Impeachment: House of Representatives’ Debate and Vote Thread [UPDATE-4]

/136 Comments/in , , /by

This post and thread are dedicated to today’s scheduled House of Representatives’ activities related to impeachment of Donald J. Trump, including the planned six hours of debate and the subsequent vote.

Live stream the House’s impeachment activities at these links:

C-SPAN: https://www.c-span.org/video/?467441-1/us-house-debates-articles-impeachment

C-SPAN’s YouTube feed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fefMKNOCZ3Y

USAToday’s YouTube feed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzl9hbDoV1k

House’s feed (not labeled as impeachment-related activity): https://live.house.gov/

We can expect many tactics to filibuster and delay the debate — we’re already seeing GOP resolutions submitted (and tabled) to this end.

Last night’s #NotAboveTheLaw rallies across the country demonstrate the level of support for today’s historic action. Americans don’t stand in the dark, cold, rain, and snow if they aren’t seriously committed to protecting their democracy. They are rallying again this morning ahead of the debate and votes.

You can do your bit to support our democracy even if you can’t attend a rally this morning. Call your representative and tell them you support a vote for impeachment.

You can also push back at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s efforts to deter a Senate trial by calling your senators and insisting they do not join McConnell’s effort to accumulate 51 votes to dismiss a trial. Let the people hear witnesses under oath before the Senate, including Trump in his own defense.

He’s going to need the opportunity after yesterday’s crackpot six-page error-riddled and lie-filled rant at House Speaker Pelosi.

Congressional switchboard: (202) 224-3121 or use Resistbot.

UPDATE-1 — 12:10 p.m. ET —

The House Rules Committee has been debating the rules of the impeachment proceeding this morning, vote on rules now complete. Along party lines, of course.

If you are looking for additional information regarding the House investigation leading up to impeachment and today’s impeachment itself, check these sources:

C-SPAN’s impeachment dedicated site: https://www.c-span.org/impeachment/

NBC’s live updates page: https://www.nbcnews.com/Trump-impeachment-inquiry

CNN doesn’t appear to have an impeachment page but they have one on Trump: https://www.cnn.com/specials/politics/president-donald-trump-45

USAToday’s impeachment page: https://www.usatoday.com/news/trump-impeachment-inquiry/

Twitter’s impeachment event: https://twitter.com/i/events/1207033032110039040

House clerk just read the revised rules and articles of impeachment; Speaker Pelosi is now up and offering opening remarks to launch the six hours of debate.

Let’s do this, keep our republic.

UPDATE-2 — 12:30 p.m. ET —

Rep. Doug Collins has offered the minority remarks which I freely admit to muting because it’s the same bullshit whining offered too loud.

For quieter coverage, here are live Twitter threads of the impeachment debate:

Marcy’s live thread: https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1207347805368541189

Brandi Buchman, Courthouse News: https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1207256948908929025

Jennifer Taub’s thread: https://twitter.com/jentaub/status/1207303012651327489

UPDATE-3 — 8:10 p.m. ET —

The House is now voting on the first article of impeachment for abuse of power. Each member will cast their vote electronically from within the House within a 15-minute window.

Keep our republic, congresspersons.

8:14 p.m. ET — already at 152 Democrats and 1 Independent voting Yea.

8:15 p.m. ET — 163 Democrats, 1 Independent voting Yea.

8:20 p.m. ET — 198 Democrats, 1 Independent voting Yea. 2 Democrats voting Nay (likely Van Drew and Peterson)

8:22 p.m. ET — 210 Democrats, 1 Independent voting Yea. 2 Democrats voting Nay (likely Van Drew and Peterson)

8:24 p.m. ET — 215 Democrats, 1 Independent voting Yea. We have impeachment.

8:34 p.m. ET —

Democrats voting Nay:

Jeff Van Drew, NJ-2

Collin Peterson, MN-7

Democrats voting Present:

Tulsi Gabbard, HI-2

UPDATE-4 — 8:39 p.m. ET —

House now voting on second article of impeachment for obstruction of Congress.

8:39 p.m. ET — 198 Democrats, 1 Independent voting Yea

8:42 p.m. ET — 214 Democrats, 1 Independent voting Yea; 3 Democrats voting Nay, 1 Democrat voting Present

8:43 p.m. ET — 217 Democrats, 1 Independent voting Yea; 3 Democrats voting Nay, 1 Democrat voting Present. We have a second count of impeachment.

8:50-ish p.m. ET —

(I confess I forgot to check the clock for the time when Pelosi hit the gavel.)

Democrats voting Nay:

Jeff Van Drew, NJ-2

Collin Peterson, MN-7

Jared Golden, ME-2

Democrats voting Present:

Tulsi Gabbard, HI-2

Analysis of Democratic defections:

Van Drew has said he is leaving the Democratic Party and becoming a Republican. Why he simply didn’t retire I don’t know because his chances of winning aren’t good in a blue wave.

Collin Peterson represents a very rural and overwhelmingly white portion of western Minnesota and is a pro-life Dem.

Tulsi Gabbard. This one is self-explanatory.

Jared Golden had indicated he was going to split his votes, saying he didn’t think the Dems had proven a threshold had been met for “high crimes and misdemeanors” with the second article. The second article seems so clear — witnesses and documents were subpoenaed as part of an impeachment inquiry, and Trump refused to allow compliance with the subpoenas — that Golden has stretched beyond rationality his effort to “work with the president.”

Golden had said, “…while the president’s resistance toward our investigative efforts has been frustrating, it has not yet, in my view, reached the threshold of ‘high crime or misdemeanor’ that the Constitution demands. For that reason, I will vote against Article II of the House resolution regarding obstruction of Congress.” If this were a criminal investigation and a target refused to comply with a subpoena, they’d be facing a charge of obstruction. Golden simply chose to split the wrong baby at the wrong time.

And I hope Stephen King, he of the myriad horror novels, gets a more progressive Democratic candidate to primary and win Golden’s seat.

Updates during the course of House activities will appear at the bottom of this post.

image_print
136 replies
  1. Rayne says:

    Oh my. Must be serious, Liz Cheney is all spiffy today. ~eye roll~

    Have to wonder if every single GOP rep will offer a craptastic resolution today consisting of bullshit to defend Putin’s puppet Trump.

    • Rayne says:

      Rep. Michael Burgess R-Texas, 26th district (R+18) — whining about a portion of Dems want to impeach Trump from Inauguration Day (because he solicited foreign aid to cheat?); the GOP’s minority status (so win an election); records the GOP couldn’t access (you mean like those the White House has obstructed and not produced?); the whistleblower (who should be protected, period); the perfect phone call (in which a quid pro quo was made); blah-blah-blah…

      We’re not going to forget each of these whiners undermining U.S. democracy.

      EDIT: Rep. Debbie Lesko R-AZ, 8th district (R+13) — “I can’t believe” she’s doing this she says after explaining she’s become a representative as a survivor of domestic abuse.

      Lady, we can’t believe you are defending a serial sexual abuser. The internalized oppression is immense with this one.

      None of these GOP boneheads are backing off the “poor Trump couldn’t defend himself” line. This is the best they can do as a rebuttal.

    • Rayne says:

      My feed crapped out after Lesko was done. Who was up next?

      Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-IN, 2nd district (R+11) is up now – I have her on mute, can’t take much of this bullshit whining.

      So far it looks like a pattern: these early GOP defense players are in districts which are entirely winnable in a deep blue wave.

      They’re also hauling out all their wimmenfolks to put in front of the cameras this morning — 3 out of 13, or 23% of their distaff crew. “Look at us, we have us some estrogen, too!”

      Waiting for their token persons of color next, though they may be from even riskier districts…

      Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-NY, 1st district (R+5) — LOL “But Zelensky said there was no quid pro quo…” to paraphrase. Yeah, what do you think a small country literally under the gun STILL WAITING FOR A PORTION OF APPROVED AID will tell the U.S. media?

      Wholly gettable district, by the way. Hope NY Dems are all over Zeldin like white on rice.

      EDIT — 11:18 a.m. ET — Burgess back up whining about minority rights and the president’s lack of defense. They are doing their best to pollute the public’s understanding of the House’s impeachment process. Pure propaganda.

      I’m glad Rep. Jim McGovern D-MA is effective in pushback, succinctly restating the charge against Trump.

      EDIT — 11:23 a.m. ET — 15-min vote on a vote on rules for impeachment. ~sigh~ Muting before I have to listen to right-wing nutbag Republican callers ranting about ‘poor Trump’ and ‘evil Democrat process’.

        • Rayne says:

          I think the Dems are doing a decent job of this morning’s rules debate. The whining on the GOP side, though…they act like Trump lied about a tiny personal thing like a consensual blowjob.

          • John K says:

            This irks me the most about this whole flaming shitshow: the GOP acts appalled by the Dems use of election interference by a foreign government as such a minor thing. Ken Starr’s puffed up prudery about a consensual blowjob established a valid basis for impeachment but not this? And Republican members of Congress repeat it? And the Trump base falls for it? It is truly maddening and depressing.

      • Rayne says:

        1:34 p.m. ET — Rep. Peter King, R-NY, 2nd district (R+3) — “assault on our constitution” LOL sure, buddy. Haven’t read the Constitution lately, have you?

        Nice district you have there, by the way. Swingable.

      • Rayne says:

        Rep. Jason Smith, R-MO, 8th district (R+24) is up now; wondered why this pasty white slug was the representative for this district until I looked at the demographics.

        Let me guess there are a lot of “sundown towns” in his district.

  2. Jenny says:

    Thanks Rayne. Yesterday, I called some Democrats (Slotkin, Spanberger, Cunningham, Brindisi, McAdams and Davids) in vulnerable districts to thank them for having the courage to stand up for principle and vote to impeach. Spanberger said it best, “The president’s actions violate his oath of office, endanger our national security and betray the public trust.”

  4. joulie says:

    ABC and NBC no longer covering impeachment hearings. I’m sure they are educating the public with important
    info on fad diets and pop shit for terminally 13 year old adults. PBS coverage on 2 of their channels.

  5. P J Evans says:

    Thanks, Rayne!
    Maybe if the GOP did something other than whine about the Ds, and actually voted for what people want, they wouldn’t be a minority.

  7. Jenny says:

    Now Collins the yeller is yelling. So annoying.
    I called last week stating, “Why is it necessary for Mr. Collins to yell? No need to yell, he has a microphone and we can hear him without all the yelling. Because he is a yeller, I have to mute my television. If I am muting my television, then others are too. This is not helpful to Mr. Collins trying to get his point across. As a teacher, I do not teach my children to yell, that would be rude and counter productive. Perhaps Mr. Collins could stop yelling so some can actually hear what he has to say.” The staffer was actually chuckling and said, “Thank you for calling, I will tell the Congressman.”

    • bmaz says:

      Naw, Ackerman is full of shit. If McConnell can hold 51 votes from his majority, he will control any issue as opposed to Roberts.

      • Marinela says:

        Heard rumblings about changing the senate rules. Do we know what repubs are planning to change?

        Would be useful if senators can ask on who can testify, and put it to vote, hopefully we can get first hand players to testify, including Trump.
        If this happens in the senate, Trump and his base cannot blame the dems.
        I heard vice-president doesn’t get to vote.

        • bmaz says:

          More bullshit by Ackerman. He is really good at that. The 51 votes will override Roberts Rule is applicable to any issue. And, no, the Rules will not be rewritten to water that fact down. Just not happening.

    • JamesJoyce says:

      Imagine Republicans becoming radical instead of obstructing?

      Thaddeus Stevens, Lincoln along with Eisenhower and Ed Brooks vomit…

      Mitch the appeaser appeases….

      Trump is not a republican.

      He is “plucker” born with a trust fund who in his corporate life employed legal obstruction hoping the cost of litigation gives him a win.

      Mother knows best. Not the power drunk dad…

      Guess he never read the Constitution like he said he never expected to win?

      What transcript?

      Addicted to Power Gaslighting Pluckers pick an choose there own points as facts, all the time, if you let them.

      Taney’s logic was inferior, not Scott.

      Trump’s mistaken view of the law(s) is no defense, Mitch.

      So much for Duty?

  10. foggycoast says:

    it occurs to me that at least a few Dems should raise their voice in outrage and anger rather than being so calm and academic. and, would love to hear the word “LIAR” used. Passion, baby!

    • Rayne says:

      Really depends on who does it and on their delivery. Any woman who raises their voice you can bet the right-wing monkey horde will say she’s bitchy, strident, bossy, and a host of other labels used to shut down women’s voices over millennia. If a person of color does it you can bet the word ‘uppity’ will make an appearance or another synonym to remind the GOP base as well as minorities that there’s a racist class system in this country even if the person speaking is a duly elected representative of their constituency.

      • foggycoast says:

        agreed. still, some Dems, don’t care who, need to reflect outrage and demonstrate they, we, are rightly pissed off.

        • Rayne says:

          I’m more disturbed that the House Dems appear to be avoiding the words ‘bribery’ or ‘extortion’ to describe what Trump has done.

          I’m also worried they aren’t using universal ethics and values to describe what Trump has done — he’s acted unfairly toward a lesser entity (Ukraine) in need of aid; disrespected the U.S., the Constitution, and laws; and he’s been deeply dishonest, including encouraging others to be dishonest through lies and acts of omission. Even a child can understand and appreciate we are all expected to be fair, help others in need, be honest, respectful, and that no one chosen to lead us should refuse to act outside these universal values.

          • John K says:

            Yes-especially to the “universal ethics and values” part. I have now resorted to challenging the so called Christianity of most Trump supporters as the most immediately effective counterargument available. His behavior reeks of indecency, as does support for his actions.

          • bmaz says:

            Those issues are not even in their articles. Pelosi has instructed that they are not going to be raised, along with a host of other malfeasance.

          • foggycoast says:

            rayne, all you say is true. but i saw this said about Dems elsewhere and i think this is true “They still fight spectacle with process, a fight spectacle always wins.”

  11. Rugger9 says:

    Any idea how Trump’s letter will affect the Senate trial? It’s impossible to expect this to happen, but Individual-1’s best hope now is to STFU and let Mitch handle the details.

    • Rayne says:

      I doubt Trump’s screed will have any effect at all. It doesn’t change the facts, including McConnell’s stranglehold on the Senate, and it was really intended for consumption by his.

      • Rugger9 says:

        I concur about the Senate but at some point some of the so-called vulnerable GOP senators may be moved. I think it will also not play well if anything is litigated later.

        So, as a thought exercise, does impeachment count toward double jeopardy? Let’s say the Senate punts but the Palace does something else that once again warrants impeachment (like suspending or delaying the 2020 election, remember the Bush II White House floated the idea in 2004) which might read as an abuse of power combined with obstruction of justice since I don’t think the Palace releases anything under subpoena. Would that be considered a double jeopardy for the same crimes but different events / circumstances? How about future criminal activity post-administration?

        • Justlp says:

          Nancy Pelosi’s little surprise, dropped after the impeachment vote, that she’s not sending this to the Senate until she has some idea how they plan to run the trial so that she can appoint the appropriate managers, reminded me immediately of the great arguments I’ve read here from bmaz & others here to slow walk the next steps.

          McConnell & Graham’s comments gave her the perfect reason to question the legitimacy of any trial in the Senate.

  12. 200Toros says:

    In light of all the ridiculous level of projection going on here, especially in the president’s proof-of-insanity submission to the Speaker yesterday, I’d like to revisit the “shoot a man on 5th Avenue” statement.

    I think that if Trump did, in fact, shoot and kill a man on 5th Ave, it’s pretty clear by now that he would state, in his defense, that the deceased had, in fact, shot and killed HIM, not the other way around. Fake News media got that all wrong, of course. Guy was a Never-Trumper Deep-Stater. Brown, too. Totally unlawfully killed him in the most unimaginable, disgusting, nasty way possible, worse than any human being ever killed ever (lots of people are saying that).

    He’d stand there and tell us how horrible and unfair his death was, “Believe Me”, on live tv, probably with the helicopter behind him. That his last sight before dying was the huge, burly Secret Service agents standing over him, tears pouring down their handsome faces, saying “Sir, Sir, please don’t go, we can’t live without you, Sir, please Sir….”

    And his cultists would just eat that up, “Damn Straight! Trump is Dead, Long Live Trump!” And then argue that he gets a THIRD term for this, for sure, because it was so unfair…

    • Geoff says:

      It’s a non-word, used by a certain type of person that is just smart enough to not be deemed ignorant, but way too dumb to be considered intellectual, yet wont’ stop hoping someone thinks of them that way. They also tend to choose the wrong glasses for intellectuals and end up looking like cheap Third Reich impersonators or southern old school racists in modern dress.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      I’ll bet preacher Collins also says “he could care less,” when he means “he could not care less” about the Democrats’ faux impeachment. Let’s ask faux simpleton Sen. Kennedy, or real simpleton Sen. Johnson.

      Whatever happened to public figures serving as role models, rather than as models to avoid?

      • Geoff says:

        If this were my parent, I’d cry myself to sleep each night. Then wake up each morning rummaging around in the seat cushions for loose change, or the receipt for my parents, so I could return them. Talk about mortification. If I acted like this, I would be beyond embarrassed. In any academic or professional setting I’ve found myself in the last 30 years, I’d be laughed out of the room for this sort of nonsense, yet, here we are, subjected to it by our so called leaders. What a national disgrace.

        And you know, these people made it through school, universities, heaven forbid, graduate schools, and I bet they did it making these same kinds of fallacious arguments, non-sequiturs and ridiculous spectacles of themselves. How were they not failed out? Says a lot about the state of our educational system that we pass these types through.

      • Rugger9 says:

        Weird Al had a song called “Word Crimes” that covers many of these sins but not IIRC “irregardless”.

    • I Never Lie and am Always Right says:

      I had a professor — many years ago — who frequently used the word “disirregardless” to make fun of the people who used the word “irregardless.”

      BTW, let’s call the legislators who oppose impeachment by their real name: Trumpublicans. They are loyal to Trump, not to the Republic.

  14. Badger Robert says:

    What they are doing is laying a basis for the survival of democracy. For 10 1/2 months this impeachment proceeding and what the Senate does to resolve it, will affect whether we to continue to have relatively free and fair elections.

  16. bmaz says:

    No, the election will determine that. This half assed proceeding will not do jack shit. In fact, it is so lame that Trump is likely right that it helps him.

  17. foggycoast says:

    question for the knowledgable: Can the House Dems litigate subpoena violation by Mulvaney, et al regardless of impeachment proceeding? my guess would be yes in which case gotta wonder why dont they process with that as well?

      • foggycoast says:

        at least if they litigated that there would be, hopefully, a decision on record that serving the president does not grant immunity from subpoena. i mean, they’re gonna lose the Senate vote so this would at least establish some rule of law regarding Congressional authority and powers.

  18. harpie says:

    Loudermilk is so proud of his little speech, that he immediately tweeted it out with VIDEO, himself:

    https://twitter.com/RepLoudermilk/status/1207378846456135684
    11:15 AM – 18 Dec 2019

    “…When Jesus was falsely accused of Treason, Pontius Pilate gave Jesus the opportunity to face his accusers. During that sham trial, Pontius Pilate afforded more rights to Jesus, than Democrats have afforded this president in this process.” #ShamImpeachment [FOX News VIDEO]

    wow

  19. earlofhuntingdon says:

    This day-long word fest makes clear that the GOP is so skint, it could afford only a single scriptwriter. The only difference among their readers is the twang. I’m confused, though, about whether the scriptwriter or the GOP members were the ones who went to the Law School of the Caribbean. ‘Cause none of them understand the law or has the slightest idea what radicalism or socialism is.

    The GOP’s strategery seems to be to take that wood burning kit one of them saved from Cub Scouts and burn both lines of their script into a pine board so deep, no rational sandpaper will ever be able to erase the black marks they leave.

  20. harpie says:

    The GOP keeps saying the Ukrainians gave nothing back for the finally released aid…and that they said there had been no pressure.

    Saying that, in itself, was a thing of value to TRUMP and the GOP.

  23. P J Evans says:

    I was wondering who the toad with the pink tie was, but I see it’s Billy Long, from Missouri. I guess some of these got elected so they’d be out of town most of the time, instead of annoying their neighbors.

  27. bmaz says:

    For those not on twitter, Wait, who is this “slick dick rootin tootin midnight mustache” Republican jackass that looks like the second coming of John Ensign?”?

    Wonder if even John Forde remembers that?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      And Gabbard wonders why she did not get any traction as a candidate for president. She should be a good candidate for a primary contest after voting “present.”

      • MB says:

        …plus I hear she intends to introduce a censure motion in the House soon, perhaps her response to voting present ??

        I dunno, seems really like a really mis-placed and disconnected decision to make…

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        I gather she’s already decided not to seek re-election. Good for Hawaii. Otherwise, like Van Drew, she would have needed to admit that she had already joined the Republican Party.

        • Rugger9 says:

          Given how Van Drew’s district has already put up several primary opponents on the GOP side, I really don’t see how he thought this was a good idea.

  30. harpie says:

    To say the least, New Jersey Democrats are NOT happy with Jeff Van Drew!
    His Democratic challenger is: Brigid Callahan Harrison
    https://newjerseyglobe.com/congress/harrison-enters-race-for-congress/

    Some of his former staffers are working for the DCCC and now Frank Pallone at the House Energy and Commerce Committee :

    Van Drew staffers who quit to protest his switch to GOP have new jobs with N.J. Democrat
    https://www.nj.com/politics/2019/12/van-drew-staffers-who-quit-to-protest-his-switch-to-gop-have-new-jobs-with-nj-democrat.html
    Updated Dec 18, 2019;Posted Dec 18, 2019

    […] In all, Van Drew, D-2nd Dist., has lost 10 congressional staffers in Washington and three in the district, including Durwood Pinkett, his deputy district director, and Cece Doherty, the director of constituent relations. [….]

    Van Drew received $158,700 from the leadership political action committees of his fellow Democrats during his two campaigns for the House. […]

    U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., whose leadership PAC gave Van Drew $8,000, started raising money for his eventual opponent. […]

    • Eureka says:

      Thanks for the update, harpie. I was wondering when Booker’s name would come into it more — looks like he is extricating himself as one would expect.

  32. P J Evans says:

    Not only did Tulsi vote “present” on both Articles, but afterward she introduced a motion to censure Trmp. Srsly not a Dem, or interested in fixing real problems.

    • Eureka says:

      Welp she and her IRA boosters got whatever attention they wanted last night, sickening (she was trending topic until late night, well into the am).

Comments are closed.