I always look forward to reading Michael Tomasky’s commentaries, but this usually insightful pundit gets it wrong in today’s NY Times.  He notes that Democrats have to decide on questions of scope and speed of the impeachment process.  He thinks that the Democrats need to get impeachment done quickly and makes a reasonable case for speed.  But he thinks that therefore, they need to limit the impeachment to Ukrainegate; they mustn’t “bide their time” with a more comprehensive indictment of Trump’s wrongdoings.

I don’t get it.  The Democrats don’t need to conduct a more extended investigation as a basis for a more comprehensive impeachment.  The work has already been done for them.  Mueller’s team spent plenty of time on an investigation that was as exhaustive as anything a Congressional committee could undertake.  He came up with multiple instances of obstruction of justice, with ample supporting evidence.  So, just collapse Mueller’s findings into a single article of impeachment for obstruction of justice in the Russia interference probe.  Add to that: abuse of power in Ukrainegate and obstruction of Congress in its investigation of same.  So, just three articles of impeachment that cover a lot.  Simple, fairly comprehensive, and fast.


  1. Marcia Burdette December 5, 2019 at 4:15 pm

    Tony, I agree with your recommendation of adding one extra article of impeachment to cover a multitude of Russian-related sins. I question the feeling that the Democrats seen to have to get the process completely quickly is in fact the way to go. Rather, it may make more sense to take the time and try to inform the US public of all the issues under discussion. Probably this will not sway a large number of voters but it might sway some and that may be enough.


  2. Lisa R. Lipman December 5, 2019 at 5:26 pm

    I agree.

    Don’t really have anything to add.

    Except that the Democrats are not carrying the narrative and I remain pessimistic — for the country.


  3. Jeffrey Herrmann December 5, 2019 at 5:33 pm

    Agreed. Indeed, it would be a dereliction of duty were Congress to fail to bring the three articles of impeachment you outlined.
    But I don’t think the House needs to be in a rush to wrap up testimony before the Judiciary Committee. If it inconveniences campaigning candidates to have the hearings continue into 2020, it is worth it to provide a strong foundation for the three articles. Let Nadler subpoena the same dozen recalcitrant tRump enablers. Have witnesses testify about tRump’s numerous acts of obstruction of the Russia investigation. Etc., etc.
    The Repugnican pre-buttal released on Monday argues that “unelected bureaucrats” are trying to take tRump because they disagree with his policies. And nasty Adam Schiff is so, so UNFAIR!!! Let the bureaucrats have more air time. It only improves their credibility. Offer the Presidunce a chance to testify before Nadler, and televise an empty chair when the chicken fails to show. Keep up the pressure and hope for obstruction of artery.

  4. Donald Campbell December 9, 2019 at 10:05 am

    Does it really matter weather it’s fast or slow when the republicans in the Senate will acquit him regardless? Does the historical record really need more information? Due to a confluence of factors it appears we are in place where the sports metaphor is accurate. Root for your team regardless! Or perhaps democrats are hoping for information so damaging even the most jaded republicans will have to vote for impeachment, the equivalent of a ‘hail Mary pass?’

    In my opinion it makes no difference whether it is fast or slow, the result will be the same.

Have a comment?

Required fields are marked (*)