The questions we got this week were very heavy on impeachment and impeachment-adjacent stuff. For those who may be growing weary of this subject, we're sorry, but we have to go where the mailbag (well, the mail inbox) takes us. That said, we did squeeze a few non-impeachment questions in at the end.
Q: 73 years old, a lifetime of unhealthy choices, and under severe stress, is a trifecta that could cause a fatal heart attack. If Donald Trump were to suddenly die in office, would the Republican Party continue his new brand of conservatism without their demi-god? Or would the GOP revert back to a more traditional set of policies? Would there be a primary against Pence for 2020? Without Trump, would America's bipolar antagonism calm down? W.F., Blairs Mills, PA
A: We would love to give you an answer with a lot of rainbows and sunshine, but we just can't do it. There are three important things going on here, as we see it. The first is hyper-polarization, with the Democrats moving further from the center than they have been in a long time, and the Republicans moving even further from the center than that. This trend, which has definitely been encouraged by the rise of the Internet and other new media, predates Donald Trump, and will remain in effect after he's gone.
The second is that Trump has awakened and unified an interest group within the Republican Party; namely the right-wing populists. That strain has been present in the GOP for a while (e.g., the tea party), but never had its current level of focus, nor its sense that it was entitled to be heard and accommodated. The obvious parallel here is the evangelicals, who did not coalesce into a cohesive political faction until the 1970s, and thenceforth were able to force the Republicans to kowtow to their demands. Anyhow, now that the right-wing populists have had a taste of what it's like to have power and influence, they are unlikely to recede. Consequently, Republicans are going to have to lick their boots even after Trump has exited stage right.
Finally, the third is that Trump has been able to emerge as a champion of the populists, while also getting other wings of the party (business, evangelicals, military, nativists, many libertarians) on board. And even then, he barely won the election of 2016. Anyhow, our best guess is that he's sui generis, and that no other Republican will be able to do what he's done and unify what has become a mess of a coalition.
If all of our suppositions are correct, then it means the GOP could have a fair stretch of time in the wilderness ahead of them when it comes to winning the White House. Meanwhile, the Republican members of Congress, and the state-level officeholders, are going to be running around in circles trying to keep various factions happy because those factions have very different issues, and don't particularly see eye-to-eye on many subjects. And so, the Republican political program, which has already become not very cohesive, will become even less so. Of course, one way to paper over this is to play to voters' anger and resentment, and to hurl slings and arrows at the other party, and to obstruct everything. And so, the polarization and the gridlock will continue post-Trump, at least for a while.
Now, we said that we had little to offer in the way of rainbows and sunshine, but that doesn't mean we have zero to offer. The last few years have shone a very bright light on some of the obvious flaws in the American democracy. And when such flaws presented themselves in the past, and could be ignored no longer, people demanded (and got) change. It happened in the early 20th century, and it's very possible that it eventually happens in the early 21st. At that point, any misbehaving parties would be forced to adapt, since major portions of their toolkit would have been taken away from them.
As to Pence, he would surely draw some primary challengers if he were an unelected president. But if the RNC has learned one thing, it's that you don't switch horses midstream. So, they would put their full weight behind him, and he'd most likely get the nomination.
Q: If Donald Trump gets removed from the presidency, either through the impeachment process or he is simply voted out next November, how quickly do you think Republican senators, representatives, voters, news outlets, etc. will do a quick 180 and revert back to their pre-Trump stances while also denying some or all of their prior support for him? Can you provide some analogous historical examples? D.K., Miami, FL
A: It would likely be best for the Republican Party and for the country if large numbers of these folks had a "come to Jesus" moment. But, consistent with the answer to the previous question, we don't see that happening. No matter how thoroughly Donald Trump is repudiated, he has primed a sizable segment of the populace to believe it's all lies and fake news and Democratic trickery, and so Trumpism/right-wing populism will live on. The GOP needs those votes, so they will have to cater to those people. Or, at very least, Republicans will have to be careful not to insult/denounce them.
The analogous historical examples, at least for the phenomenon you propose, come from 1940s Europe, when various fascists were repudiated, and their "former" supporters fell all over themselves insisting that they never really supported Mussolini, or Hitler, or Tojo. However, there is nothing quite that stark in U.S. history. The closest we can come up with is what happened with segregation and civil rights. Over a fairly short period of time (1955-65, give or take a year), certain very bigoted views went from being socially acceptable to being highly problematic. And certainly, some of the politicians who had embraced racist ideas and policies early in their careers had an awakening, and tried to make amends for their past wrongs. Robert Byrd of West Virginia and George Wallace of Alabama are probably the two best-known examples of this. But the majority of the racist politicians of the 1950s merely toned down their bigotry a bit, or took it underground—they didn't abandon it, or repudiate it in any meaningful way. That list includes Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, John Stennis of Mississippi, and Harry Byrd of Virginia, along with Joe Biden's buddies James Eastland of Mississippi and Herman Talmadge of Georgia.
So, once the Donald is gone, someone like Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) or Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) might announce they were never really on board the S.S. Trump. But don't hold your breath waiting to hear something like that from Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) or Mitch McConnell (R-KY) or James Lankford (R-OK).
Q: There's been a lot of talk about how Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could undermine an impeachment trial to a largely perfunctory process—limit it to a day or so, for example. But once the trial begins, doesn't Chief Justice John Roberts have the ultimate authority? If Roberts should determine that the time McConnell has allotted is insufficient for presenting the evidence the House has obtained, can't he order that the trial continue, and rule McConnell out of order if the Majority Leader moves for a quick vote on the charges or to limit testimony? This all depends on how much Roberts values his status as an independent arbiter, of course, but it seems all of this would be his call. K.H., Ypsilanti, MI
A: That is the $64,000 question. You can find all sorts of op-eds talking about how McConnell is likely to run roughshod over the process, and to turn it into as big a sham as the Brett Kavanaugh hearings (which, whatever they were, had little to do with giving the candidate a proper and thorough vetting). And it's certainly possible these op-eds are correct, because the Constitution says so very little about the process.
However, we agree with you that John Roberts is not likely to suffer a sham trial. He seems to care about the integrity of the Constitution, and he definitely cares about the reputation of the Court, and his own reputation as a jurist. If McConnell tries to run a kangaroo court, with Roberts playing the role of the head kangaroo, we think the Chief Justice won't stand for it, and will indeed insist on a legitimate trial. We also think that McConnell knows this, and so won't try to pull a fast one.
Q: Jamelle Bouie's Oct. 2 op-ed in the New York Times mentioned that the House adopted 11 articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson, but that the Senate tried Johnson on only 3. How did that happen? Could it happen for Donald Trump? If so, could the articles not tried in the Senate be brought forward at a later date? J.G., Garner, NC
A: Let us start by noting that Johnson's impeachment was just as fraught, and public opinion was just as bitterly divided, as would be the case for a potential Trump impeachment. There was enormous pressure on the 54 senators who cast votes (45 of them Republicans, 9 of them Democrats).
Of the 11 articles of impeachment, the first nine alleged violations of the Tenure of Office Act of 1867, which forbade the President from firing cabinet secretaries without Congressional approval. The law was basically put in place to give Congress an excuse to impeach Johnson, since they knew he would eventually violate it. It was significantly amended shortly after Johnson left office, and was de facto struck down by the Supreme Court in 1926. The last two articles of impeachment, meanwhile, accused Johnson of broad, vaguely defined crimes against the Constitution. He was definitely tried on all 11 articles, primarily because they only really raised two (or maybe three) different alleged crimes.
When it was time to vote, the first article that the Senate considered was the 11th (one of the two "crimes against the Constitution" articles), and it failed by a single vote, 35-19. At that point, the managers of the impeachment trial brought everything to a halt in order to give them more time to twist arms. Then, 10 days later, the second and third articles (two of the Tenure of Office Act articles) were voted upon, and the result in each case was identical to the first result: 35-19. Since the senators had weighed in (twice) on the Tenure of Office Act violations, and since they had weighed in (once) on the broad crimes against the Constitution, and since every senator voted exactly the same way each time, there was no point in holding any further votes, and the managers of the impeachment trial (along with the members of the House) did not press the matter, even if they were technically entitled to do so.
After Johnson was acquitted, there were many accusations of fraud, bribery, and influence peddling against those who voted to retain the President. Some of those accusations were probably true, and whether they were true or not, careers were permanently damaged. In fact, none of the 10 Republicans who joined the 9 Democrats in voting for acquittal ever won another election. Ironically, the deciding factor in saving Johnson's neck was probably this: Under the rules of the time, his replacement would have been President pro tempore of the Senate Benjamin Wade (R-OH). Several of the senators who voted to acquit Johnson simply couldn't stomach that possibility.
As to Trump, it is certainly possible—though not advisable, politically—to try him on some charges, see him acquitted, and then try him again at a later date on different charges. Heck, it's possible to try him twice on the exact same charges; since impeachment is not a criminal matter, there is no "double jeopardy." All of these possibilities have not much to do with the Johnson precedent, however, and instead are a byproduct of how vaguely the Constitution defines impeachment procedures.
Q: This week, you
the possibility of a Senate rule change to allow a secret ballot in an impeachment trial. You said
that we shouldn't be surprised if the 47 Democratic members of the Senate plus the four retiring
Republican members of the Senate voted for such a change.
I can understand why a few Democratic senators (especially Doug Jones of Alabama) would prefer a secret ballot. However, many Democratic senators have already taken a stand in favor of the House impeachment inquiry, and those senators would probably be equally willing to cast a public vote in favor of conviction if the evidence points that direction. Democratic senators might know their Republican colleagues are more likely to vote for conviction if the ballot is secret, but they also might prefer, if Republican senators are going to cast a vote for "party and power over country" in the face of strong evidence that Donald Trump has committed crimes, that they be forced to do so publicly.
So, my question is: What, in your opinion, are going to be the deciding factors if Democratic senators have an opportunity to vote for a rule change to allow a secret ballot? If there is evidence of Donald Trump's guilt, but public opinion on conviction and removal is hovering in the mid 50's, how are the Democratic senators going to know whether a secret ballot will give Republicans cover to vote guilty or give them cover to protect DT from his crimes? V.R., Oxford, NC
A: This is actually pretty easy to answer, we would say. To start with, the Democrats' #1 objective is to get Donald Trump out of the White House. Everything else is secondary, and just about any sacrifices will be made if they lead to that end result.
Meanwhile, don't forget that the senators (and their aides) talk to one another. This happens in the Senate chamber, but also in the Senate cafeteria over bean soup, and in the elevators, and in the senators' offices. So, the Democrats will have a very good idea as to whether or not the secret ballot will make the difference in convicting Trump. And if it will, they would take that deal in a heartbeat. If it won't, then they would compel all the Republicans to stand up and publicly announce their votes, even if it does put Doug Jones in a delicate spot.
Q: On Oct. 3, you noted how the Republicans had less of a problem getting rid of Richard Nixon because Gerald Ford was clean. Are you forgetting Spiro Agnew, who was forced out of office on a plea bargain? If push comes to shove, couldn't the same thing happen with Pence? Unlike the president, there is no Dept. of Justice guidance against indicting a vice-president, as the Agnew precedent shows. P.M., Grahamstown, South Africa
A: We certainly didn't forget Agnew, but we don't think the parallels between him and Pence are strong. Agnew got busted for tax evasion, which is a very provable crime (it's also how the feds got Al Capone). Further, Agnew's situation began to unravel well before Nixon's did. Pence may well be exposed in the Ukraine scandal, but it's not likely that he's left the evidence behind for a slam-dunk criminal case, if only because he's too shrewd for that. Further, if evidence of clear-cut criminal misconduct does exist, it would surely implicate Trump as well. So, it's hard to fashion a plausible timeline where Pence gets charged, put on trial, and is forced from office via conviction or resignation, all before Trump is impeached and convicted.
Q: It looks like Mike Pence could get caught up in the impeachment storm, but I would think that impeaching him and potentially placing Pelosi as the next-in-line for the Presidency would not look very good. If an impeachment inquiry opens for Pence, could Pelosi potentially agree not to accept the Presidency if it fell to her as a way of: (1) eliminating a supposed conflict and (2) getting Republicans in the Senate to agree to a fair trial? P.F., Fairbanks, AK
A: The Constitution contains no provision for declining the presidency if it devolves upon you, so she would have to accept it if that happened. It's possible she could game the system in various ways, of course. She could agree to resign immediately after appointing, say, Susan Collins as VP. Alternatively, the Speaker of the House does not actually need to be a member of that body. So, Pelosi could temporarily give up the speakership to, say, Collins, and then once Collins was elevated to the Oval Office, could reassume the post.
That said, we don't think Pelosi would agree to participate in any such schemes. No matter how she did it, the lesson would be that the Constitution is merely a series of inconvenient hurdles to be worked around, and not a set of rules whose letter and spirit should be followed as best as is possible. The Democrats have been very critical of the Republicans for acting in a manner consistent with the former sentiment, and if they turned around and did the same, they would look like hypocrites. On top of that, Pelosi would very much like the opportunity to fire off a boatload of executive orders undoing everything Donald Trump did. So, the smart money says that Pelosi does not use potential resignation shenanigans as a bargaining chip, and that in the unlikely case she is elevated to the top job, she keeps it.
Q: As per the New York Times editorial of September 30th, "Why Trump Tweeted About Civil War," aren't there laws on the books about sedition and inciting to riot? Why doesn't somebody charge Trump (and these other crazies) with committing crimes when they talk this way in very public forums? M.B., Pittsboro, NC
Q: Given Trump's propensity for throwing around accusations that clearly affect somebody's reputation in a damaging way (Biden is corrupt, etc), at what point does he cross the line and could be credibly sued for slander (or libel if his Twitter meltdowns are considered written statements). Seems like he's way over the line, even when the targets of his ire are public figures. But maybe I'm biased because I believe in facts and reality... A.L.S., Bellevue, WA
A: We put these two questions together because of their obvious similarities. There are three things that are largely keeping Trump safe when it comes to these sorts of misdeeds. The first is that the bar that needs to be cleared in such cases is very, very high. For sedition, one has to actively facilitate the use of force against the United States; it's not enough to hint or suggest. For slander/libel, it's a little more complicated, but it basically requires that the person knew (or should have known) that what they were saying/writing was false, that they said/wrote it anyhow, and that the person or persons targeted were damaged by the false information.
The second thing that protects Trump is that he clearly has some awareness of the relevant laws, and he is careful to stay pretty squarely on the right side of them. For example, his tweet about "civil war" was actually him quoting someone else (the "Christian" pastor Robert Jeffress), which gives the President an extra layer of protection. Similarly, when Trump attacks people with dubious claims of misconduct, he targets public figures like the Clintons and the Bidens. The bar for slander/libel against public figures is even higher than the already-high bar for slander/libel against private citizens.
The third thing that protects Trump, at least from getting in trouble for sedition, is that it is a criminal offense. As we've been reminded regularly over the past year, the Dept. of Justice decided that presidents cannot be prosecuted criminally while they are in office. Civil suits are possible (ask Bill Clinton and Paula Jones), though, and it would not be a complete surprise if someone went after Trump civilly for slander or libel, even if they did not expect to win, just so they could embarrass him.
Actually, someone actually thought of that and sued Trump for defamation. A woman named Summer Zervos claimed that Trump groped and kissed her against her will. He called her a liar and she sued him in a New York State court for defamation. Trump responded by claiming that presidents can't be sued in state court. A lower court disagreed with him and in March of this year an appeals court agreed with the lower court. That case is ongoing with no resolution in sight.
Q: I see the constant echo-like narrative in the media that swing-district Democrats are terrified to impeach lest they get booted from office in the next election, including frequent references to that on this site. Can you please explain why anyone, let alone everyone, thinks this narrative makes any sense? K.C., Portland, OR
A: "Terrified" may be a little strong, since many of these folks have ultimately gotten into line behind the impeachment inquiry. In any case, though, these members are relying on votes from people who are not yet squarely in the Democratic fold. They could reasonably risk alienating such voters, causing them to say, "I guess both parties are filled with dirty-trick-playing swamp creatures." There's also, for lack of a better term, a behavioral bias in play here. Someone who just got elected to a big, important job, and who has been on that job for well less than a year, is likely to be cautious about taking any sort of big, controversial position.
Beyond that sort of hypothesizing, though, we have hard data that tells us what's going on, because we know exactly which members of the House only backed the impeachment inquiry reluctantly, and which of them still haven't gotten on board. And so, we know that except for Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), the foot-draggers are all swing-district representatives, many of them elected for the first time in 2018.
Q: Aren't the president's children—Ivanka, Eric, and Don Jr.—making money in foreign countries? How on earth can this guy be so hypocritical? I guess I'm not surprised he's hypocritical, but why aren't the Democrats—especially Joe Biden—shouting: "Hey, you guys are doing it! It doesn't make it right, but you're the super-black pot calling the kettle gray." A.Z., Asheville, NC
A: There are two ways to answer this question. The first is that Trump in particular, and the modern GOP in general, have not had much of a problem with hypocritical behavior, and their voters have not seen fit to call them on that behavior. It's true that the Democrats could try, but any verbiage they might use in this case—including your proposed phrasing—would carry the risk that what voters hear is, "Everybody's doing it, including the Bidens!" and not "We're not doing it, but even if we were, you're doing it worse, so you're a hypocrite!"
The second—and this is how Trump would answer your question, if you were talking to him—is that he's not complaining about the fact that Hunter Biden made money in a foreign country. The "crime" the President is focused upon is Joe Biden using his political power to protect Hunter from prosecution for alleged crimes committed in Ukraine. Trump also suspects that other sorts of nefarious behavior took place. Needless to say, the Donald's sense of things does not square with the known facts, and is rooted primarily in false information that was fed to the administration by people who are not America's friends. Nonetheless, this is how Trump would explain that his kids are different from Biden's.
Q: Do you expect the current flurry of impeachment subpoenas, and the administration's blustering about submitting documents or appearing before Congressional committees, to impact the rulings of court cases already in process involving refusals to honor subpoenas, i.e. Don McGahn, Hope Hicks and others? N.D., Santa Fe, NM
A: As we often note, we are not lawyers. So, we are happy to be corrected on any points of law that we might get a little (or a lot) wrong. That said, our answer to your question is: absolutely, no doubt about it. The lawyers representing the Democrats in those other cases will point out that the Trump administration resists all subpoenas, and that the motivation is thus not any sort of legitimate concern, but merely obstructionism.
A: We've written a fair bit about these issues, and we're right on board with you that it is indeed a form of poll tax. And not only is that true in terms of the letter of the law, we also believe it's true in terms of the spirit. That is to say, the laws that forbade poll taxes, or literacy tests, or grandfather clauses, or other such maneuvers were meant to stop people in power from putting up obstacles that interfere with their opponents' right to vote. Anyone who has looked at voter ID laws recognizes that the official explanation for them—that they prevent voter fraud—is nonsensical, and that the real purpose is to make it harder for certain groups (the poor, people of color, women, students, etc.) to vote. Just coincidentally, those groups all skew Democratic.
In the interest of covering both sides of the issue, we will say that if you posed your question to a voter ID advocate—say, Kris Kobach—he would say that the fee is incidental, and is not directly tied to voting, and so is not a poll tax. He might even make an analogy, something along the lines of, "You need shoes to walk into your polling place, but nobody says that the cost of the shoes is a poll tax." In addition, some states try to create two degrees of separation between voting and paying money, wherein you can vote "for free," and you can get ID "for free," but you have to pay for the documents (e.g., birth certificate) necessary for getting the ID, and thus necessary for voting. Again, we don't buy into any of these arguments or maneuvers, but we present them for your consideration.
Q: I am not sure I buy your statement that "if the Chinese do get involved in the 2020 election, it will not be on the side of the red team." If Xi Jinping wants to maintain the current decline of U.S. influence in the world, why would he not follow the Putin doctrine to elect Trump to create a dysfunctional U.S.A. despite his personal distaste of Trump? J.A., Woodstock, VA
A: You may be right, only Xi Jinping knows what's in the mind of Xi Jinping. However, the trade war is certainly hurting China in the short term. And the underlying notion of the trade war—that there is a trade imbalance that needs to be fixed—will hurt China in the long term. Those effects are much more direct than something more abstract, like encouraging dysfunction in America.
And so, our view is that Xi would much prefer to deal with a Democrat. At very least, from his point of view, he would be able to hold real negotiations with them, and would be able to trust that they are speaking in good faith, and will not do a 180-degree turn the next day. At most, he might be able to get them to stop worrying about trade imbalances so much. That would not be the best thing for the U.S., long-term, but, of course, that is not Xi's concern.
Q: We have all seen various versions of the county maps of the 2016 presidential election results (most recently the inaccurate "Impeach This" map from Trump) portraying a sea of red across the country. Obviously, these maps don't take into account population density. But what about Alaska? Most of the maps don't show either Alaska or Hawaii, but of the few that do, some show Alaska entirely red and some show it mostly blue (but none show Alaska at the same scale as the contiguous states). I understand that Alaska doesn't have counties (neither does Louisiana, strictly speaking), but why the color difference? If Alaska is mostly blue, that would offset at least some of the red in the contiguous states due to its huge size. J.S., Yreka, CA
A: Obviously, you don't see Trump or other Republicans tweeting maps like the one you propose, because it would not suit their narrative. However, in defense of mapmakers and other folks who are trying to give an honest account of the 2016 election, there are three other reasons as well:
- Alaska is actually much bigger than people think it is. Because it's been shrunk to fit in the corner
of U.S. maps for so long, most Americans believe it is a little smaller than Texas, when it's actually
The ironic consequence here is that if someone did produce a completely correct, and to scale, map like the one you propose, it would be derided by some as liberal propaganda. At very least, many, many people would think it was incorrect.
- Sometimes, these electoral maps are done by county. But, as you point out, Alaska doesn't have counties.
Other times, these electoral maps are done by congressional district. But, Alaska is one giant congressional
district (which is why you sometimes see an all-red Alaska).
- Since there are no counties and there is only one congressional district, the next best option is to use cities and boroughs. However, even that skews things to an extent. Because Alaska is so large, has such a small populace, and has no counties, the good people there have divided the state up into enormous cities, such that all of the territory has an official, legal status. The largest city in the contiguous U.S. is Jacksonville, FL, at 747 square miles. By contrast, Alaska has four cities larger than that, with the 2,870.3-square-mile Sitka topping the list. For comparison's sake, New York City is just 302.6 square miles.
Anyhow, with those qualifiers in mind, here is the map you requested, using Alaska's cities in place of Congressional districts or counties. Again, using cities skews it a little, but not as badly as the alternatives:
You're right, that does make things look at least a little better for the Democrats.
Remember that tomorrow, we will have a posting made up of reader comments. Last week, we ran only comments that were basically in harmony with an impeachment-friendly worldview. That is because that is all we got, excepting one message that was just a forward of a basically phony essay allegedly written by Hyram F. Suddfluffel. We don't want to be an echo chamber here, and we are happy to run comments that are critical of us, or of impeachment, or that take a stance adversarial to something we have written. But we can only run such comments if we get them.
If you have a question about politics, civics, history, etc. you would like us to answer on the site, please send it to email@example.com, and include your initials and city of residence. If you have a comment about the site or one of the items therein, please send it to firstname.lastname@example.org and include your initials and city of residence in case we decide to publish it. If you spot any typos or other errors on the site that we should fix, please let us know at email@example.com.
Email a link to a friend or share:
---The Votemaster and Zenger
Oct04 Digging the Hole Deeper, Part II: China
Oct04 Digging the Hole Deeper, Part III: The IRS
Oct04 Let the Table Pounding Begin
Oct04 Biden's Q3 Fundraising Is Underwhelming
Oct04 Warren Making Inroads with Black Voters
Oct04 Lieberman Running for Senate
Oct03 House Democrats Will Subpoena White House Documents
Oct03 Pence Was Involved in Pressuring Ukraine
Oct03 State Dept. Inspector General Spoke to Congressional Committees Yesterday
Oct03 Support for Impeachment Is Growing
Oct03 Trump's Impeachment Inquiry Will Be More Divisive than Nixon's or Clinton's
Oct03 Justice Dept. Tells White House to Preserve Records
Oct03 Poll: Only 40% of Republicans Believe Trump Discussed Biden with Ukrainian Leader
Oct03 Judge Upholds Iowa's Voter ID Law
Oct03 Sanders Has Heart Stents Inserted
Oct03 Yang Pulled in $10 Million in the Third Quarter
Oct02 Pompeo to Democrats: Shove It
Oct02 A Preview of What's to Come?
Oct02 How Might Senators Vote in an Impeachment Trial?
Oct02 Trump Administration Has a Good Day in Court
Oct02 The Farmers Are Restless
Oct02 Q3 Fundraising Numbers Are Trickling In
Oct02 Lewandowski Pooh-Poohs Senate Run
Oct01 A Bad Day for Team Trump
Oct01 A Bad Poll for Team Trump
Oct01 Maybe Trump Really Doesn't Get It
Oct01 Two Lies and One Truth
Oct01 Three Democratic Campaigns in Trouble
Oct01 "The Body" for President?
Oct01 Two More GOP Congressmen to Exit
Sep30 Pelosi Anoints Schiff
Sep30 Whistleblowergate Shakes Up the Trump Administration
Sep30 Many People May Have Heard Trump's Call to Zelensky
Sep30 Poll: Nearly Two-Thirds of Americans See Whistleblowergate as Serious
Sep30 Poll: Majority Approve Impeachment Inquiry
Sep30 Poll: It's Biden & Sanders in Nevada, Biden in South Carolina
Sep30 Impeachment Inquiry Is Shaking Up the Democratic Race
Sep30 Two Republican Governors Back Impeachment Inquiry
Sep30 If Trump Is Impeached, There Will Be a Trial
Sep30 State Dept. Is Investigating Hillary's E-mails
Sep30 Democratic Debate in October Will Be on One Night
Sep29 Sunday Mailbag, Impeachment Edition
Sep28 Saturday Q&A, Impeachment Edition
Sep27 Thar She Blows!
Sep27 Maguire Speaks Much, Says Little in Testimony before House Intelligence Committee
Sep27 Support for Impeachment Is Growing
Sep27 Wanna Bet Trump Gets Impeached?
Sep27 While You Weren't Looking
Sep27 Issa to Challenge Hunter in California