The House Heads Into a Partisan Impeachment: The Politics Daily

2. What if Democrats don’t need to be worrying at all? My colleague David Graham writes that one facet of impeachment is conspicuously unnoticed: It’s incredibly popular.

3. Democrats want to show they can do more than impeachment. House lawmakers are working across the aisle, for instance, to pass USMCA, the Trump-backed successor to NAFTA (and the biggest trade deal in a generation). Passing these other bills could ultimately be more consequential for Democrats than how they voted on impeachment, Ron Brownstein argues—accomplishments vulnerable Democrats who represent more skeptical constituents can lean on.

The president stands among U.S. Naval Academy Midshipmen during the Army-Navy football game in Philadelphia this weekend.

1. “There is also nothing impartial about declaring oneself to be, well, not impartial.”

Senators Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham have already declared allegiance to the White House when it comes to how they’ll run a potential Senate trial (Graham, just this past weekend: “I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here”).

This kind of open coordination flies in the face of their constitutional duties, Quinta Jurecic and Benjamin Wittes argue. But:

It is actually not obvious what the optimal amount of senatorial comment on the merits of the matter looks like. Senators have different obligations, after all. ... What they probably should do, however, is avoid prejudging the evidence or how they are going to vote. Senator Mitt Romney’s comments on the impeachment trial are a decent model of what such restraint looks like.

2. “[T]here’s an opportunity for serious reflection and reform—if Congress and the executive branch can seize it.”

Multiple inspector-general investigations have now confirmed deep procedural problems within the FBI. These flaws exist and should be considered separate from this era of intense politicization, Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith write.

They recommend focusing on three major areas for reform:

Read on for their meticulously argued slate of recommendations.

3. “Perhaps judging a politician in relation to Jeremy Corbyn isn’t the most stringent moral test one could apply, but it’s worth a moment’s gratitude that [Bernie] Sanders passes.”

After the British left’s devastating losses in last week’s general election, should American Democrats draw any conclusions about Bernie Sanders as the Jeremy Corbyn of the U.S.? Simply put: No, Franklin Foer writes. The evidence is mostly to the contrary.

But the point is that the rise of the left could have gone much worse for the Democrats. It could have taken the form of an apologist for dictators and a fomenter of anti-Semitism. Attacks on globalization could have veered into coded smears of globalists. The rightful flaying Wall Street deserves could have been expressed in nasty tropes.

Source: Theatlantic.com

Powered by NewsAPI.org

Keywords:

Impeachment • Politics Daily • Alternate history • Democracy • David Graham (actor) • Impeachment • Democratic Party (United States) • Impeachment • Aisle (political term) • Donald Trump • North American Free Trade Agreement • Bill (law) • Democracy • Impeachment • Democracy • President of the United States • United States Naval Academy • Navy Midshipmen football • Army–Navy Game • Philadelphia • United States Senate • Mitch McConnell • Lindsey Graham • White House • United States Senate • Jury • Benjamin Wittes • United States Senate • United States Senate • United States Senate • Mitt Romney • Impeachment • United States Congress • Federal government of the United States • Inspector general • Federal Bureau of Investigation • Robert Bauer • Jack Goldsmith • Slate (magazine) • Politics • Jeremy Corbyn • Bernie Sanders • Bernie Sanders • United States presidential election, 2016 • United States • Democratic Party (United States) • Bernie Sanders • Jeremy Corbyn • Franklin Foer • Left-wing politics • Democracy • Apologetics • Dictator • Antisemitism • Globalization • Flaying • Wall Street •