All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[WestPhillyPunisher]

This is about as surprising as finding out a chain smoker has lung cancer....

Thoughts and prayers, yo!

[Kirby101]

So we blame the Democrays for the GOP never questioning one the most corrupt Administration in history. Got it.

You got to wonder what of the numerous high crimes Trump committed could the Democrats convince the Republicans to punish Trump for?

Let's not put any blame on the GOP for Trumps lawlessness.

Mets is good with Party over country I see.

[DrNewGod]

This is about as surprising as finding out a chain smoker has lung cancer....

It's stuff like this that makes me face my limitations as an empathetic human being.

[Malvolio]

Impeachment is a relatively rare politically process, used two other times in the 21st Century, so there's a small sample set to deternube precedent. This has a major weakness when the houses of Congress are controlled by different parties, and a case has inherently partisan implications, as when a Republican President is accused of abusing the power of his office to get information about the family of a potential Democratic candidate.

In the law, one agency is typically involved with bringing charges and proving the charges. You don't really have a situation in which one group makes another investigate something. The same prosecutorial office (DA, state Attorney General, US Attorney, etc.) will bring his case to a grand jury and then to a jury. It's rare to make another agency take a trial seriously, so the argument that House Democrats could push Senate Republicans to follow their lead on a party-line vote doesn't seem sound.

The process was essentially framed as the House Democrats being the prosecution, and the Senate Republicans being the defense, which was all quite predictable. So the House Democrats should have seen that coming, and done a better case introducing the charges, without relying on Mitch McConnell to help them in any way. They should also have focused more on the court of public opinion, to demonstrate that what Trump did was wrong, that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that anyone who suggests otherwise should lose reelection.



If Senate Democrats don't think perjury merits impeachment...

In an impeachment, you can't convict without the Senate voting to convict. And McConnell controls the Senate. So please tell me, by what mechanism could Pelosi have convicted Trump without relying on McConnell?

[numberthirty]

Your first sentence is gibberish.

All that showed was that McConnel had all the cards when it came to the senate, with is correct. There's not much Pelosi could have done with that. You never went into what Pelosi should have done to put McConnell into a less advantageous position. What she should do to leverage McConnell is talked around since there is no substance in that description.

Again, no explanation about how Pelosi helped McConnell. What chance would that be? How?

Pelosi never gave up trying to get the stimulus bill. She's working with McConnell and Biden on that as we speak.

...

What is in green...

Yes. Now that she has put some thought into that she managed to wind up with even less leverage, she has realized that she needs to return to negotiations in an even weaker position and push a worse deal.

What is in blue?...

That was explained rather clearly. If this is what you are doing in the run up to an election? -



You just took any pressure to actually pass anything(or be accountable to voters in the election that was about to take place...) off of McConnell. He might as well have sent her a "Thank You..." note.

[DrNewGod]

In an impeachment, you can't convict without the Senate voting to convict. And McConnell controls the Senate. So please tell me, by what mechanism could Pelosi have convicted Trump without relying on McConnell?

It is, I'm afraid to say, a period-specific flaw in the Constitution. Political party allegiance is one of the things the newly-independent ex-revolutionaries disliked about their ex-monarchy, and no matter big-state, small-state, northern or southern, the legislative delegates were more alike than different (white, male, educated, and propertied). Something likely to incense The House was likely to incense The Senate.

Yet, (actually some genius in this) something that might enflame Congressmembers (accountable every two years to 10,000 yokels [the original equation ]), might not rise to the standard of High Crimes or Misdemeanors in the eyes of Senators (appointed to six year terms by their states [as it was before 1913]). Still, while there's tension between populism and long term view in this arrangement, the players (see last paragraph) weren't that far apart.

So. Impeachment depends on a fairly homogeneous collection of people, divided mainly by security of position, agreeing that The Guy That Got The Top Spot (which it wasn't in the original conceptualization) thinking that The Guy got got too big for his britches.

Sounds to me like we need another constitutional convention.

That outta be bunches of kinds of fun.

[numberthirty]

Realistically, if you weren't in the room during negotiations and privy to the behind-the-scenes dealing and correspondence all you're "she could've" is just speculation.
The overlying absolute truth is if Democrats didn't have to deal with Trump, McConnell and a fanatically hostile GOP a comprehensive relief package would've been passed months ago, so let's save our blame for where it actually belongs.

...

The actual truth is that you don't always wind up in some "Gift Wrapped..." scenario when you are holding public office.

In this instance?

Actually getting real about the amount of leverage that you had, and at least attempting to get something done for folks who are already being evicted would have been the correct move.

Never mind that the same person who said "Nah, I'm Good..." is now pushing for a worse version of the very same sort of a deal that was previously turned down.

[numberthirty]

Bingo. I don’t even know why this is controversial. Trump was desperate and wanted to get a big bill out there. It was easily the biggest deal on the table and much more than what was on the table in congressional negotiations and MUCH bigger than what she’s arguing for now.

All she had to do was say “Americans are desperate, this isn’t perfect but it’s the biggest deal we got right now, I will support it 100% and we will vote for it and continue the fight for more relief”. Then McConnell’s hand would be forced why he wasn’t letting a deal backed by the White House through. Trump would have attacked him for hurting the election and he would have had to die on the hill and face wrath or get it over with.

Instead Pelosi let him off the hook and had a meltdown on television that lost her any goodwill. McConnell just got to sit back because Pelosi raiser her hand to take credit for blocking the deal. Maybe it wouldn’t have passed, but at least put them on the hook for it and take some consequences.

Because now you have a piece of shit garbage deal that you are trying to sell and people are going to blame her for fighting against a better deal for something that does next to nothing.

In a nutshell, this is exactly how Pelosi helped out McConnell.

She made completely sure that there was no way he would wind up in that position with the leverage of an upcoming election informing what he would do when he was in that position.

Pretty basic.

Not only did she make sure that McConnell did get his arm twisted hard. She made sure that his arm was never twisted to start with.

[Mister Mets]

In an impeachment, you can't convict without the Senate voting to convict. And McConnell controls the Senate. So please tell me, by what mechanism could Pelosi have convicted Trump without relying on McConnell?

McConnell held a vote. That's all he had to do. That's all he would really be expected to do as the House's vote was party-line.

Democrats could have done more to make their case during the House's part of the proceedings.

As I said at the time, Republicans can point to a botched process in which House Democrats had pushed for the Mueller investigation without using anything from there as part of the articles for impeachment, included the charge of contempt of Congress (which sets a precedent next time a Democratic president does anything to delay sending documents to Congress), decided not to subpoena anyone because they were in a hurry, and then waited four weeks after the vote to formally send the impeachment charges to the Senate.

[Steel Inquisitor]

The Senate Republicans also had a relief bill. It would be one thing if there was a poison pill in it that Democrats could not abide, but the main difference was about whether it went far enough.

Under those circumstances, the decision of the House Democrats to not go with a smaller bill that could pass the Senate signaled to the public that it wasn't that serious.

The smartest move politically would be for the House to pass a smaller bill that the Senate would also pass, and then to go with new popular bills that the Republican Senate would reject, hammering that point.

Take what you can get, Democrats don't dare try to get a be better deal for your constituents against untrustworthy Republican negotiators. #McConnellDidNothingWrong

Pelosi is a leader of the Democratic party. Votes for members of Congress are made with the understanding that a Democratic candidate will vote for Pelosi as Speaker.

With spending bills some level of compromise is necessary.

Please don't be disingenuous, she's the Speaker of the House not the Empress of Democrats. The problems come from the senate, Schumer is the minority leader for the Democrats there. Elected Democrats are only about to vote for Speaker in the House, they do the same for Schumer in the senate. This is moving the goal posts, meanwhile the Republican aren't criticised in the least for their decisions to kill people by hindering budgets in bills to fight the pandemic.

I suspect the impeachment backfired.

The impeachment wasn't a problem, Pelosi got that - it was the part in the senate that failed, because the GOP hold power there.

One of the problems is that the charges were lame. One of them was that Trump was mean to Congress. Both charges were also not about the underlying crime, which allows for the argument that Trump did nothing wrong and Democrats are abusing the legal system to go after a President they don't like, and unwilling to put the most serious allegations on the record. I completely understand the counterargument that abuse of power was used to hide the evidence of the crime, but it still would have been better to go after something more concrete.

It was a slam dunk case and the Democrats were excellent prosecutors, had it been in a regular court Trump would have lost but since his judge and jury were Republicans they let him go. The Dems argument wasn't that Trump was mean to congress but that is something he would use against his opponents because his pettiness is that bad. This argument normalising Trump abusing his power as president, he got caught red handed but that'll never be enough to convict him because he has an R next to his name. It's remarkable what crimes you can get away with when you've bought the court.

Val Demings is going to be a third-term member of Congress.

Karen Bass has the same downsides she had when her vice-presidential trial balloon turned into lead. I do fully agree that she is an above-average House Democrat.

Marcia Fudge is the chair of several sub-committees. She doesn't seem ready to be Speaker. Previous speakers are either in House leadership, and/ or acknowledged as intellectual leaders within their party.

Eric Swallwell's presidential campaign bombed, and his greatest position is chair of an intelligence Subcommittee

Schiff is probably the best of the lot. The question would be how he functions in a leadership position when he doesn't have an adversarial relationship with a President.

Since Biden is the new president this isn't a problem. McConnell will be if he stays the leader in the senate but then again none of his practices are being viewed as negative which speaks volumes about Republican priorities.

[GindyPosts]

Thoughts and prayers, yo!

He ain't in my thoughts, and he certainly ain't in my prayers, lol.

[numberthirty]

Take what you can get, Democrats don't dare try to get a be better deal for your constituents against untrustworthy Republican negotiators. #McConnellDidNothingWrong

...

Here's the problem...

While John/Jane Public are working with a small net?

That is when you stick with attempting to negotiate a better relief package.

Once people are being evicted and your negotiating position consists of you having The House while the folks you are negotiating with have the President and control The Senate?

It's time to get real about the negotiating position that you are in, and at least move a flawed deal that will provide some help to John/Jane Public along.

When those Johns and Janes are already being evicted going into the fall?

That's not the time to put the brakes on a deal that will provide them with some help because you intend on making an "All In..." bet based on what you believe your chances are.

Ro Khanna actually internalized that reality. It's too bad that Pelosi did not.

[Amadeus Arkham]

He ain't in my thoughts, and he certainly ain't in my prayers, lol.

I can only give him my thoughts. Never my prayers. There’s people far more worthy of my prayers than a millionaire shyster who hasn’t been in a court in twenty eight years.

[Mister Mets]

Take what you can get, Democrats don't dare try to get a be better deal for your constituents against untrustworthy Republican negotiators. #McConnellDidNothingWrong

Democrats could have got the best of both worlds, passing a relief bill and then pointing out to popular stuff that Republicans didn't support.

Please don't be disingenuous, she's the Speaker of the House not the Empress of Democrats. The problems come from the senate, Schumer is the minority leader for the Democrats there. Elected Democrats are only about to vote for Speaker in the House, they do the same for Schumer in the senate. This is moving the goal posts, meanwhile the Republican aren't criticised in the least for their decisions to kill people by hindering budgets in bills to fight the pandemic.

I was responding to the point that Pelosi has nothing to do with Democratic elections. Republicans are going to point out that a vote for any Democratic candidate for House is a vote for Pelosi as Speaker, just as Democrats get to point out that a vote for any Republican candidate for Senate is a vote for McConnell as Senate majority leader.

The impeachment wasn't a problem, Pelosi got that - it was the part in the senate that failed, because the GOP hold power there.

That was foreseeable, so blaming the Senate doesn't quite work.

It was their job to make a case effective enough that Senators are compelled to do their job, or the voters remember to punish incumbent Republicans in any state where Democrats are competitive.

It was a slam dunk case and the Democrats were excellent prosecutors, had it been in a regular court Trump would have lost but since his judge and jury were Republicans they let him go. The Dems argument wasn't that Trump was mean to congress but that is something he would use against his opponents because his pettiness is that bad. This argument normalising Trump abusing his power as president, he got caught red handed but that'll never be enough to convict him because he has an R next to his name. It's remarkable what crimes you can get away with when you've bought the court.


Since Biden is the new president this isn't a problem. McConnell will be if he stays the leader in the senate but then again none of his practices are being viewed as negative which speaks volumes about Republican priorities.

I think you misunderstood my point about Schiff.

I was gauging him as a potential Speaker as a response to a post about how Pelosi should allow another Speaker to come to the fore in 2021.

My point is that the skill-set that's useful for going after Republicans (either Republican members of Congress when the party has control of the House, or going after a Republican President as head of the Intelligence Committee) isn't necessarily the skill-set that is ideal for being a leader of the Democrats when they have the White House and the US House.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Democrats could have got the best of both worlds, passing a relief bill and then pointing out to popular stuff that Republicans didn't support.

Which wouldn't have done that much since that requires McConnell having a conscience when it comes to the pandemic killing people. He doesn't. Not a word of complaint about what the GOP are doing, implying they have your approval.

I was responding to the point that Pelosi has nothing to do with Democratic elections. Republicans are going to point out that a vote for any Democratic candidate for House is a vote for Pelosi as Speaker, just as Democrats get to point out that a vote for any Republican candidate for Senate is a vote for McConnell as Senate majority leader.

That was about the Democrats election campaign nation wide, which isn't her purview - she was just running for Speaker, she wasn't the one responsible for holding the election for Speaker. Why is this bad? So, why should anybody care? That's its suppose to work, that's how McConnell himself go elected in GOP leadership in the senate. Is he responsible for every election the Republicans run in now? And, if he is (he isn't) why should we care? Why does this matter? Is the argument that the Democrats shouldn't be allowed to be Speaker in the House? This is a distraction, not an argument.

That was foreseeable, so blaming the Senate doesn't quite work.

It was their job to make a case effective enough that Senators are compelled to do their job, or the voters remember to punish incumbent Republicans in any state where Democrats are competitive.

It was inevitable, sure, but they're in the right to blame the senate for dropping the ball on a very simple case of corruption - it's why Republicans haven't made any motions to impeach Trump when he's been in office, we've had years of good material that would have stripped Trump of his presidency but the GOP are ok with Trump breaking laws overtly. The fact that the outcome was that Trump would get away wasn't that they should do nothing, they were right to hold Trump to account for his explicit corruption. The GOP covering up for him officially in the senate with the trial only makes them look more complicit.

They did, unfortunately for them no evidence or argument was going to make those Republicans turn on Trump. Because they condone Trump breaking the law. Which would have happen to any Republican politician who voted to impeach Trump, the votes love what Trump's doing. His illegal activities aren't a burden to them.

The neocons were hilariously corrupt during George W Bush's tenure, the GOP with Trump make them look like boy scouts.

I think you misunderstood my point about Schiff.

I was gauging him as a potential Speaker as a response to a post about how Pelosi should allow another Speaker to come to the fore in 2021.

My point is that the skill-set that's useful for going after Republicans (either Republican members of Congress when the party has control of the House, or going after a Republican President as head of the Intelligence Committee) isn't necessarily the skill-set that is ideal for being a leader of the Democrats when they have the White House and the US House.

Except your complaint was that somehow he'd have trouble working with Biden, as if the Democrats having a president was a bad thing for getting bills passed congress.And you haven't shown why that skillset is bad, it just is and we're supposed to take it on faith that you're correct.