#Tenn Jon | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

tcm · 4 years ago

Text

Child’s Play: The Juvenile Academy Award By Jessica Pickens

It can feel a little awkward when a child is told they did a better job at work than an adult. That was the case with the Academy Awards at least. At 9 years old, Jackie Cooper was the first child nominated for a Best Actor at the 4th Annual Academy Awards. Nominated for SKIPPY (’31), Cooper was competing against Richard Dix, Fredric March, Adolphe Menjou and Lionel Barrymore. It was Barrymore who took home the award that night for his performance in A FREE SOUL (‘31).

Three years later, 6-year-old Shirley Temple looked like a serious contender for a Best Actress nomination at the 7th Academy Awards. This same year, there was heartburn that Bette Davis hadn’t received an official nomination for OF HUMAN BONDAGE (’34). As a compromise, Temple’s autobiography notes that a special Juvenile Academy Award was created, “In grateful recognition of her outstanding contribution to screen entertainment during the year 1934.” Claudette Colbert took home the Best Actress award that year for IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT.

The juvenile statue awarded to the young actors was half the size of the regular Academy Award; standing about seven inches tall. Temple was the first to receive an award that was presented 10 times to 12 honorees over the next 26 years. The juveniles ranged in ages 6 to 18.

Shirley Temple, 1934 at the 7th Annual Academy Awards

As Temple sat bored at the Academy Awards, she was surprised to hear her name announced during the ceremony. Host and humorist Irvin S. Cobb called her “one giant among the troupers.” As she grabbed her miniature-sized award, she asked, “Mommy may we go home now?” according to her autobiography. “You all aren’t old enough to know what all this is about,” Cobb told Temple. Shirley’s mother told her that she received the award for “quantity, not quality,” because Temple starred in seven films in 1934.

In 1985, Temple received a full-sized award, as she felt the juvenile actors deserved a regulation-sized award like everyone else, according to Claude Jarman, Jr.’s autobiography.

Mickey Rooney and Deanna Durbin, 1938 at the 11th Annual Academy Awards:

The second time the special award was presented was to two juvenile actors: Mickey Rooney, 18, and Deanna Durbin, 17. They received the award for “their significant contribution in bringing to the screen the spirit and personification of youth and as juvenile players setting a high standard of ability and achievement.”

“Whatever that meant,” Rooney commented in his autobiography on the award.

This was Durbin’s only recognition from the Academy. The following year, Rooney received his first adult nomination for BABES IN ARMS (’39). In total, he received four other competitive awards as an adult, and received one Honorary Award in 1983 in recognition of “50 years of versatility in a variety of memorable film performances.”

Judy Garland, 1939 at the 12th Annual Academy Awards:

Judy Garland, 17, was presented her Juvenile Academy Award by her frequent co-star Mickey Rooney. Garland received her award for “her outstanding performance as a screen juvenile during the past year” for her performances in BABES IN ARMS (’39) and THE WIZARD OF OZ (’39). Garland wouldn’t be recognized with a nomination by the Academy again until her 1954 performance in A STAR IS BORN. Garland reported losing the Juvenile Award in 1958, and it was replaced by the Academy at her own expense.

Margaret O’Brien, 1944 at the 17th Annual Academy Awards

Margaret O’Brien, 7, received the Juvenile Academy Award “for outstanding child actress of 1944” for the film MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS (’44). When Margaret O’Brien received her Oscar, she said she wasn’t really that interested in it at the time. “I was more excited about seeing Bob Hope. I was more interested in meeting him than the Oscar that night,” she said, quoted by her biographer.

In 1958, O’Brien’s award was lost. Her housekeeper, Gladys, took the Juvenile Academy Award home to polish and didn’t return. A short time after, Gladys was put in the hospital for a heart condition and the award was forgotten. When Margaret reached out later about the award, the maid had moved, according to her biographer.

Nearly 40 years later, two baseball memorabilia collectors — Steve Meimand and Mark Nash— returned the award to O’Brien in 1995. The men had bought it at a swap meet in Pasadena, according to a Feb. 9, 1995, news brief in the Lodi New-Sentinel. “I never thought it would be returned,” she said in 1995. “I had looked for it for so many years in the same type of places where it was found.” In 2001, O’Brien donated her Oscar to the Sacramento AIDS Foundation.

Peggy Ann Garner, 1945 at the 18th Annual Academy Awards

After appearing in films since 1938, Peggy Ann Garner’s breakout role was in the film adaptation of A TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN (’45). That year at the Academy Awards, 14-year-old Garner was recognized with the Juvenile Award “for the outstanding child actress of 1945.” It was an unexpected honor for Garner, who was confused why she was asked to sit in an aisle seat. She thought it was a mistake when her name was announced, according to Dickie Moore’s book on child actors.

Claude Jarman Jr., 1946 at the 19th Annual Academy Awards

Claude Jarman Jr. was plucked from his home in Knoxville, Tenn. and thrust into stardom when director Clarence Brown selected him for the lead role in THE YEARLING (’46). Jarman wrote in his autobiography that he gave a brief speech saying it was a thrilling moment and “This is about the most exciting thing that can happen to anybody.” However, later admitted that at age 12 the significance of the award escaped him. Following Shirley Temple’s example, Jarman also later received a full-sized Academy Award.

Ivan Jandl, 1948 at the 21st Annual Academy Awards

Ivan Jandl received the Juvenile Academy Award in his only American film, making him the first Czech actor to receive an Academy Award. At age 12, Jandl was recognized for his “outstanding juvenile performance of 1948 in THE SEARCH (’48).” The film was one of only five films Jandl starred in. Jandl was not permitted by the Czechoslovakia government to travel to the United States to accept his award, which was accepted on his behalf by Fred Zinnemann, who directed THE SEARCH.

Bobby Driscoll, 1949 at the 22nd Annual Academy Awards

Bobby Driscoll received the award for “the outstanding juvenile actor of 1949” after appearing in the film-noir THE WINDOW (’49), as well as his performance in the Disney film SO DEAR TO MY HEART (’48). “I’ve never been so thrilled in my life,” 13-year-old Driscoll said when he accepted the award.

Jon Whiteley and Vincent Winter, 1954 at the 27th Annual Academy Awards

Scottish actors Jon Whiteley, 10, and Vincent Winter, 7, co-starred as brothers in THE LITTLE KIDNAPPERS (’53). The co-stars were awarded for their “outstanding juvenile performances in The Little Kidnappers.” Whiteley’s parents wouldn’t let him attend the award’s ceremony, so it was mailed to him. "I remember when it arrived, hearing it was supposed to be something special, I opened the box and I was very disappointed. I thought it was an ugly statue," Whiteley said in a 2014 interview.

Vincent Winter was also not present for the award, so Tommy Rettig accepted the award on behalf of both actors.

Hayley Mills, 1960 at the 33rd Annual Academy Awards

The last Juvenile Academy Award was award to Hayley Mills, 14, in 1960 for her role in POLLYANNA (’60). The award was presented by the first winner of the Juvenile Award, Shirley Temple. Mills was unable to attend, and it was accepted on her behalf by fellow Disney star Annette Funicello.

In a 2018 interview, Mills said she didn’t know she had received it until it arrived at her home. Mills was in boarding school in England at the time of the ceremony. “I didn’t know anything about it until it turned up. Like, ‘Oh, that’s sweet. What’s that?’ I was told, ‘Well, this is a very special award,’ but it was quite a few years before I began to appreciate what I had,” she said in a 2018 interview.

The Aftermath

Throughout the tenure of the honorary Juvenile Academy Award, other children were still occasionally nominated, including Bonita Granville, 14, for THESE THREE (’36); Brandon de Wilde, 11, for SHANE (’53); Sal Mineo, 17, for REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE (’55) and Patty McCormack, 11, for THE BAD SEED (’56).

Once Patty Duke, 16, won the Academy Award for Best Actress in a Supporting Role in 1963 for THE MIRACLE WORKER (’62), the honor was discontinued. Following Duke, Tatum O’Neal, 11, received the award for Best Supporting Actress for PAPER MOON (’73).

In recent years, there has been discussion about bringing the award back. In a 2017 Hollywood Reporter article, the argument was made that after the discontinuation of the award, fewer children have been recognized by the Academy. The performance of Sunny Pawar in LION (2016) wasn’t nominated, which was viewed as a snub, according to a 2017 Hollywood Reporter article. Other children haven been nominated in major categories, like Quvenzhane Wallis for BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD (2012), which to date makes her the youngest nominee for Best Actress in a Leading Role, and Jacob Tremblay in ROOM (2015). But the last time a child has won a competitive award was Anna Paquin for THE PIANO (1993).

#child actors #juveniles #Academy Awards #Oscars #child awards #Academy history #film history #Shirley Temple #Mickey Rooney #Judy Garland #Claude Jarman Jr #TCM #Turner Classic Movies #Jessica Pickens

119 notes · View notes

dorinaleona · 3 years ago

Text

I wrote my own will

Miutan itthagytam ezt az undorito helyet es valaki elolvassa a jegyzeteimet! Es ha esetleg korabban megyek el a tervezettnel!

Hello! Nem tudom ki lehetsz az. Vagy a legjobb baratom, vagy a szerelmem, vagy a csaladom kozul valaki. Passzolom. De udvozollek a “vegrendeletemben”

Nem tudom mi tortent, nagyon nagyon remelem, hogy nem volt fajdalmas halalom. Attol rettegek.

Akar ki vagy, ennek a masolatat add at kerlek anyaeknak!

Halljatok selejtek! Itt vagyok hee, nem mentem el. Azt sosem tennem! Mindig itt leszek csak mar kevesebb helyet foglalok.😂 Anya, ha eddig nem sikerult lefogyni, mostmar engedd el mert lenyegtelen😂Apa, addig kisertelek meg nem veszel nekem egy Macbookot😂Jani, csinaltasd meg a tetkokat amiket akartunk( ha meg nem csinaltattuk meg).

Na most, van par kikotesem a temetesemmel kapcsolatosan. En sosem viccelodtem azzal, hogy hamvasztast szeretnek, de ha esetleg ez megsem jon ossze, akkor nem szeretnek nyitott koporsos temetest! En vilag eletemben sokat nevettem, nem akarom hogy ugy lassatok hogy mar nem nevetek! Szeretnem, ha vagy napraforgok kozeleben temetnetek, vagy olyan sirkovem lenne amin napraforgo van.

Nem akarom hogy sirjatok. Nevessetek, most az egyszer megengedem, hogy kibeszeljetek. Minden JO kozos emleket meseljetek el. Nem szeretnem ha feketeben lennetek. A fekete az en szinem, oltozzetek szinesbe!

Ha valami gagyi zenet tesztek be, kiserteni foglak titeket egy eleten at!

A temetes utani idokre vonatkozoan is szeretnek par dolgot. Ja meg az elottire is. Nem szeretnek virrasztast. Hulyesegnek tartom.

Utana pedig szeretnem ha minden menne ugy, mielott elmentem. Csinaljatok ugy a dolgaitokat ahogy elotte. Nem szeretnem ha gyaszolnatok. Senki se tegye mert ugyis latni fogom!

Eljetek az eleteteket, attol figgetlenul hogy az enyem megallt a tietek megy tovabb!

Ne gyertek sokszor a siromhoz!

Higyjetek el nekem a legszarabb ott sirni latni titeket. Szeretnem, ha valaki annyi szal mu napraforgot tenne a siromhoz, ahany evesen meghaltam.

Hamar a kornal tarok, miutan elmentem ne unnepeljetek a szulinapomat. Amugyis utaltam, hogy egyre oregebb leszek. Vegre megallt es nem oregszem tovabb.

De igazabol ami az egeszben a legfontosabb. Ne hagyjatok el egymast! Kurva kemeny lesz ez az idoszak, szuksegetek lesz egymasra! Szeretlek titeket. Dorina. 2021.06.23

#afterimgone #hungary #végrendelet

5 notes · View notes

theblackportlanders · 4 years ago

Photo

I've been writing about this mural for several weeks. There's so much about it that I've been trying to say. It's about us. And the history within it, I take that so seriously. Those words are still coming. Meanwhile a mural ... BabeSis, Aunts Tenn, Ms. W, Miss Choomby ... & In Our company .. is up on SE Grand & Ash in Portland OR. This was made within sight of this deep feeling knowledge I have about Black girls’ sight and -self- visionary capacities. How these visions, these forms of sight, show themselves to us and how our sight-doing makes presents, pasts and futures.. fans out worlds of change. Plural. This is reference and instruction. This work was made in sight of and in dedication to women and girls in my family. My mom is here, a sister, my aunties in Memphis, my family history is on this wall. My grandparents’ names are here .. and the story of my aunts, the seven Lee sisters, Black girls and young women, who together during the sit-in movement in Memphis in the 1960s were called the most arrested family in the country. These were Black girls - teaching a world that told them it did not want them - through their actions and bravery, their vision. Black girls, visionaries. And they still are today. I stand in the wake of their and so many Black girls’ visions. We all do. So this is in sight of them. This is in sight of and in dedication to Black women and girls in Portland. Lameah, Black girl artist .. AnAkA, sister, angel, storyteller.. Joyce Harris, educator and founder of Portland’s groundbreaking Black Educational Center, Mama Makini .. Chabre Vickers .. Oregon Supreme Court Justice Adrienne Nelson.. artist and poet Renee Mitchell .. all those imaged here .. and all those not imaged but here nonetheless. There is something about the line of Black women’s presence here, something close and made and done and continuing. Some ongoing way of life that regards itself and builds with its heart steadily. There's an ongoing courage in and of Black girls, Black women, and Black femmes here - and everywhere - that holds itself in the midst of. I see you and been seeing you. There is something to us. This work feels close. And more words will be said. I want to give deep thanks to the two Black women poets who said yes to my ask to open and close this mural with their words. The first night after we began mounting the images I stayed up all night with my brain open to everything .. and it said the mural needed words from a Black woman in Portland. And so from the title poem of Samiya Bashir’s 2017 work, her Oregon Book Award winning Field Theories .. .. What is a thing of beauty/ if not us?.. A mirror cupped in the hand, these words tllt .. to catch .. and regard us .. ring-shining our lights right back to us. A gift. An illumination. Leading us imaginatively out of the mural, yet right back in. Saying .. here .. here .. here. Looking .. and gesturing towards our lookings. Written, painted as they are here, it is as much sight as seeing. Thank you so much, Samiya. And given to me framed by a dear friend, Nikky Finney's "Instruction, Final: To Brown Poets from Black Girl with Silver Leica" has become for me what I call a fairy god story or fairy god poem. I felt - feel! - so seen by this poem and its title, not just my adult self but my Black girl photographer self, herself beginning to teach me at 14 what I was to know .. finding her own form of Instruction .. and what her teaching still tells me, remembers me to me of our purpose and our ways. Our eyes - together - still opening, shutter still catching, still letting the light Black in. Worlds open in the visual and vision-ing field. Like these portraits, surfacing in the black, what emerges here? Who sees Black girl image makers, teaching, learning, telling? What do we feel-hear in that gleaning between vision and the image, feeling and photograph? The language of “Instruction, Final: To Brown Poets from Black Girl with Silver Leica” sees me, specifically as a Black girl Black woman photographer as almost no other written language has. It calls me to me, speaks of Black girls and Black women’s vision-making .. world-telling .. Instruction .. photographic, visual spoken, told, felt, recounted, recalled, written, danced, passed up, lived, dreamed.. and more.. and otherwise.. always. It tells me to “Be camera..” and my own “black-eyed aperture.” It charges me to “Watch your language!” Thank you, Ms. Finney!! Thank you for the Instruction. I am ! still listening .. learning. We are always looking! With the words of these Black women poets a living frame to these portraits was made and a truth said .. and I am so thankful. What a gift and excitement to have work set against the work of these poets. I am still not over it. Thank you to my friend and poet Fork Burke, all the way in Switzerland, who when I emailed her at 4:23 AM on July 3rd asking “.. is quoting a poet in this way as an inscription/epigraph before a mural an acceptable or common practice?” responded within minutes.. ! “I think you need not question if it’s a common practice or not- it comes through you- it exists now.” .. And so the vision.. the reach of process.. the reach of our care. .. And so I reached out to Ms. Finney .. and ..and ..and.. Thank you, Fork!! We really be needing us. So this is also you. Thank you to the Portland artists who saw this vision up with me. Thank you to Eatcho who reached out asking me to do this and whose heart and dedication was the fire that soldered the many pieces. Thank you for your care, lift, this spark! Thank you Gage of Forest For The Trees! Thanks for your kindness and care and steady through.. and the printing and the printing and more printing. Thank you for asking me, "Are you happy?" that evening working at the mural when I was trying to listen to myself and the work, to really hear it. Eatcho and Gage, thank you for listening to my vision .. for your encouragement and your teaching. Thank you Matt! of FFTT for all your support. Thank you Ash Street Projects for hosting the mural. Thank you to Alex Chiu, Jeff Sheridan, Buckley, Jon Stommel .. artists in community who came through to paint, fix, wheat paste, and encourage. Thank y'all for your care in this process and bringing me into this mural life. It's a wonder. Thank you to all. And ... ! *Miss Choomby is from Margaret Walker’s “For My People.” .. so thanks always to her. Long the line! Love, Intisar Abioto

#theblackportlanders #forestforthetreesnw #fieldtheories #samiyabashir #nickyfinney #eatcho #Portland Oregon #intisarabioto

12 notes · View notes

journeythrough-impossiblethings · 6 years ago

Text

Impossible Things and Strange New Worlds

Jon Symbiont – #Bookworm – A worm – Star Trek: Enterprise, Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: The Original Series, Star Trek: The Animated Series, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Generations, Star Trek: First Contact, Star Trek: Insurrection, Star Trek: Nemesis, Trekverse / Star Trek: Remake Film, Star Trek: Into Darkness, Star Trek: Beyond, the Kelvin Timeline / The Mirror Universe

The Jon symbiont was born on the planet Trill in the year 2128. They were 22-32 during the Enterprise NX-01’s mission (Star Trek: Enterprise). Their host at the time was Tenn, who was 35-45 at the time.

Jon was the only offspring of the Don symbiont. Their parent symbiont has had a total of five hosts, two of whom had spouses. Mina Don, the first host, had a husband who was an unjoined Trill named Nathan, and they had a son named Quin, who is Jon’s brother. After Mina was Jasper, who had a wife named Alison, and they had a daughter, Jon’s sister, named Hailey. After that, there was Carrie, Clara and Yasmin.

Jon so far has had a total of eight hosts, as well as being briefly joined to a wolf, later named Eyolf, between his second and third hosts, and his sixth host was briefly merged with that same wolf due to a transporter malfunction. His hosts were Tenn, Beyrd, Eyolf (the wolf), Smyth, Frazyr, Sylvest, Kara, Karolf (Kara and Eyolf transporter malfunction), Myrln, and Jonas.

The Jon symbiont had only one biological offspring, named Blume, who was later joined to the son of one of Jon’s hosts with his wife, Anna. The symbionts Bae and Nel were also joined to sons of Anna and Jon’s hosts. The only symbiont to have had hosts before Anna and Jon’s sons was Bae, who had two hosts, one was a female named Erosa and the other was a male named Coop, before being joined to the son of Anna and Beyrd Jon, Tavin. Bae's host after Tavin was named Wilbur. Anna had nine (so far) biological children with various hosts of Jon, and has adopted ten children with him in addition to that, as well as of course Jon’s own biological offspring who was joined to one of their sons, and the two unrelated symbionts also joined to their sons, and their subsequent hosts. Kara Jon also had a daughter with a version of Anna from an alternate reality (referred to as Sean or “Sean II”), named Rosalyn. More details about the children of Jon’s hosts will be found below.

Anna Winden was married to the symbiont, and by extension, all of Jon’s hosts, despite the taboo against reassociation that could get Jon exiled and not allowed to have any more hosts. They kept it a secret from the Symbiosis Commission and other Trill until the law was repealed during the time of Jon’s sixth host, Kara. Anna is a Fae, an alien seemingly native to Earth despite the knowledge of the species being mostly obscured to humans, the dominant species of the planet. The Fae are an intelligent, sentient race, and seem to be highly advanced, though they like to keep hidden. Anna was originally a human who got turned into a fae. She has only met one other fae, her late husband named Finn, who was the one who turned her into a fae by accident. He was supposedly born as a fae, as far as Anna knows.

Tenn Jon – #Jon-I – David Tennant – Star Trek: Enterprise, Trekverse

Tenn Antinem was born on the planet Trill in 2116, and was 35 during the time of Enterprise NX-01’s mission (Star Trek: Enterprise). He was joined to Jon in the 2144 at the age of 28, and was the first host of the Jon symbiont.

He was born to Basil and Idris Antinem. He became a history teacher before being joined to the symbiont Jon. After Tenn was joined, he met and married Anna Winden. They had three children together, two daughters named Diana and Connor, and a son named Lowell. They are half Trill and half Fae. Tenn Jon continued to be a history teacher after being joined. Tenn died in the year 2224 at the age of 108. He was joined to Jon for 80 years. Before his death (of old-age), he and Anna got to meet Beyrd, who would be selected as Jon’s new host.

Beyrd Jon – #Jon-II – Peter Capaldi – Star Trek, Trekverse

Beyrd Cae was born on the planet Trill in the year 2184. He is joined to Jon in 2224 at the age of 40, which is fairly old for a host to be first joined.

His parents were Gerald and Nancy Cae. Beyrd is a Trill musician and got a Doctorate in Music before being joined. Just before he was joined to Jon, he met the previous host, Tenn, and Jon’s wife, Anna, who wanted to continue to be married to Jon. Beyrd and Anna went on one date before he was joined to Jon. After he was joined with the Jon symbiont, he and Anna got married. They kept it a secret from the Symbiosis Commission and other Trills because of the taboo against reassociation that could result in him being exiled and the Jon symbiont no longer allowed to have any hosts after him. He and Anna had a son named Tavin. Tavin was half Trill and half Fae. Tavin was joined to the Bae symbiont, who previously had two other hosts, the first one was Erosa and the second was Coop.

Beyrd and Anna crash-landed on a planet called Symarill in the year 2254, when Beyrd was 70. Beyrd was severely injured and there was no chance of him recovering. He couldn’t stay alive long enough for them to be rescued, but the symbiont was unharmed inside of him. Of course, if Beyrd dies and Jon doesn’t get a new host, Jon would die with him, but Beyrd and Anna were the only two on the planet and she couldn’t perform the operation on herself. There was an injured wolf nearby, and Anna helped heal the injured wolf and he agreed to host Jon, which kept Jon alive long enough for them to be rescued.

Eyolf – #Wolf-Jon – A wolf – Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: The Original Series, Star Trek: The Animated Series, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Generations, Star Trek: First Contact, Star Trek: Insurrection, Star Trek: Nemesis, Trekverse

The First of the Sentient Symarillion Wolves was born on the planet Symarill in the year 2250, and briefly joined to Jon in the year 2254. He is alive and with Anna and Jon for hundreds of years (throughout DISC, TOS/TAS, TNG/DS9/VOY).

The wolf didn’t have a name before he met Anna and Jon after they crash-landed on his home planet of Symarill. He was four years old when he met them. When he first met Anna, he was injured by the same meteors that made Jon and Anna’s ship crash, and it killed most of his pack. His parents, the pack alpha male and female, and his brother, were killed. He and his sister survived, but he didn’t know that at first. Anna found the wolf and she helped heal his injured leg and with his permission, he took on the Jon symbiont temporarily after Beyrd’s death, until they were able to be rescued. He was able to keep Jon alive long enough for the rescue ship to get there, and they were able to get Jon into his next host, Smyth, in enough time that it did not kill the wolf.

He was changed by the experience, though, smarter and completely loyal to Anna and Jon. He stayed with them, and they gave him the name Eyolf, which meant “Lucky Wolf.” He’s a very important part of their family. He helped them raise their children Aiden, Calder and adopted Changeling son Pete. He also had a family of his own with a female wolf from Symarill named Patience. They had five puppies together, three sons named Alfred, Albert, and David, and two daughters named Esme and Georgia. Anna and Jon helped them raise them, as well as his sister, her mate, and their children, who they discovered had survived the falling meteors when Anna, Eyolf and Smyth Jon first returned to the planet. Their children, their children’s mates, Eyolf’s sister and her mate’s children, and the family’s descendants are who go on to create an entire species of sentient wolves on Symarill who later become warp-capable and join the Federation. Anna, Jon and Eyolf still visit the planet often.

Anna, Smyth Jon, and Eyolf met versions of themselves from another reality. At the time it was the Doctor (The Twelfth Doctor) and Anna (fobwatched!Patience II). When Eyolf’s wolf body dies, they go back to that universe, where they meet the Twelfth Doctor again, as well as Sean I (Patience III), and HoloJohn (formerly fobwatched!Doctor’s personality that is really an alternate version of Jon, in this case taking the form of their current host, Smyth. He had a human body but his body died and they saved his consciousness inside of the TARDIS, their living ship, and she’s projecting him as a hologram. Twelve and John are both married to Anna, or Patience, who in this case is actually Sean), as well as Bill and Nardole, the Doctor’s companions at the time. Nardole has at least some robotic parts and John is a hologram, and the Doctor has been thinking about how to transfer John’s consciousness from inside the TARDIS to a robotic body, and he agrees to help them save Eyolf by trying the procedure on him first, and they successfully transferred Eyolf’s consciousness from his dying wolf body into a robotic wolf body. Eyolf stays with Anna and Jon for hundreds of years after that in his robotic wolf form.

Eyolf and Jon’s sixth host, Kara, were accidentally merged into one being, called Karolf, in a transporter accident and had to stay like that for several months before they were able to figure out how to reverse it.

Smyth Jon – #Jon-III – Eddie Redmayne – Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: The Original Series, Star Trek: The Animated Series, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Trekverse / Star Trek: Remake Film, Star Trek: Into Darkness, Star Trek: Beyond, the Kelvin Timeline

Smyth Artemis was born on the planet Trill in the year 2229 and he was joined to the Jon symbiont in the year 2254 at the age of 25. He was 27 during the Discovery’s mission (Star Trek: Discovery), 37-42 during the Enterprise NCC-1701’s five year mission (Star Trek: The Original Series, Star Trek: The Animated Series) and is 44-64 during Enterprise NCC-1701’s additional adventures and Enterprise NCC-1701-A’s mission (Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country).

Smyth was 29-34 during the Enterprise NCC-1701’s missions in the Kelvin Timeline (Star Trek, Star Trek: Into Darkness, Star Trek: Beyond)

His parents were Sydney and Verity Artemis. Due to the sudden death of Beyrd, Jon and Anna were unable to meet Smyth before the joining, but he adapted well anyway. After he was joined with the Jon symbiont, he and Anna also got married in private and they had two children together, identical twin sons named Aidan and Calder, and they adopted a third son, a changeling named Pete. Smyth is an astrozoologist with experience in stellar cartography, as well, and was on the Enterprise 1701 briefly in stellar cartography and in exobiology. He was a lieutenant in Starfleet at the time, and got as far as commander in his lifetime, but never wanted to be the captain of a Federation Starship, only his own small private one he has with his wife that is not much larger than a shuttlepod. Smyth Jon met Frazyr Hines, who would become Jon's next host, briefly before he died from an illness due to old age in the year 2349.

In my game on Star Trek Online, John Smith went to the academy with Chekov, and he becomes captain of the USS Ambrosius.

Frazyr Jon – #Jon-IV – Hadley Fraser – Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Generations, Star Trek: First Contact, Star Trek: Insurrection, Star Trek: Nemesis, Trekverse

Frazyr Hines was born on the planet Trill in the year 2322 and he was joined to the Jon symbiont in the year 2349 at the age of 27. Although he was a citizen of the 24th century, Frazyr was recruited by time travelers from the 31st century to be a Temporal Agent, enforcing the Temporal Accord and preserving the timeline from those who seek to change it, during the Temporal Cold War. He was given a 31st century timeship made to look like a small personal ship from the 24th century, his home timezone, and given a job working for the 24th century Federation's Department of Temporal Investigations.

During Enterprise NCC-1701-C, Enterprise NCC-1701-D, and Enterprise NCC-1701-E’s missions (Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Generations, Star Trek: First Contact, Star Trek: Insurrection and Star Trek: Nemesis), during the investigation of the Wormhole to the Gamma Quadrant and the war with the Dominion (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine), and during the time the Starship Voyager was lost in the Delta Quadrant (Star Trek: Voyager), Frazyr would’ve been 42-57, but he was traveling throughout different time periods, so that time is a bit fuzzy and he was not there through all of it.

Frazyr and Anna traveled to many different points in time and space during this time. One time, Frazyr traveled back in time to 2289. He was sent to stop an enemy from the Temporal Cold War from committing a Temporal Incursion, killing people in the past and messing with the timeline. He successfully preserved the timeline, but was fatally injured in the process. They were able to get him to Trill in enough time so that Jon could be joined to another host. They explained to the Symbiosis Commission the odd circumstances, with enough proof (his 31st century timeship) to convince them, and they were able to get him a new host in time before Frazyr died. Frazyr also told them that he would temporarily be retiring to another planet to avoid interfering with the timeline too much, since his timeship was damaged enough so it would no longer be able to travel in time, and he had no way of contacting his superiors from the future.

Sylvest Jon – #Jon-V – Sylvester McCoy – Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: The Original Series, Star Trek: The Animated Series, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Trekverse / Star Trek: Remake Film, Star Trek: Into Darkness, Star Trek: Beyond, the Kelvin Timeline

Sylvest Hugh was born on the planet Trill in the year 2255. He was 1 year old during Discovery’s mission (Star Trek: Discovery), he was 11-16 years old during the Enterprise NCC-1701’s five year mission (Star Trek: The Original Series, Star Trek: The Animated Series), and he was 18-38 during the Enterprise NCC-1701’s additional adventures and Enterprise NCC-1701-A’s mission (Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country).

Sylvest was 3-8 during the Enterprise NCC-1701’s missions in the Kelvin Timeline (Star Trek: Remake film, Star Trek: Into Darkness, Star Trek: Beyond)

His parents were Molly and Percy Hugh. Sylvest was a xenoentomologist, astroarthropodologist, and xenoparasitologist as well as a parasite conservationist. Sylvest doesn’t condone deliberate parasitism in sentient species, he is merely studying them to find ways to give them non-harmful alternatives or to help the hosts (if they are willing) so the parasites no longer cause harm to them while they still provide the ex-parasite now-commensalistic symbiote with what it needs to survive. Jon was transferred to Sylvest at the age of 34. Sylvest barely met Frazyr and Anna before he was joined. Anna and Sylvest got married in a private ceremony on the planet Symarill, where they remained, watching over the development of the Symarillion Wolves, and Sylvest worked on his own research of how to help parasites to stop needing to harm their hosts with the help of Anna and the Symarillion Wolves. He briefly met Kara in the year 2379 when Sylvest was dying of old age. Anna went on a date with Kara before Kara was joined to Jon. Many of the wolves on Symarill have continued Sylvest's work with parasites and other symbiotic lifeforms.

Kara Jon – #Jon-VI – Melissa Benoist – Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Generations, Star Trek: First Contact, Star Trek: Insurrection, Star Trek: Nemesis, Trek-verse

Kara Sanders was born on the planet Trill in the year 2341. She was 24-37 during Enterprise NCC-1701-C, Enterprise NCC-1701-D, and Enterprise NCC-1701-E’s missions (Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Generations, Star Trek: First Contact, Star Trek: Insurrection and Star Trek: Nemesis), during the investigation of the Wormhole to the Gamma Quadrant and the war with the Dominion (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine), and during the time the Starship Voyager was lost in the Delta Quadrant (Star Trek: Voyager).

Kara Sanders, who will become Jon’s sixth host, was born in the year 2341 to parents Julie and Jim Sanders. She has a sister named Alex and a cousin named Clark who she is close with. She’s always known what she wanted. She wanted to work for Starfleet and to become a Joined Trill. She starts preparing herself right away and spends her childhood getting herself ready for Starfleet Academy and the Symbiosis Commission. She always gets top grades in school, and she goes through the Academy to become a Starfleet engineer serving aboard starships and exploring strange new worlds.

In the year 2365 during the second season of TNG, Kara successfully goes through the Symbiosis Commission’s screening process and is chosen to be Jon’s sixth host. She meets Sylvest Jon and goes on a date with Anna to get to know her future wife. Sylvest dies at the age of 70, and Jon is joined with Kara, their sixth host, at the age of 24, the youngest host to have ever been joined to Jon.

Kara and Anna get married in secret, of course. At some point, I’m not exactly sure on the details of where in her timeline it is, a bee-like alien who is a part of a hivemind implants its eggs into Kara. They know nothing about what kind of alien it is apart from what little they can tell from their scans. Kara and Anna decide to see it through and host the eggs and care for the babies, especially if the parent or parents never come back. There are four eggs. Their ship’s doctor said if there are any signs that the babies will severely harm or kill Kara at any point they can always take the eggs out and hope (or not hope) they can survive without her, but they never need to. The eggs hatch and they raise their four beautiful beebies together. Eventually the beebies are reunited with the rest of the hivemind and teach them to only implant their eggs in people when they have their permission, and Kara and Anna take them to Symarill where the wolves gladly agree to host the eggs of the bee hivemind. Kara and Anna visit Symarill a lot. Kara probably borrows Frazyr’s time machine more than once when he is in their time period. Since she was him, she’ll remember when and where to go. She always returns it.

Also at some point, Anna and Kara visit their other selves from the Doctor Whoniverse, and Kara and Sean II (Patience VI) have a baby together named Rosalyn, who switches off between realities and is raised by Kara Jon and Jon’s Anna, John IV, Sean II and the Eighteenth Doctor. Anna and Kara also probably have babies where they are pregnant together at some point, and probably not but Jon’s Anna might also at some point have John IV and/or Eighteen’s baby/babies.

During Voyager seasons 6-7, a transporter malfunction combines Kara and Eyolf into one person, Karolf, for several months. When they are finally separated again, they can both still remember each other’s memories.

Sometime after Nemesis, the law against Reassociation is repealed and Kara and Anna have a public Trill wedding with Kara’s family to celebrate.

In the year 2441 Kara dies at the age of 101. Kara and Jon were joined for 76 years. She briefly meets Myrln, who will be Jon’s next host, before she dies. She lived the longest any of Jon’s hosts have lived.

In my game on Star Trek Online, Kara was an engineer and she becomes captain of the USS Kryptonius.

Myrln Jon – #Jon-VII – Colin Morgan – Star Trek, Trek-verse

Myrln Jeth was born on the planet Trill in the year 2416 to parents Ambrosius and Aurelia Jeth. He met Kara, Jon’s previous host, and Jon’s wife Anna in 2441, shortly before Kara died. He was selected to be Jon’s next host and was joined with Jon when Kara died. Myrln was a scientist and became a Federation Ambassador. He died met Jonas Frere, who would be selected to be Jon’s next host, in the year 2491 at the age of 75. He was joined to Jon for 50 years.

Jonas Jon – #Jon-VIII – Nick Jonas – Star Trek, Trek-verse

Jonas Frere was born on the planet Trill in the year 2467 to the parents Denise and Paul Frere. He met Myrln and Anna in the year 2491 at the age of 24, shortly before Myrln died and he was joined with Jon. He eventually became a captain of a Federation Starship and later a Starfleet Admiral.

________________________________________________________________

Jon and Hosts in the Mirror Universe:

Noj Krad – #Mirror-Smyth – Eddie Redmayne – Star Trek: The Original Series, Trek Mirror Universe

Noj Krad was the Mirror Universe’s version of Smyth Jon.

Noj Arak Krad – #Mirror-Kara – Melissa Benoist – Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Trek Mirror Universe

Arak Krad was the Mirror Universe’s version of Kara Jon.

________________________________________________________________

The Orville-Verse (can also be modified for other similar Sci-Fi universes, including Star Trek)

(Partially inspired by the plot of the novel and movie 'Every Day')

The Jon Entity has no memories before sharing the mind of a newborn baby named Smyth on the day of his birth. He has no idea how he got there or if he was alive before the child's birth. Perhaps he was created with him. All his life Smyth would be visited by what he was told was an imaginary friend, but felt more like a part of himself. Sometimes his friend would be gone for weeks at a time, and only ever stayed one day before disappearing again, and come back at random intervals, but he would always come back to him. Smyth always knew he was real. Jon told him that when he was gone from Smyth, he would share someone else's mind, but it would always be a random person, he hopped from mind to mind every night, and it was never like how it was with Smyth. He would always either have no control at all over the body he was inhabiting, being only an observer in the back of someone's mind, or he would have too much control, where he couldn't contact the body's original inhabitant at all, and they would have no memory of the day he was there when he left. He discovered this when he hopped into the body of people who knew each other back to back. During the times he had total control, he had no idea what to do. He would do his best to blend in, do what they would've done and not mess anything in their life up. It was never like that with Smyth. They had equal control and total communication when they were together. When Smyth was a teenager, they started experimenting with it, and the Jon Entity began to be able to control whose mind he hops into. Once Smyth and Jon were sure Jon could control who he hops into, they went to the Academy. When they were accepted in, they got a doctor from the Planetary Union (or Starfleet, or whatever) to examine Smyth while Jon was there and actually detect him. It wasn't an imaginary friend, or schizophrenia, or dissociative identity disorder, as he was sometimes told when he was younger, it was an energy lifeform cohabitating inside his neural pathways, sharing his mind and control of his body in a symbiotic relationship. The Planetary Union (or the Federation or whatever) has never come in contact with Jon's species before. They request special permission to find nine other people willing to work with Jon as stable hosts, as they found that ten hosts was the smallest amount possible for Jon to be able to consistently hop into without problems. The ten hosts, and of course Jon, all became very close, almost like family, and once they all graduated they were all assigned to the same ship so that Jon wouldn't have to find new hosts. Sometimes Jon hops into Smyth's dog Eyolf.

0 notes

videofaciempraeteriti-blog · 7 years ago

Note

“No, just with your eyes.” She laughed slightly and squeezed his hand tightly. “I-If you want...”

“I have something I’d like to show you.”

“You do?” He asked. “What is it?”

#Tenn Jon

3 notes · View notes

bountyofbeads · 5 years ago

Text

Romney votes to convict Trump on charge of abuse of power, becoming the lone Republican to break ranks

By Dan Balz and Robert Costa | Published February 05 at 7:16 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted Feb 05, 2020

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) sealed a place in history Wednesday by voting to convict President Trump of abuse of power, becoming a lone voice of dissent in a Republican Party that otherwise has marched in lockstep with the president throughout the impeachment proceedings.

Romney voted against the second article of impeachment, which accused the president of obstruction of Congress. But on the first article, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee said that he found the evidence against Trump overwhelming and the arguments by the president’s defense ultimately unconvincing.

Romney’s decision, announced in a deeply personal speech on the Senate floor where he spoke of his faith and constitutional duty, sparked an immediate and intense outcry among Trump’s supporters — fury that Romney acknowledged is unlikely to fade.

Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, called for Romney to be “expelled” from the GOP, while many of Trump’s congressional allies cast him as a bitter and irrelevant relic of a Republican establishment that has all but crumbled before Trump in recent years.

Romney stood by his decision as Republican criticism mounted on Wednesday, maintaining that Trump abused his office by pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political rival.

“I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability, believing that my country expected it of me,” Romney said in his floor remarks, calling Trump’s conduct “grievously wrong.”

Romney added, “We’re all footnotes at best in the annals of history. But in the most powerful nation on earth, the nation conceived in liberty and justice, that is distinction enough for any citizen.”

Romney’s vote — coming after other centrist GOP senators such as Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) decided to acquit Trump even as they scolded him for acting inappropriately — was hailed by many Democrats as an example of unflinching political courage from a Republican they have long battled.

Following Romney’s speech, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), walked off the Senate floor in tears and remained speechless for several seconds.

“He literally restored my faith in the institution,” Schatz said.

Presidential historian Jon Meacham said Romney is an “emblem of what so many of us feared was an entirely vanished kind of moderate voice that is guided by reason and not passion. What he did was in the tradition of Dwight Eisenhower, his own father, and George H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford.”

Romney’s father, the late Michigan governor George Romney, was a prominent Republican who was known for being guided by his Mormon faith and a commitment to public service and civil rights. Romney does not speak often of his father, but is inspired by his example far more than he discusses publicly, friends said Wednesday.

“There’s no question that the president asked a foreign power to investigate his political foe,” Romney said in an interview with The Washington Post ahead of his floor statement. “That he did so for a political purpose, and that he pressured Ukraine to get them to help or to lead in this effort. My own view is that there’s not much I can think of that would be a more egregious assault on our Constitution than trying to corrupt an election to maintain power. And that’s what the president did.”

The crux of the case against Trump was the allegation that he withheld military aid and a White House meeting to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, who served on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, while his father was vice president.

Romney was one of two Republican senators who supported the effort to summon witnesses and documents. He was the only Republican who crossed party lines on Wednesday to join Democrats in voting to convict Trump on the first charge, abuse of power, while voting to acquit on the second, obstruction of Congress.

Inside the Senate GOP cloakroom, Romney’s decision was greeted with disappointment but little surprise. Ever since Romney was elected to the Senate in 2018, the 72-year-old senator has parted ways with his party at times and has occasionally criticized Trump — an approach that has won him few allies in a chamber where Trump’s political capital and favor is a prized commodity.

“He’s made it very clear from the beginning, even on the witness vote, that he was going to go his own way,” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said. “This is one of those historical votes where everybody has to do what they think is the right thing.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) appeared ready to move on from the trial and did not threaten Romney.

“I was surprised and disappointed, but we have much work to do for the American people, and I think Senator Romney has been largely supportive of most everything we’ve tried to accomplish,” McConnell said.

For Romney, breaking with Trump carried not just political consequences in a party he once led as its standard-bearer, but familial dynamics. Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, the daughter of Romney’s older brother, is one of the president’s loyalists — and she firmly stood by Trump on Wednesday.

“This is not the first time I have disagreed with Mitt, and I imagine it will not be the last,” McDaniel tweeted.

The RNC also sent an email to reporters Wednesday taking aim at Romney, under the subject line, “Mitt Romney turns his back on Utah.”

Other Trump allies were far harsher in their response to Romney. “He’s now officially a member of the resistance & should be expelled” from the party, Trump Jr. tweeted.

Romney knew his vote to remove the president from office would bring consequences. Already, there is a bill in the Utah legislature that would allow voters to remove a sitting senator. Last week, the Conservative Political Action Conference disinvited Romney to their annual event. He expects worse in the days ahead.

When Romney was in Florida last weekend, a person at the airport called him a traitor, and someone else later told him to “get with the team,” followed by an epithet. “It’s going to be there a long, long, long time,” he said in the interview. “And you know, the president’s going to, you know, use me in rallies. I mean, he likes theater, and I can be part of that. So it’s going to be tough.”

Recently appointed Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), facing a tough intraparty primary fight from Rep. Douglas A. Collins (R-Ga.), has already used Romney as a foil, attacking him last week for supporting the call for witnesses.

Romney said his decision to vote to convict the president was “the hardest decision” he has ever had to make and one that he hoped he would never have to make. “When [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi indicated we’re now going to pursue impeachment, my heart sank in dread,” he said.

For a time, he thought — or at least hoped — that Trump’s request to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for an investigation into the Bidens during a July 25 phone call represented little more than a throwaway line. As more information came out, Romney came to a different and more worrisome conclusion: that the president had committed a potentially impeachable act.

“He’s the leader of my party,” Romney said of Trump. “He’s the president of the United States. I voted with him 80 percent of the time. I agree with his economic policies and a lot of other policies. And yet he did something which was grievously wrong. And to say, well, you know, because I’m on his team and I agree with him most of the time, that I should then assent to a political motive, would be a real stain on our constitutional democracy.”

Romney said he hoped the president’s defense team would present evidence during the trial that would exonerate the president. He said he even contacted the White House Counsel’s Office, through a fellow senator, asking if they would provide affidavits from officials such as former national security adviser John Bolton or acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, but to no avail.

“I was hoping beyond hope that the defense would present evidence, exculpatory evidence, that would remove from me the responsibility to vote where my conscience was telling me I had to vote,” he said. “And that’s one of the reasons, by the way, that I wanted to hear from Bolton, which is I hoped he would testify and raise reasonable doubt.”

Romney dismissed arguments that a president could be impeached only if there were a statutory crime, calling that “absurd on its face,” and saying he could not think of “a more egregious assault on our constitutional system than corrupting an election and getting a foreign power to do it for you.” What Trump tried to do, he said, is “what autocrats do in tinhorn countries.”

He also dismissed the arguments that the president was justified in asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. He said the former vice president might have been guilty of a conflict of interest, but added that a conflict of interest is “a matter of judgment, but it’s not a crime.” As for Hunter Biden, he said, “He got a lot of money for his father’s name. That’s unsavory. But again, it’s not a crime.”

Romney acknowledging that Trump threw up “a barrage of efforts” to keep the House from receiving documents or testimony from key administration officials with firsthand knowledge, but decided against supporting the obstruction charge. “I don’t think that was an appropriate approach, necessarily,” he said, “but [Trump] did follow the law, and the House did not take the time to go to the courts as I think they should have.”

Some of Romney’s Republican colleagues have suggested that the issue should be left to the voters in this year’s election, rather than having the Senate render judgment. Romney said his reading of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers led him to conclude that the Senate must make the decision.

“The Constitution doesn’t say that if the president did something terribly wrong, let the people decide in the next election what should happen,” he said. “It says if the president does something terribly wrong, the Senate shall try him. And so the Constitution is plain.”

Romney said he made his decision knowing that the president would be acquitted by the Senate. Were mine the deciding vote” to remove Trump from office, he said, “I hope I would have the strength of character to cast that vote. That would be the right thing to do.” He added at another point, “No one wants to vote to remove a president of the United States, and I sure don’t.”

Romney said the question of Trump’s fate now will go be decided in the November election. “It’s going to go to the people, and they will make the final decision,” he said, adding that he is “highly confident” the president will be reelected. “Given the strength of the economy and the record established so far, I believe he gets reelected. And I think if they [Democrats] nominate [Sen.] Bernie [Sanders of Vermont] or [Sen.] Elizabeth [Warren of Massachusetts], he’ll get elected in a landslide.”

Yet in a later season of a political life that began at the side of George Romney, Romney said he kept coming back to questions of duty and faith.

“Again, how do I say before God, ‘I agreed to render impartial justice and let the consequences for me personally outweigh my duty to God and my duty to be to the country that I love?’” Romney said, explaining how he settled on his vote. “That’s simply putting my head down and saying what was done was perfect — there’s nothing to see here. [It] was not something I could do.”

______

Paul Kane and Mike DeBonis contributed to this report.

**********

HOUSE MANAGERS: TRUMP WON’T BE VINDICATED. THE SENATE WON’T BE, EITHER.

By Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, Hakeem Jeffries, Val Demings, Sylvia Garcia and Jason Crow

February 05 at 5:29 PM EST

Reps. Adam Schiff (Calif.), Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Zoe Lofgren (Calif.), Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), Val Demings (Fla.), Sylvia Garcia (Tex.) and Jason Crow (Colo.) were the Democratic House managers in the impeachment trial of President Trump.

Over the past two weeks, we have argued the impeachment case against President Trump, presenting overwhelming evidence that he solicited foreign interference to cheat in the next election and jeopardized our national security by withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance to pressure Ukraine to do his political bidding. When the president got caught and his scheme was exposed, he tried to cover it up and obstruct Congress’s investigation in an unprecedented fashion. As the trial progressed, a growing number of Republican senators acknowledged that the House had proved the president’s serious misconduct.

Throughout the trial, new and incriminating evidence against the president came to light almost daily, and there can be no doubt that it will continue to emerge in books, in newspapers or in congressional hearings. Most important, reports of former national security adviser John Bolton’s forthcoming book only further confirm that the president illegally withheld military aid to Ukraine until Kyiv announced the sham investigations that the president sought for his political benefit.

Although Bolton told the House that he would sue rather than appear to testify pursuant to a subpoena, he appeared to have a change of heart and made it clear that he would be willing to testify in the Senate. Yet, rather than hear what Bolton had to say, Republican senators voted to hold the first impeachment trial in U.S. history without a single live witness or new document.

Notwithstanding the Constitution’s mandate that the Senate shall have the sole power to “try” impeachments, a narrow majority of senators opted not to, and instead acted as though it were an appellate court precluded from going beyond the record in the House. Nothing supported this unprecedented prohibition on witnesses and documents, except the overriding interest of a president determined to hide any further incriminating information from the American people and a Senate majority leader in his thrall.

Instead, the president’s defenders resorted to a radical theory that would validate his worst, most authoritarian instincts. They argued that a president cannot abuse his power, no matter how corrupt his conduct, if he believes it will benefit his reelection. The Founders would have been aghast at such a sweeping assertion of absolute power, completely at odds with our system of checks and balances. Even some of the president’s lawyers were ultimately forced to back away from it.

And so, at last, the president’s team urged that it should be left to the voters to pronounce judgment on the president’s misconduct, even as it worked to prevent the public from learning the full facts that might inform their decision. More ominously, this leaves the president free to try to cheat in the very election that is supposed to provide the remedy for his cheating.

Just this week, with the vote on impeachment still pending before the Senate, the president’s personal lawyer and emissary, Rudolph W. Giuliani, repeated his call for Ukraine to investigate the president’s political rival and urged the president to carry on seeking such illicit help.

When we made our final arguments to the Senate, we asked whether there was one Republican senator who would say enough, do impartial justice as their oath required, and convict the president.

And there was. Mitt Romney. The senator from Utah showed a level of moral courage that validated the Founders’ faith that we were up to the rigors of self-governance.

No one can seriously argue that President Trump has learned from this experience. This was not the first time he solicited foreign interference in his election, nor will it be the last. As we said during the trial, if left in office, the president will not stop trying to cheat in the next election until he succeeds.

We must make sure he does not.

Republican leadership in the Senate had the power to conceal the president’s full misconduct during the trial by disallowing witnesses and documents, but they cannot keep the full, ugly truth of the president’s conduct, and that of all the president’s men, from the American people. Not for long.

Because of the impeachment process, voters can now stand forewarned of the lengths to which the president will go to try to secure his reelection, violating the law and undermining our national security and that of our allies.

By denying the American people a fair trial, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also deprived the president of something that he desperately sought — exoneration. There can be no exoneration without a legitimate trial. Out of fear of what they would learn, the Senate refused to hold one. The president will not be vindicated, and neither will the Senate, certainly not by history.

The Constitution is a wondrous document, but it is not self-effectuating; it requires vigilance, and a pledge by every new generation of voters and public servants to safeguard and fulfill its lofty promise. And it requires a kind of courage that Robert F. Kennedy once said is more rare than that on the battlefield — moral courage. Without it, no constitution can save us, but with it, no hardship can overcome us. We remain committed to doing everything in our power to preserve this marvelous experiment in self-governance.

America is worth it.

*********

It’s not over. Congress must continue to hold Trump accountable.

By Editorial Board | Published February 05 at 4:34 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted February 05, 2020 |

SOME OF the senators who voted Wednesday to acquit President Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress claimed he had surely been chastened by his impeachment by the House of Representatives. We suspect they know better. Not only is Mr. Trump brazenly unrepentant for his attempt to extort Ukraine’s help for his reelection, but also he is likely to take the Senate’s vote as vindication and license for further improper actions. That makes it incumbent upon responsible members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, to do what they can to protect the integrity of the November election, as well as that of the Constitution.

An initial step could be a resolution of censure by the Senate. That wouldn’t remove Mr. Trump, but it would challenge Republicans who say they regard his actions as “inappropriate” to vote accordingly. If they do, it might have a deterrent effect. If they don’t, voters will have cause to judge those senators up for reelection this year. A bipartisan censure motion would make it difficult for Mr. Trump to go on claiming he had done “absolutely nothing wrong” and that the case against him was “a hoax.”

In the House, committees that pursued the investigation of Mr. Trump’s actions in Ukraine should continue to do so. There is much that remains unknown, including whether the president extracted favors in 2017 and 2018 from Ukraine’s previous government. There is also a public interest in the airing of evidence that the White House has illegitimately suppressed about the pressure campaign against the current president, Volodymyr Zelensky. The House should subpoena former national security adviser John Bolton, along with documents related to Mr. Trump’s withholding of military aid from Mr. Zelensky’s government.

If court battles are needed to obtain this evidence, the House should fight them. It is vital that Congress’s power to conduct oversight of the executive be confirmed. Otherwise, Mr. Trump can be expected to continue a blanket refusal to cooperate with congressional investigations during the remainder of his time in office, thereby neutering what should be an equal branch of government.

Above all, legislators, the media and patriotic government officials must remain on guard against new attempts by Mr. Trump to subvert democracy. The president has publicly called on China as well as Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden, and has said he would accept dirt on an opponent if it were offered by a foreign government. There’s no reason to believe that Russia, Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian regimes favored by Mr. Trump won’t try to help his campaign, as Russia did in 2016.

If evidence of such interference or other wrongdoing emerges, Congress must not hesitate to pursue it. Mr. Trump’s supporters crow that the impeachment investigation backfired politically, boosting the president’s poll ratings. Even if that is true, it must not deter Congress from holding the president to account. The lesson of the Ukraine affair must not be that there is no remedy for a president who would use his powers to undermine U.S. democracy.

*********

WAS IMPEACHMENT WORTH IT? YES

By Max BOOT | Published February 05 at 4:34 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted February 05, 2020 |

After 134 tumultuous days, the impeachment of President Trump ended in a predictable near-party-line acquittal by the Republican-controlled Senate. Out of 250 Republicans in Congress, only one — Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah — had the courage to vote his conscience, voting to convict on the first of the two articles. (Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, a former Republican, also supported impeachment.)

Was it worth it? As Zhou Enlai supposedly said of the French Revolution, it’s too early to say. But so far, impeachment has not lived up to either the greatest hopes or the worst fears of its advocates.

In the best-case scenario, the incontrovertible weight of evidence would have led more than one Republican to turn against the president. No one ever imagined that there would be 67 votes to remove him, but it was at least conceivable that advocates of impeachment could obtain a bare Senate majority and thus make it harder for Trump to claim that this was all a partisan plot.

That that didn’t happen is a testament to the power of political polarization, with a record-setting 87-point split between Democratic and Republican views of Trump in the latest Gallup poll. (He has the support of 94 percent of Republicans and 7 percent of Democrats.) The craven Senate Republicans were so terrified of Trump’s hold on their base that all but two of them voted against hearing from witnesses for the first time in impeachment history. Their behavior brings to mind the Nixon defender who defiantly declared: “Don’t confuse me with the facts. I’ve got a closed mind.” Wednesday’s acquittal comes despite, not because of, the evidence.

Trump emerges with higher than normal — if far from stellar — approval ratings. The latest FiveThirtyEight polling average has him at 43.4 percent approval and 52.1 percent disapproval. He has gone up in the polls recently (49 percent support him in the new Gallup poll), but this is probably because the public approves of the economy, not of his conduct. Consumer confidence in the IDB/TIPP poll is at its highest level in 16 years and the incumbent tends to get credit — which Trump was eager to claim in the State of the Union.

The good news for Trump’s opponents is that so far there is little evidence of a popular backlash against impeachment. Nearly 50 percent of the public supports impeachment and removal in the FiveThirtyEight polling average. That’s not enough to drive him out of office. But it is actually slightly higher than the number (46 percent) who wanted President Richard M. Nixon convicted in July 1974, just a few weeks before he resigned, and it’s far higher than support for impeaching President Bill Clinton, which topped out at a paltry 35 percent.

The Economist/YouGov poll shows that, by 50 percent to 34 percent, Americans think Trump is guilty of withholding military aid to Ukraine to force an investigation of the Bidens and, by 48 percent to 39 percent, they think he is guilty of obstructing Congress. By an even larger margin, respondents in recent polls said the Senate should call witnesses. The Republicans’ failure to do so denies Trump the full exoneration he craves.

The public isn’t rallying to Trump and the Republicans as they rallied to Clinton and the Democrats after impeachment in 1999 because what Trump did was far worse than lying about sex. In those days, Clinton’s popularity shot up to 73 percent and the Democrats’ advantage in party identification expanded to 17 points. By contrast, the RealClearPolitics polling average for a generic congressional ballot, showing a 7-point advantage for Democrats, is now nearly identical to the average of polls taken right before the 2018 midterm election.

In short, impeachment hasn’t fundamentally altered the political dynamics — and its impact is likely to dissipate even more before the election. Impeachment could have its biggest impact on House Democrats in red districts and Senate Republicans in blue states, but opinions of Trump are so entrenched that it doesn’t seem likely to leave a lasting mark on the presidential race one way or the other.

I still believe impeachment was the right thing to do, because it brought out so much evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing — even without the testimony of important witnesses such as John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney. Even five of the senators voting to acquit acknowledge that Trump did something wrong. They just don’t care. Now it will be up to the voters to decide if it matters to them or not.

I’m resigned to the likelihood that Trump’s outrageous abuse of office won’t prevent him from winning a second term. But I don’t think there’s much House Democrats could or should have done differently. Ignoring Trump’s attempt to rig the election wasn’t a serious option and pushing for censure wouldn’t have been any more successful in winning bipartisan support. Sure, Trump may be emboldened after he’s acquitted — but he also would have been emboldened if there had been no consequences at all once he was caught in a corrupt quid pro quo.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) and the other House managers proved their case. They did their duty with honor and eloquence. All of the vulnerable Democrats such as Sen. Doug Jones (Ala.) and the House freshmen who risked their seats to support impeachment were profiles in courage. So too were all the civil servants — beginning with the heroic whistleblower — who exposed Trump’s dirty deeds at real risk of retribution. It’s not their fault that in Trump’s America “truth” and “right” matter less than partisan might.

*********

George Conway: I believe the president, and in the president

By George T. Conway III | Published

February 05 at 11:04 AM EST | Washington Post | Posted Feb. 05, 2020

George T. Conway III is a lawyer in New York and an adviser to the Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump super PAC.

I believe the president, and in the president.

I believe the Senate is right to acquit the president. I believe a fair trial is one with no witnesses, and that the trial was therefore fair. I believe the House was unfair because it found evidence against him. I believe that if the president does something that he believes will get himself reelected, that’s in the public interest and can’t be the kind of thing that results in impeachment.

I believe former national security adviser John Bolton has no relevant testimony because he didn’t leave the White House on good terms.

I believe the president’s call was perfect. I believe he is deeply concerned about corruption in Ukraine. I believe the president can find Ukraine on a map.

I believe Ukraine interfered with the 2016 election, and that the intelligence community’s suggestion otherwise is a Deep State lie. I believe the Democratic National Committee server is in Ukraine, where CrowdStrike hid it.

I believe President Barack Obama placed a “tapp” on the president’s phones in 2016, and that the Russia investigation was a plot to keep him from winning, even though the plotters didn’t think he could win.

I believe former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was conflicted because he quit one of the president’s golf clubs, and that he and his Angry Democrats conducted a Witch Hunt to destroy the president. But I believe Mueller’s report totally exonerated the president, because it found no collusion and no obstruction.

I believe it would be okay for the president to say he grabs women by their p-----s, because he is a star, and stars are allowed to do that. But I believe he didn’t say that, even though he apologized for it, because I believe the “Access Hollywood” tape was doctored, because he said it was.

I believe E. Jean Carroll lied when she accused the president of rape, because he said she’s not his type. I believe the dozens of other women who accused him of sexual misconduct are also lying, because he would never think of grabbing them by their p-----s or anything else.

I believe the president didn’t know Michael Cohen was paying off porn star Stormy Daniels, and that Cohen did it on his own, because the president had no reason to pay her off. I believe the president was reimbursing Cohen for his legal expertise.

I believe the president is a good Christian, because TV pastors say so, and that it’s okay he doesn’t ask for God’s forgiveness, because he doesn’t need to, since he’s the Chosen One. I believe the president knows the Bible, and that two Corinthians are better than one.

I believe the president wants to release his taxes but has not because he’s under audit, which is why he has fought all the way to the Supreme Court not to disclose them. I believe he will disclose them when the audit is over, and that they will show him to be as rich and honest as he says he is.

I believe the president is a very stable genius, and that he repeatedly tells us so because it’s true.

I believe the president can spell. I believe any spelling mistakes he makes are because he’s a very busy man who doesn’t watch much TV, or because he’s intentionally triggering the libs.

I believe Hurricane Dorian was headed straight for Alabama. I believe the president’s map wasn’t altered with a Sharpie, and that if it was, he didn’t do it, since he didn’t need to because he was right.

I believe the president didn’t call Apple’s CEO “Tim Apple,” and that he said “Tim Cook of Apple” really, really fast, but that if he did say “Tim Apple,” it was to save words, which he always tries to do.

I believe windmills are bad and cause cancer. I believe there was a mass shooting in Toledo and that there were airports during the Revolution, because the president said so.

I believe the president is defeating socialism, despite the subsidies he’s paying to save farmers from his protectionism and the $3.2 trillion he’s added to the national debt during his term.

I believe the president has made tremendous progress building the wall, that Mexico paid for it in the trade deal, that the wall will soon run from San Diego to the Gulf of Mexico, that it will stop those caravans cold, and that it won’t fall down.

I believe the president has a 95 percent approval rating among Republicans, and that there’s no need to cite polls for that.

I believe the president had the largest inaugural crowd ever, regardless of what any photos from liberal bureaucrats might show.

I believe there is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.

I believe China pays all tariffs levied on imported Chinese goods.

I believe the president is truthful. I believe the Fake News media lied each of the 16,241 times they have said he has made a false or misleading claim.

I believe the president is selfless, and always puts the nation’s interests first. I believe he isn’t a narcissist, but he’d be entitled to be one if he were one. I believe the president would never exercise his presidential powers to advance his personal interests, but if he did, that would be okay, because whatever is in his personal interests is necessarily in the nation’s interests as well.

I believe Article II of the Constitution gives the president the right to do whatever he wants.(This is just the short list!!!)

*********

PELOSI RIPPED UP A SPEECH. TRUMP IS RIPPING UP OUR DEMOCRACY.

By Greg Sargent | Published February 05 at 10:07 AM EST | Washington Post | Posted February 05, 2020 |

Nancy Pelosi ripped up a copy of President Trump’s State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, and the civility police are on a rampage: On “Morning Joe,” host Willie Geist lectured that the House Speaker’s act is “not what the country needs.”

As many pointed out, Pelosi’s theatrical gesture, which came after Trump appeared to refuse to shake her hand at the outset, is tame alongside Trump’s own constant shredding of decorum — the hate rallies, the insulting of lawmakers and so forth.

But there’s a more precise point to be made here. If the underlying premise of the criticism of breaches of decorum is that they pose a threat to our democracy’s functioning, then much of what Trump has done well beyond such breaches — for three years now — actually does pose a severe threat to that functioning, while acts like Pelosi’s actually do not pose any remotely comparable threat.

This isn’t whataboutism. It’s meant to correct a massive category error. Breaches in civility are not the main threat to our political system. Indeed, if Trump only went on half-cocked rally rants and merely insulted Democrats, the current damage would not be nearly as severe.

It’s all the other misconduct that threatens the fabric of democracy — Trump’s unchecked lawlessness, his abuses of power, his public racism, his unprecedented lying, his treatment of the opposition as illegitimate.

In this context, hand-wringing about a mutual deterioration of decorum — the New York Times discerned a “mutual snubbing,” while an NBC reporter sniffed that Pelosi indulged in “antics” that are “Trumpian” — is profoundly misleading about the wildly asymmetrical realities of the moment.

Pelosi defended the gesture, describing Trump’s speech as a “manifesto of mistruths.” As it happens, Trump’s speech actually was full of lies, but for some reason this isn’t seen as a breach.

More broadly, their showdown is now being widely treated as the capstone of a troubled relationship — a “tumultuous” and “sour” one — which culminated in Trump’s impeachment.

But such descriptions won’t do. This is not a matter of Pelosi being angry at Trump for his policies and rhetoric on one side and Trump being angry at Pelosi for impeaching him on the other.

TRUMP TREATS THE OPPOSITION AS ILLEGITIMATE

When the Senate acquits Trump, it will come after Trump worked in every conceivable way to render the House an illegitimate or even nonexistent arm of the government.

No matter how vigorously Trump’s propagandists lie to the contrary, the impeachment — for extraordinary abuses of power designed to subvert our national interests to Trump’s own and corrupt our elections, the foundation of democratic government — was a legitimate exercise of constitutional authority. It was handled in a manner commensurate with the gravity of the undertaking.

The Trump administration refused to turn over any documents and laid down a blanket (but only partly successful) ban on witness cooperation. And so, Trump didn’t merely say the House’s constitutional impeachment function was illegitimate — “a coup” — he treated it as such in a manner designed to make this so.

In acquitting Trump while refusing witnesses and evidence, Senate Republicans will not only be clearing him for the article levied for this obstruction of Congress (as well as for abuse of power). They will be carrying through that delegitimization of the House’s institutional role to completion.

Team Trump argues he’s above accountability

Trump’s team has unabashedly argued throughout that Trump is not subject to legitimate accountability of any kind.

During the special counsel investigation, Trump’s lawyers argued he can close down an investigation into himself for any reason, even if it amounts to a corrupt effort to shield his wrongdoing from scrutiny. Then, during impeachment, they argued Trump cannot be impeached for abuses of power, a view widely dismissed by legal scholars.

As political theorist Will Wilkinson noted, the upshot of this is that the House lacks the “legitimate authority to second-guess anything the president does,” in effect meaning that “Democratic power is illegitimate.”

Acknowledging the legitimacy of the opposition is a hallmark of accountability in government. In allowing for it, a president in effect allows he’s not just accountable to his own voters but also to those of the opposition — such as the national majority that elected the Democratic House in 2018.

But this conception of accountability, for Trump, is simply a dead letter. Trump has delivered speeches that are literally scripted to make opposition voters disappear. He declared impeachment an affront to “the American voter,” as if only his voters, and not those who elected the House, exist.

And well before impeachment, Trump vowed to stonewall “all” House subpoenas, to protect his corrupt profiteering off the presidency — which itself is severely destructive to democracy’s functioning — through maximal resistance to legitimate congressional scrutiny.

Trump’s lawyers also argued that impeaching Trump would disenfranchise voters by denying them a choice in the next election, which is the proper mechanism of accountability. But they also claimed that in soliciting foreign interference rigging that same election, Trump did nothing wrong. In short, no political accountability mechanism for Trump is legitimate or beyond Trump’s corrupting powers.

On top of all this, there are the threats to turn loose law enforcement on political opponents; the constant racist denigration of parts of the country represented by nonwhite lawmakers (which are not mere “antics,” but tear at the country’s fabric); the nonstop lying (a form of deep contempt for the very idea of deliberative democracy) and the perpetual manipulation of government to validate lies (another form of deep contempt for government in the public interest).

I don’t claim to know whether Pelosi’s act was bad or good politics. It probably won’t matter in the least. But in this broad context, debates about an erosion in decorum are at best utterly meaningless and are at worst actively misleading about the deep hole we’re in.

*********

Here is what we can take away from Trump’s impeachment and acquittal

President Trump’s four-month-long impeachment saga is over: He was acquitted by the Senate on Wednesday on both charges, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Trump will forever have an asterisk next to his name as the third president to be impeached by the House, but he’ll remain in office. Now we’ll see a president for the first time in modern history seek reelection while carrying that asterisk.

About the Senate vote

Just as the House of Representatives did in December, the Senate voted on each article of impeachment separately. To kick Trump out of office, 67 senators needed to vote to convict him on at least one article. There was nowhere near that much support for either article.

The most important political takeaway from the vote is how partisan it was. Not a single Democrat voted to acquit the president, not even the senators representing Trump-friendly states. Only one Republican voted to convict him, Mitt Romney of Utah, after no House Republicans supported impeachment.

But Romney’s lone vote changes how Trump can talk about his impeachment going forward. He can no longer technically say his impeachment was solely driven by Democrats. One Republican — a prominent one at that — voted to convict him.

Romney voted to acquit Trump on the second charge of obstruction of Congress. His conviction vote on the first charge was historic though: He’s the first senator in an impeachment trial to vote to convict a president of the same party.

“The president’s purpose was personal and political,” Romney said in a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday announcing his vote. “Accordingly, the president is guilty of an appalling abuse of the public trust.”

Takeaways from the entire impeachment process

1. IMPEACHMENT IS POLITICALLY DRIVEN

So many readers I talked to wanted to think of impeachment as a process where blind justice reigns. And sure, there were some House Democrats who put their careers at risk by voting to impeach Trump even though their districts had supported him. Romney said he expects to be “vehemently denounced” by some in his party for his decision. (Fact check: True. Donald Trump Jr. is already driving a push to kick him out of the party.) But by and large, lawmakers voted with their political futures in mind, rather than the facts.

That’s because you can’t take the political calculus out of Congress. In fact, impeachment was designed to have an inherent contradiction. The nation’s founders set up a check on the executive, but they gave a political body — and not a court — the ultimate say on this.

The partisan process allowed Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to say the quiet part out loud, that he was working in “total coordination” with the White House on how to hold a trial that best benefited Trump. And his supporters could accurately point to instances of Democrats doing the same when their party’s president was being impeached. Democrats and privately some Republicans may truly feel that Trump should be kicked out of office, but at the end of this, their decisions were driven more by politics than conscience.

2. TRUMP’S GREATEST ASSET WAS HIS PARTY’S LOYALTY

At one point during impeachment, former Arizona Republican senator Jeff Flake told reporters he thought there would be “at least” 35 Republican senators who would vote to convict Trump if the vote were private.

We don’t know if that was true, and it obviously didn’t bear out in a public vote. But Flake got at the fundamental dynamic within the Republican Party, which is many lawmakers privately disagree with the president on policy, politics and character, but have decided their political futures rest on standing by Trump.

Party loyalty is not abnormal politics, but the degree to which Republican lawmakers have defended the president is. Trump has created an environment where there is no room for deviation from him even (or perhaps especially) on something as serious as the allegations facing him on Ukraine.

By the end of the trial, some Republican senators were forced to acknowledge that Trump did do the things the House accused him of. But they were in the minority of their party and, save Romney, still voted to acquit the president.

Flake also served as a powerful reminder to Republican lawmakers of what happens when they cross Trump. He was watching the trial from the public gallery, a senator who retired last year in part because he chose to publicly speak out against the president. The lawmakers below him have kept their jobs in large part because they have chose not to speak out against the president whenever possible. That is how Trump survived impeachment even though some of his own former advisers said he did what he was accused of doing.

3. WE DON’T KNOW HOW THIS WILL AFFECT THE 2020 REELECTION

In fact, it’s possible it doesn’t have much of an impact. From the beginning of the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry in September to the end on Wednesday, the nation has been divided on whether Trump should be removed from office. And — surprise — Americans’ opinions on impeachment are baked into their political views.

Precisely because of that partisanship, it has seemed difficult if not impossible for Democrats to peel off supporters from the other side, and vice versa. The independents are also split down the middle.

In addition, the result of Trump’s impeachment has inevitable for many voters: House Democrats impeach Trump, the Republican-controlled Senate acquits him.

So if there aren’t surprises on impeachment (save one Republican senator’s vote), what about this process should move the average voter in November?

4. THE INVESTIGATION INTO WHAT TRUMP DID IS NOT OVER

There will be more revelations about what Trump’s intentions were when he paused Ukraine’s aid and asked Ukraine’s president to investigate the Bidens, whether they come from former national security adviser John Bolton’s book, or from others who resisted House subpoenas speaking out, or from witnesses called by House Democrats.

Already, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold E. Nadler (D-N.Y.) has said Democrats will subpoena Bolton (who said he’ll talk to the Senate and has written Trump has political intentions on Ukraine). Other lawmakers cautioned to The Post’s Rachael Bade that decision hasn’t been made yet. They are likely aware of how political it will look to continue investigating Trump’s actions on Ukraine after impeachment is over.

*********

#u.s. news #trump administration #politics #president donald trump #politics and government #trumpism #republican politics #donald trump #trump scandals #us politics #trump impeachment #impeach trump #trump is evil #trump impeachment trial #u.s. senate #senate #republican party #republicans #republican congress

1 note · View note