Why Justin Amash Should Be an Impeachment Manager

I’m sitting about six blocks from one of Gerald Ford’s childhood homes. That means I live in a city with an outsized role in America’s history with impeachment. Since the time I’ve lived in this city, our Federal Building added a sign reading (over-optimistically), “Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men.”

It also means I’m a constituent of Justin Amash, who has an office in that Federal Building named after Gerald Ford.

And I’m solidly in support of the idea — floated by thirty freshman Democrats — for Amash to be among the Impeachment Managers presenting the case in the Senate.

I think Amash brings several things this impeachment effort could badly use.

First, Democrats missed an opportunity in the House Judiciary hearing on Constitutional issues behind impeachment to call someone like Paul Rosenzweig, a Republican who worked on the Whitewater investigation, who backs impeachment in this case. While a bunch of Democratic lawyers were testifying, Amash was and has continued tweeting to his colleagues about how important impeachment is to the Constitution. It is critical to have a voice making the conservative case for upholding the Constitution. Just this morning, a long time local Democratic activist I was speaking to was hailing how Amash has used his University of Michigan law degree to make the case for impeachment.

Meanwhile, even as the national press has spent countless hours interviewing demographically unrepresentative panels of voters from my county to understand how swing state voters feel about impeachment, Amash has risked his career in that swing state district. Well before queasy Democrats in swing districts came around to the necessity of impeaching President Trump, Amash left his party and took a stand to defend the Constitution. I think his courage may serve as inspiration for Republicans in the Senate who secretly recognize the necessity of impeaching Trump, even while they may worry they’ll ruin their political career. Amash also has close ties with (especially) Rand Paul and other libertarian leaning Senators (like Mike Lee and Ted Cruz), so might be persuasive with them, even if all of them have already basically opposed impeachment.

Finally, a point that some of the more hawkish people involved in impeachment (like Adam Schiff) may not understand, Amash works really well in bipartisan coalitions. He has long been a key member of the privacy coalition and currently serves as the “Republican” co-chair, with Zoe Lofgren as the Democratic co-chair, of the Fourth Amendment coalition. The cornerstone of that coalition, over more than a decade, has been honesty about where progressives and libertarians (and even traditional conservatives) share goals and where we disagree, sometimes dramatically. But with that cornerstone of shared understanding, and with a sense of responsibility for what each side can and should do to support the Constitution, he has been an invaluable member of a team. Some of the people who might also be considered as Impeachment Managers — like Jamie Raskin — would have experience with Amash in such a context. At the very least, Lofgren should be able to give Pelosi reassurances that Amash is utterly reliable when working as part of a bipartisan coalition. This is a topic, the President’s abuse of his authority, on which Amash took a Constitutional stand, which is precisely the kind of common foundation his past work with Democrats was built on.

I don’t get a vote. Speaker Pelosi gets to decide. But as an Amash constituent who has long found common ground with Amash on issues rooted in the Constitution, I think his involvement would be a tremendous value.

109 replies
  1. Americana says:

    I recall getting smashed by bmaz for suggesting how useful Justin Amash’s flight from the Republican party could be w/the impeachment. Glad there’s finally recognition someone like Amash could serve a function in Trump’s impeachment.

    • bmaz says:

      You are still a longwinded annoying pain in the butt. And, frankly, Marcy may, but I am not sure Amash is all that helpful.

      • Maureen A Donnelly says:

        I see the point, but as a woman, even though Rep. Amash, understands the laws of the land, he is pretty much a core conservative and against the liberal values I hold to like right to choose or control guns. He may be the only GOPer not caught up in the RNC email mess (hacked but never released by Guccifer 2.0), but he is still a man who wants to infringe on rights of half the population . . .

  2. gmoke says:

    Incidentally, Justin Amash voted against the recent voting rights legislation a week or so ago. He may be in support of impeaching Trmp and out of the Republican Party but he’s still a very conservative politician, or so it seems.

    • Pat says:

      Often in politics one must work with someone on one issue that will be on the opposite side of the table on another.

      • gmoke says:

        Just saying that Rep Amash may not turn out to be the team player needed to be an impeachment manager. He may not have divided loyalties any longer in regards to Trmp but his goals and ideals probably do not line up with the goals and ideals of the Democratic majority in the House or on the impeachment management team.

        • Rayne says:

          What is the goal of the impeachment process? As one of a number of impeachment managers, Amash wouldn’t be tasked with managing health care or Social Security. His focus would be on the articles of impeachment the House Judiciary has already approved and passed on to the full House. In anything Amash has said about the reasons why he believed Trump should be impeached is there a departure from the reasons why House Judiciary Dems or the House Dems support impeachment?

          If Amash’s sworn and stated loyalty is to the Constitution (unlike the majority of GOP House caucus), how are his loyalties divided from House Dems who support impeachment?

        • milestogo says:

          Well said. I think it’s worth the risk. It should have a small but measurable affect on public perception. Though less likely it might even have a marginal impact on vulnerable Republican senators voting against the more draconian McConnell efforts to eliminate witnesses and testimony. Likely naive hopes but I see more upside potential than downside risk to Amash as one of the managers (assuming he would even accept).

        • bmaz says:

          There is no upside whatsoever, it is a completely meaningless gesture and give Amash more credibility than he deserves. Other than supporting the impeachment inquiry, his policies are fucking horrible and there is a good Dim running for that district in 2020. No need to buck Amash up.

        • milestogo says:

          It’s an argument I hadn’t considered. Amash’s policy positions are horrendous and if this were to gain him political points, it wouldn’t be worth any potential upside if there even is one.

  3. smintheus says:

    Because Republicans prone to grandstanding have no history at all of stabbing the Democrats in the back when they’re given a position of power or authority by Democrats. Here’s an even better idea, let’s invite Jim Comey to manage the impeachment.

      • allison holland says:

        The only good Republican is an out of office Republican. Cruz cant be bought by the side of the honest or patriotic because he would feel accountable to them. When one is accountable to the Russians or the gun lobby or the evil whatevers its no crime to turn against them. They all know that. Thats why we cant buy them. They would have to adhere to our principles and so no, my Senators both of whom vote with fear of women and the educated will never turn to the cause of law. Its just not in them. Amash is unpredictable and so I do not want to see him in any position which might throw all this hard work to the winds of ill.

  4. Mosey says:

    Wouldn’t make any difference whether Amash is involved or not imho. He might persuade a few independent voters but he can’t possibly persuade the likes of Cruz. How could that be possible? The outcome of a potential impeachment trial is well known, it’s already done deal. It ends with no conviction, which then leads to a very high probability of a second term for the president, further cementing the SC into far right wing totalitarian rule for generations. Absent a true smoking gun, this impeachment has no legs to remove the president. John Bolton where are you and why won’t you tell the people what you heard, saw, and know?

  5. Jonathan says:

    While impeachment/non-removal is a done deal, the 2020 election is not. Yes, how impeachment and the “trial” come off will have impact on the Vegas line for E2020. But how the votes are counted will have at least as much impact, and likely far greater.

    I work in election forensics; I examine the copious evidence that the GOP (or their benefactors) do the FLIP part of STRIP & FLIP, and we KNOW they do the STRIP part (targeted voter suppression). If the votes are once again counted behind the ES&S/Dominion/Hart/Triad/CommandCentral/VR/LHS… cybercurtain, you can make a lot of $$ betting Trump.

    We should be busting our asses to get a Presidential Hand Count (at least!) and getting the public involved in demanding that and in volunteering to serve patriotically as counters. Otherwise E2020 will ratify all the lies and games and our nightmare will only deepen. If we want fascism by fraud, we’re certainly going about it the right way.

    • BeingThere says:

      Talking of Vegas and elections, in the gaming “industry”, casino games and slot-machines have a very detailed scrutinization of software and electronics, and physical security (plus electromagnetic interference susceptibility,etc). This happens on the state or jurisdictional region overseeing. a main reason is ensuring states get their gaming Tax money. Also crime and fraud can better be controlled.
      For those machines, in Las Vegas, for example, the manufacturer has to provide full design info, software source code, build scripts, copies of compilers and tools ised, schematics, etc. Then the gaming control board engineers/examiners re-build the code that goes into the machine (still ROM in many cases), and run hashes and checksums on that. If they find anything suspect, or can’t match the exact build it doesn’t go out on the floor. Now, in the field they constantly randomly check machines and systems, and check compliance, plus check again if there’s big wins or payouts.
      So, considering that, why are state purchased voting systems not under equal , or even more intense, scrutiny? State income tax is much bigger that gambling tax surely (or is that the reason)?
      Should really be wax pencil directly on paper. Then boxes ride with one of each party representative and a police officer back to hand counting rooms.

      • P J Evans says:

        One of my friends has been saying for years that voting machines need to be run by Nevada Gaming Commission rules. (When not on the floor, the machines are in securely-locked storage.)
        If your state allows, vote absentee.

        • bmaz says:

          At least here, absentee (mail in) ballots are scanned and counted on the same exact machines. It is easier, for sure, but not sure it is any freer of potential problems.

        • sandlynn says:

          Absentee ballots are susceptible to the same degree of suppression, if not more. The devil’s in the details of the laws surrounding their use, and how many hoops the state makes voters go through before their absentee vote is counted.

          There’s an AP story today about how, after exhaustive county-by-county investigation in Ohio, AP documented over 7,000 registered voters the refused to even send a ballot TO in 2018, bc of signature mismatch, and these stats conveniently are not tracked by and do not need to be reported to the state.

  6. Kordo says:

    I think you’ve been paying a little too much attention to the “but it’s not BIPARTISAN!!1!” guff the Reps staggered into like a drunk with DTs finds a storefront church on Skid Row; they don’t mean it, it wouldn’t help them if they did, and the only result of the congregation’s charity will be watching him eat all the pastries on the coffee table before he stumbles out the door in search of the next friendly bar. Amash is a flake whose glaring political pathologies happen to intersect with objective reality in a way that seems useful on this one narrow issue. I’m reminded of Rand Paul’s Excellent Drone Adventure, and the MSM tounge-baths he’s been getting ever since.
    Friends don’t let friends enable bugwits…

    • Glenn says:

      This is not just about appearing bipartisan, which is of great value in itself. This is about a strong voice for impeachment coming from a completely different perspective. He truly cares about defending the Constitution and he is quite competent in expressing constitutional law for laymen.

      IMHO, he would be the most effective manager by a country mile. And the fact that he has more credibility than every other member of congress, D or R, is gold within the media narrative. If he is not chosen, it will be one more example of Pelosi making horrendous decisions.throughout the past year. But she can make up for some of that by first holding off on sending Articles to the Senate until the most advantageous time (either McConnell agrees to reasonable rules or we expose more crime through further hearings and a particular D nominee is effectively inevitable) and then making Amash the face of impeachment trial once it is time to present the case to the Senate.

        • Glenn says:

          This is not a real trial. The trial is verdict will be public opinion. The opposition’s #1 argument is that this is a partisan process. Depriving them of their #1 argument is of extraordinary value.

          Of course this should all be about the facts. But we have one side that argues that facts don’t really exist. And their followers are glad to play along with their fictions. We need the non-aligned low information voters to believe in the process so they are open to the facts. Amash helps us do that.

        • bmaz says:

          Glenn -First off, naw, the verdict of any trial is the actual verdict voted, not “public opinion”. “Public opinion” is already baked in.

          Secondly, the thought that putting a lame duck independent, on as a House Manager deprives the GOP and Trump of anything as to their “arguments” is laughably ludicrous, and on a galactic scale.

          And Amash does not do squat in any of these regards.

  7. Zinsky says:

    Great idea for Amash to be a manager – it’s the closest we get to bipartisanship in the Trump era. I hope anyone reading this blog also goes to one of the many pro-impeachment rallies being held nationwide Tuesday evening! I plan to. Make a smart, legible sign and go be seen! Trump tweeted about one incident where hecklers interrupted an Adam Schiff townhall and tried to make it sound like it was a national movement. Let’s show him what a million pro-impeachment hecklers looks like!

    • bmaz says:

      Lol, it will not make one iota of difference. But, hey lets put one of the most conservative members of Congress and former Freedom Caucus in the limelight. I seriously do not think the House Democrats can possibly fuck up their impeachment effort any more. But, of course, they will find a way. What a pathetic joke.

      • Chetan Murthy says:

        This. How does Amash sway any GrOPer Senators? A: he doesn’t. And any voter who’s sufficiently low-info that they don’t know already that the President* is a crook, well, some no-name Congressman from Michigan isn’t gonna convince ’em. Dems need to stop looking for GrOPer daddies to beat ’em up.

      • Mitch Neher says:

        About screwing things up:


        Schumer wants Bolton and Mulvaney to testify at the impeachment trial. It could be a bargaining chip against Trump’s request for The Bidens and the whistleblower to testify. It could also complicate the obstruction of Congress article of impeachment in weird ways–or not. And, in any case, there’s still no telling what might pop out of Bolton’s mouth.

        • Mitch Neher says:

          Except that Morrison told Congress that Bolton had told Morrison that Trump was not yet ready to release the aid to Ukraine after Bolton and Pompeo had a private meeting with Trump to try and persuade Trump to release the aid.

          Presumably Bolton would confirm Morrison’s testimony to Congress. But Bolton might add a few details that might exculpate Trump as well.

        • Vicks says:

          Even if they testified, it would just loop back around to “Trump did nothing wrong” and is being impeached because democrats “disagree with his policies”, which opens the door to every future president being a target for the opposition blah blah blah.
          While offering more proof from first hand witnesses would certainly be helpful, there is plenty of proof of what was done, now Democrats need to convince people exactly how what he did violates our constitution, his pattern of escalating recklessness, why is so dangerous to our nation and then tie it all the danger of not checking a corrupt president and his administration because of party loyalty

  8. Peterr says:

    I’m not sure how useful Amash would be in persuading Republican senators to not act in a knee-jerk fashion during impeachment. OTOH, he would be very useful in getting the attention of the media.

    Lots of the details are yet to be determined about the Senate trial, but much seems to be pretty baked in: no witnesses (new or old), House managers present their arguments to bring forth old testimony already given, etc. From the media POV, Amash would be a New Thing, and thus would get more traction than Jim Jordan’s rerunning his Greatest Rants.

    • Glenn says:

      It is obvious that the Senators will not be real jurors. The real jurors will be the American people. And Amash will be an extraordinary advocate in influencing these jurors. He has tremendous credibility and the media treats him as a man of honor, justifiably so.

      • P J Evans says:

        Tremendous credibility with *whom*? He’s a R at heart; the Ds won’t trust him that far, and neither will the Rs, for whom he’s a turncoat.

        • Mitch Neher says:

          Amash might be in a better position than Schiff to present the case for Trump’s “pattern of obstruction” as established in Vol. II of The Mueller Report.

          But that assumes that McConnell would allow such evidence to be presented. Schumer will need more bargaining chips.

        • bmaz says:

          Oh come on, how in the world could Amash who had no invoilmevt whatsoever in either committee, HPSCI or HJC, as to the essential evidence gathering and putting together the foundational report, do a better job than someone like Adam Schiff? That is simply ludicrous. How is Amash, with a legal career, consisting of corporate work for his family business before running for office, be better prepared to argue in a trial like setting than Schiff, who spent years as an AUSA prosecuting criminal cases?

          Lastly, don’t know where you are getting the need for somebody to present of obstruction of justice as laid out in Vol II of the Mueller Report, as that is no part whatsoever of the impeachment referral. And that is NOT because of McConnell, that is because Pelosi and Nadler determined that it was off the table. So that won’t be happening.

        • Mitch Neher says:

          bmaz said, “. . . don’t know where you are getting the need for somebody to present of obstruction of justice as laid out in Vol II of the Mueller Report . . . ”

          Free association.

    • BobCon says:

      I agree with this angle. The GOP senators are a lost cause, but I think there is some value in defusing the Chuck Todds and Peter Bakers out there. Unfortunately, Nadler is not a great public face for this purpose.

      The big media politics desks are broken, and one of the toughest jobs the Democrats will have in 2020 is knocking them off the narratives they have already written.

      I don’t know Amash well enough to know how effective he is at delivering public messages — I wouldn’t choose him over Jayapal, for example. But if it comes down to him or some shouty lazy hack, then there is a benefit to adding him to the mix.

      • Ruthie says:

        Likewise. I think Amash could influence the media narrative at least, although I definitely feel ambivalent and see some merit in the arguments of bmaz et al.

        We’re all speculating, with imperfect information based in part on the conduct of past impeachments and assumptions about the likely reaction of specific segments of the public.

        Given past results, I personally don’t have high confidence that Dem leadership are/will deploy an effective strategy. While all impeachments are serious by their very nature – even Clinton’s (despite the ludicrous justification for it) – the consequences of failure this time are legitimately seen as dire by those who favor Trump’s removal. Passions runneth high, and the uncertainty is deadly.

  9. Leading Edge Boomer says:

    John Dean has a better idea. Impeach, but do not transmit it to the Senate, where the outcome is foreordained. Instead, keep investigating and going to court and adding articles of impeachment as appropriate:
    I hope the House leadership has time and the sense to consider it. The alternative will free Trump to do absolutely what he wants to do with no fear of penalty. A Senate trial is possible later, especially if Trump somehow wins re-election.

    • Glenn says:

      Agree 1000%. Send the Articles at the best time for us. And when they are sent, Amash should be the face of the prosecution.

    • Marinela says:

      The approach of not sending the impeachment to the Senate, may work better.
      But there is a down side, it forces the full house for a vote, exposing the “blue dogs” democrats that may defect, but is not going to put the pressure in the Senate for the vulnerable senators.
      Or are you saying to bypass the full house vote all together?

        • bmaz says:

          Lol, I am not Kreskin, but my Magic 8 Ball says nope! Frankly, since impeachment is solely the province of the House, I am convinced they could vote articles and not send them.

          To my eye, this is almost without distinction. I have argued for months that the House should just keep plugging along on an impeachment inquiry, investigate everything and get it out to the public. But that there is no need for a sham Senate trial. You play it out, say to June or so, and then have a big press conference laying out all the malfeasance and crime.

          Saying that “any Senate trial would be a sham. We have done our duty to investigate all the crimes and malfeasance, and we have done so to protect and defend the Constitution. We have educated the voters and citizens of the harm afoot, and we trust American democracy and will let the voters decide in the election right around the corner”.

          I have been arguing this for months. Long before Dean, and when Tribe still did not think impeachment was appropriate, even opening an inquiry.

        • Mickquinas says:

          This has always been the thing that made the most sense.

          Do the faithful and Constitutionally correct thing. Acknowledge the broken nature of the Senate. And then, keep connecting the dots on the criminal enterprise. Keep the pressure on. Keep drawing attention to the grift, the con. That’s what’s at the heart of all of this, and that’s the thing that people can understand.

          Also, Amash is a weasel, and the fact that he has been afflicted with temporary principles is no reason to trust him.

  10. errant aesthete says:

    Re: Glenn
    “This is not a real trial. The trial is verdict will be public opinion.”


    This is a trial intended for and decided by public opinion. And the “value” ultimately will be as individual as one’s perception of it.

  11. PhoneInducedPinkEye says:

    I’m honestly not sure R’s will even allow any sort of a “trial”, just a vote after a short preamble. That or call Hunter Biden, the Orr’s, Lisa & Peter, Schiff… And turn it into a circus.

    The GOP built up a racist propaganda pipeline, culture of victimhood and faux-outrage, plus voter suppression for this very reason. I don’t see, even from someone who nominally shares their supposed values, any presenter breaking through that toxic shell.

    But if they can get him involved, not as the primary rep though, why not, it can’t hurt.

  12. Sandwichman says:

    All I have to say is The Institutions Will Not Protect Us. First it was supposed to be the “intelligence community.” Then the special counsel was to be the savior. And let’s not forget the adults-in-the-room. There was always supposed to be a Jeff Flake, John McCain, Bob Corker, Susan Collins, or a Mitt Romney who would stand up to the GOP/Trump bullies. But no. Now maybe the Supreme Court or Chief Justice John Roberts or Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler along with Justin Amash and Republican Senators who say things in private they wouldn’t ever say in public. Oh, if only the media would get this right and not do the “both sides,” “Trump says…” and interviews with low attention Trump voters in diners. Etc, etc, etc.

    All I am saying is: The Institutions Will Not Protect Us.

    • Marinela says:

      Yes, about the Trump voters in the dinners. This is so ridiculous. Shallow media segments put together to show there is somehow a “real movement” supporting Trump.
      There are not so much similar segments about people that are opposed to Trump. There are more people opposing Trump than supporting him.

      Media is so obsessed to showing the Trump voter, giving them a platform, but not adding context.
      Like how their lives are actually better under Trump, if applicable, how Trump idiotic, cruel, immigration policies are actually helping them financially, how being laughed at in the world helps our country, and so much more…

      • milestogo says:

        “and so much more….” like why they vote against their own interests? How they justify his clearly immoral behavior? And what truly drives their support (soft/hard racism, white power, perception of loss of power, etc)? Tough but real questions that must be confronted if our democracy is to develop.

        Also, why not give more attention to the majority that oppose Trump and their “heartland values”. Our democracy like all governments throughout history has flaws and those flaws are being exploited by a Republican party that is mafia-like in their pursuit of pure power and wealth. I wish our media was basically less afraid. Not sure how to personally make a difference here.

        • Marinela says:

          I don’t know how to make a substantive difference either.

          What I did on Tuesday, this week, went to a pro-impeachment rally close to where I work. It was after 5:00 PM, dark, cold, in Minnesota, about 50 people showed up. We lined up by the side of the road, with signs.
          People driving by, supporting impeachment, would honk the horn. From what I could tell there were more honks than silences. The rally concluded in about an hour. Left my email with the organizers, will follow up and see what they do. Part of the indivisible group.

          It appears to me there are more people against Trump, less numbers for Trump’s base. They all need to vote in November. We know all Trump supporters are going to vote.

  13. Robert Britton says:

    Seems to me McConnell and Lindsey have already concurred that they will ensure the coming Impeachment Farce, I mean trial, in the Senate, will be a republican-led abdication of responsibility and duty to uphold their oaths. ( Not that this is surprising since they have no idea what honor and ethics are.)

    So for me, they should just have Bozo the Clown do the presenting b/c this has been and continues to be a Clown Show running 24 x 7 in Crazy Town USA.

    I’m not a Rhodes Scholar, but to avoid impeaching OVERTLY for BRIBERY/EXTORTION and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (Yes, the 2016 Counts of Obstruction from the Mueller Findings) was a huge mistake by the democrats. Rather than fire a broadside, they fire a pea shooter using Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power b/c they think the average American can understand those “simple articles” and care that Congress was obstructed.

    Bullshit. It’s not just about “simplicity” but about impeaching the president over the most GRAVE charges in his *CRIMINALITY* and his *CONDUCT*.

    This is a fools debate about who presents, when the case is already completely lost.

    I don’t know how democrats get a course correction on the impeachment mess they made at this point. But they played right into Trump’s and the GOP’s plans.

    And, FWIW, yes, I get how critical the two impeachment articles are at the core. I understand that our framers feared a demagogue who would abuse his office for personal gain and who would not be averse towards utilizing and encouraging foreign interference in our democracy. I GET THAT.

    But Trump has been doing that since BEFORE the 2016 election, and much of America was OK with that. They were OK with inviting the Russians to interfere (“Russia, if you are listening”) and they are ok with China interfering.

    PPL haven’t understood that the GOP’s Golden Calf will not be taken down with “a perfect call” that wasn’t perfect. Americans believe (and right-fully know) that corruption goes on in American politics. This is why Sarah Palin gets a “Bridge to nowhere” and McConnell gets a new metals plant in KY funded by Russian Oligarchs who *CONTINUE* to interfere in our elections.

    THAT to me is the battle that needed to be waged directly: the Rampant Interference by Russia, MBS, Iran, et al, in the 2016 elections, the COLLUSION of Trump’s Team with Russians, Oligarchs, Russian propaganda and influence via the NRA to the GOP, etc. Trump sold out our Country before he ever got Elected, to get elected, then he pissed all over our Constitution and Congress ever since.

    These oblique articles should have also included every SINGLE direct criminal act, from FEC violations, illegally paying off porn stars, emoluments violations.

    But with tribalism today, where a HUGE portion of our country’s citizens worship an Orange God and now believe that the “ends justifies the means”, this was NEVER a winnable strategy.

    Yes, they should impeach. But they should have hit him with a BROADSIDE.

    One can always count on the Democrats to bring a plastic knife to a Gun Fight.

    My two cents, as my brother would say. (and it’s not worth a ha-penny).

    The level of corruption and immorality, lack of honor, lack of genuine patriotism, lack and support of truth and fact, in America today, is beyond alarming.

    Our lazy-ass, uneducated, Honey Boo Boo Watching, Kardashian Loving, Trump Worshiping, and stay-home and not voting citizens deserve the rot WE allowed to infiltrate our once beautiful “Shining Light on the Hill”.

    • David Karson says:

      Robert– “The level of corruption and immorality, lack of honor, lack of genuine patriotism, lack and support of truth and fact, in America today, is beyond alarming.” I agree. Fox News/Media has been softening up America’s morality for the past 20 (?) years and has been instrumental in paving the way for Trump’s utter lack of social norms and ethics to seem normal. I personally feel that until the country is able to discredit (?) Fox Media, we are doomed. In a rare moment of truth last week, I heard Mark Levin state what drives his show, he said words to the effect that is “all about the eyeballs/ratings”. Meaning that he will continue to throw red meat to his audience, damn the truth or facts, as long as it can generate ratings numbers for his show.

      • Robert Britton says:

        Yes, propaganda, gaslighting, demagoguery on Fox is attrocious.

        But the reality is that it’s ALL media who put out “click bait” for ratings and eyeballs. Facebook, Twitter, CBS, ABC, MSNBC.

        It’s all about the “impressions” and the AD Revenue.

        I swear, I get so angry seeing ALL media publishing (again and again) the same GOP lies, propaganda, gaslighting…and Trumps Tweets. Gotta republish Trump tweets, that’s important you know. Gotta piggy back on the Golden Calf / Orange Man and his latest outrage.

        “BREAKING NEWS: Trump tweets…blah blah blah”

        and the media everywhere goes wild in giving him BILLIONS in free ad space to spew his hate, bigotry, and lies.

        I really don’t think we will survive this. Russia kicked our ass while we were too busy watching Dancing with the Stars and Survivor.

  14. Hatmama says:

    Any time we think “someone” will run in and save the show, we will be sadly disappointed. Think about how we felt about “Mueller. ” And then “Congress.” Then, “The Courts” and the “Whistleblowers.” Now, “Amash.”

    The only ones who will save this FUBAR republic will be “us,” individually and collectively. Act, GOTV, write, call,

  15. Dave Karson says:

    Excuse my ignorance, but until reading this article, I was unfamiliar with the term, “Impeachment Manager”. Can anyone tell me what the duties of the impeachment manager are? It seems from the article, there can be more than one. Typically, how many impeachment managers are there? Thanks, Dave Karson

    • bmaz says:

      The formal title is “House Impeachment Managers”. They are appointed by the House, and, while her committee chairs may have some input, the final decision will be made almost solely by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

      The number of managers is up to her. There were seven for the Andrew Johnson impeachment trial, and thirteen for that of Bill Clinton.

      The managers are authorized to “conduct the trial” in the Senate, as if they are the prosecutors. After the Senate is notified the impeachment case is forwarded to them, they set a date where the Managers come over and formally read the articles into record. They come back for the actual trial and lead the opening arguments and then presentation of the evidence to the body. And that may happen through professional staff attorneys, which, in this case, I would predict would be Dan Goldman.

      • Badger Robert says:

        Dan Goldman’s trial skills are the most up to date, if there is going to any presentation of evidence.

      • orionATL says:

        thanks, bmaz.

        i was wondering about this myself. the h of r customs and rules for proceeding with an impeachment are not so well-known to those of us who see it only once, well now twice, in a lifetime. 😣

        • bmaz says:

          Heh, I hope we see Goldman or a professional staff attorney of some sort, otherwise it will be a Congress person. Currently Jamie Raskin is the lead from HJC, but that may be because Nadler is away. We shall see!

  16. Badger Robert says:

    If there is anything approaching a real trial, which is unlikely, Schiff will the main manager.
    The other manager does not have to be a lawyer, but should be a woman from a Mid-Atlantic state, or from Virginia.
    Amash as a person to make statements to the media is OK. I guess the signal would be the Democrats may soft pedal their opposition for a few Republicans.

  17. Badger Robert says:

    If there is going to be trial, the issue is AZ, CO, IA, NC, ME and TX. Whatever tactics are chosen, it has to keep the pressure on Trump. Delay works against Trump.

  18. punaise says:

    this one’s for bamz ( ducking for cover :~) to the tune of :The Monster Mash

    I was working in the blog, late one night
    When my eyes beheld a cheery sight
    For my Congressman donned his gloves, began to fight
    And suddenly to my surprise

    It was Amash, it was demonstrably Amash
    It was Amash who gave a grave, hard smash
    He did the mash, it caught on in a flash
    Unabashed, it was demonstrably Amash

    The zombie R’s were having fun, the “trial” had just begun
    The guests included Barr-man, Pence-ula, and his “mom”

    The scene was rockin’, all were digging the sounds
    Lindsay in chains, backed by his baying hounds
    The gavel-banger was about to arrive
    With his vocal group, ‘The Supremely Biased Five’

  19. Jonf says:

    I was tooling around Wikipedia and discovered Justin Amash was the founder of the Liberty Caucus and before that was in the Freedom Caucus. Just to be a little snarky but do you suppose we can get him to take over the progressive caucus? Just asking for a friend. Guess I am not all that sold on him.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Rudy Giuliani swears by it. He was too cheap to use a new translator after his goombahs were arrested, or he trusted an algorithm that phones home to Giggle more than he trusted a real person with his body of secrets.

      • vicks says:

        Bad as it is for Trump to be getting trolled by our Russian adversaries it’s even worse for our country.
        These are not impulsive people,
        Why poke Trump now?

        • Eureka says:

          They’ve been doing it the whole time. See Julia Davis’s twitter feed (and articles) for translations over the last few years.

          They are “poking” US.

          Also, best anyone can tell, Trump likes it (being “punished” or held at a distance by a strong man. Daddy issues).

        • Eureka says:

          Adding: and for some time over the earlier part of the last few years — until she has more recently been properly credited/ had her own work published at the more prominent outlets — MSM (like WaPo I recall specifically) would often incorporate her work, uncredited, in their stories*. That’s when she started adding a (C) mark to her translations (and getting published in places like DB more often).

          *As per tweeters observing all of this in real time, at the time.

  20. orionATL says:

    this is not on target for this post, but it is highly relevant to the impeachment indictment and trial about to unfold in the house of reps and the senate:


    this news story directly implicates the government of russia on the ukraine impeachment issue, specifically, the effort to remove ambassador yovanovitch. note that there are multiple sources cited in the article, each contributing to confirming a part of this sordid russian media manipulation. and, yes, john solomon and america’s mayor are involved in spreading these propaganda lies; journalist extraordinaire solomon of course denies any complicity.

    • bmaz says:

      No, that is close enough, and easily so. The GOP pushback from the Trump and GOP is the bogus story about Ukraine that Russia has set and planted.

Comments are closed.