beneath the steady topline poll numbers on impeachment, there is strong evidence that the Ukraine matter has eroded confidence in the President’s motives – and that many Americans have heard enough to disapprove of his conduct.
While the views on impeachment and removal did not change in the CNN poll released Tuesday, 53% of Americans said Trump improperly used his office to gain political advantage, up from 49% who said the same in October.
Moreover, 56% said the President’s efforts to get Ukraine to launch investigations into the Biden family, a Ukrainian energy company and the 2016 election were intended to benefit him rather than root out corruption in Ukraine.
The question looming over the 2020 election is whether the stain of impeachment could irreparably damage Trump and cost him the White House.
It too early to draw conclusions, but the ground he is standing on gets shakier each day as new revelations point toward questionable conduct on his part.
© 2019 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
