The case for Impeachment #2

The House should begin the process of impeaching Donald Trump. Yes, again.

After lying under oath to protect Donald Trump, Stone clearly signaled that one day in prison might force him to turn rat. And so the president commuted his crony's sentence -- arguably the most corrupt act in the history of the office. If that's not impeachable, nothing is impeachable.

(Lindsey Graham justified the commutation on the grounds that Roger Stone committed a "nonviolent" offense. Actually, Stone threatened a witness with death -- and someone threatened the jurors.)

How would a new impeachment probe affect the election? I don't know. Perhaps a second attempt will convince the majority of America that nothing will be normal as long as Trump remains in office. Conversely, the majority may conclude that nothing will be normal as long as Dems have power. I'd bet on the first scenario, but nothing is certain.

Bottom line: Impeachment is simply right. The facts certainly justify this course of action.

But the predictable nature of Trump’s action should not obscure its rank corruption. In fact, the predictability makes the commutation all the more corrupt, the capstone of an all-but-open attempt on the president’s part to obstruct justice in a self-protective fashion over a protracted period of time. That may sound like hyperbole, but it’s actually not. Trump publicly encouraged Stone not to cooperate with Robert Mueller’s investigation, he publicly dangled clemency as a reward for silence, and he has now delivered. The act is predictable precisely because the corrupt action is so naked.

In a normal world, this pattern of conduct would constitute an almost prototypical impeachable offense.

If you want a normal world, do normal things. 

Now let's look at the tactical arguments in favor of Impeachment II.

A new impeachment investigation will give the House a forum to interview witnesses -- including Roger Stone. Marcy Wheeler points to an impeachment-worthy line of inquiry:

Also, Stone may fuck Trump anyway, or even may already have.

For those asking how Stone might fuck Trump -- Stone kept a notebook recording all his conversations with Trump. It's unclear whether Mueller got it in the raid of Stone's house (that's, in significant point, WHY they raided his house).

FWIW, I have an operative theory that Stone pawned off the notebook onto one of his Proud Boys and then bribed him to keep it safe. But that's just a WAG based off something Stone did in 2018.

A secret notebook? Ahhh. That's sexy. That's the sort of thing likely to capture the public's attention -- a classic Hollywood Maguffin.

This little-discussed notebook was referenced in this warrant. Apparently, investigators learned about it while interviewing one of Stone's employees.

[redacted] provided information about a meeting at Trump Tower between Trump and Stone during the time [redacted] worked for him, to which Sterne carried a “file booklet” with him. Stone told [redacted] the file booklet was important and that no one should touch it. [redacted] also said Stone maintained the file booklet in his closet.

Anyone else remember J. Edgar's fabled blackmail files?

A new impeachment inquiry could determine whether the FBI got hold of this important piece of evidence -- and if not, why not. (I doubt that Mueller nabbed it. If he had, we'd know.)

On the witness stand, Stone would of course deny that this notebook contains evidence of criminality. But Stone isn't that good a liar: He always says more than he should, as he demonstrated during the interview he gave just before the commutation was announced. He is cocky,  intemperate, loquacious, and aging. Being an old hedonist, he may be a former or current user of drugs.

(I'm not saying that I know one way or the other. But I've met a few hedonists in my time, and drug usage took its usual toll on their cognitive functions.)

All of these factors lead me to suspect that Stone just might entertain us with an outrageous and revelatory witness stand outburst. Deep down, Roger Stone wants to shout "Goddamn right I ordered the Code Red! Cocksucker!"

Look at the way Stone threatened Randy Credico. Would a prudent man have done such a thing?

A new impeachment inquiry would have other benefits. Hearings could serve as a daily reminder of Trump's various corruptions. I mean, there's a new Watergate every week or two, right? If the Whitewater probe could morph into the Monica scandal (by way of Ken Starr's bullshit rationalizations), then Impeachment II could morph into a probe of whatever new Watergates pop up in August, September and October.

Not only that. Trump and Barr are going to launch massive, incredibly brazen smears against the Democrats -- and those smears will be backed by "evidence" which may seem, at first, persuasive. Impeachment hearings offer a way to counterpunch.

Let me explain how that would work.

At some point before the election, the John Durham investigation into the origins of the Russia probe will dominate the headlines. Of course, Durham is just the figurehead: Barr's toadies are doing the actual work.

Why is John Durham, previously a respected figure, lending his name to this exercise in mendacity? Does Barr have something on Durham? Lots of people suspect as much, but so far, nobody has offered any informed speculation as to what that "something" might be. Here's a cute fact: Durham's investigation of the investigation has lasted much longer than the original investigation.

Right now, most rank-and-file Dems aren't thinking about Durham, but they should. I predict that someone big will be charged -- possibly Comey, possibly Brennan. Hell, maybe Obama.

Of course, the whole thing will be pure propaganda. The FBI and the intelligence community had all sorts of excellent reasons to investigate the Trump campaign in 2016. The Durham probe is founded on the proposition that the Bureau swarms with liberals desperate to prevent a Republican presidency -- a ludicrous notion that only the most wormy-brained Alex Jonesian would find credible. If Jim Comey had wanted to prevent a Republican victory, he would have revealed before the election that Trump was under investigation.

Expect the Durham smear to hit hard -- at the worst possible moment. It's always best to prepare for disaster. Optimism is the gravest of sins.

The Dems need a mechanism to investigate the investigators of the investigators. An ongoing impeachment probe would serve that purpose perfectly.

If such a probe is in place throughout the rest of Trump's term, the Dems will have a seasoned team of professional investigators at their disposal each and every day. House probers can demand interviews and unredacted copies of raw materials. Sure, Barr can stonewall and refuse subpoenas, but doing so will make him look guilty, and the reek of bullshit will scent John Durham for the rest of his life.

There are many more reasons why a new impeachment inquiry would help the greater cause, but the ones I've listed should suffice. 

Contact Pelosi. Don't let her tell you that Trump's fate should be left up to the voters in November. The voters may make the wrong decision if they don't have all the facts. An impeachment investigation will make the facts known. 

This corrupt Senate probably won't convict, but so what?

Impeachment NOW!