Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-30-2019, 07:28 AM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,305

The Moderator Speaks


Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Oh wow, this poster has been here for such a long time and contributed so much -- like so many of the other "posters" here the last few weeks.

Coincidence that we're having server problems, too, I'm sure.
That’ll earn you a warning, asahi.

Don’t be a jerk.
  #52  
Old 12-30-2019, 06:51 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,444
Another reason to hold the articles: to provide time to explore the theory that Trump may have committed a felony back in 2017 when he revealed to Russian officials the identity of an Israeli agent. Laurence Tribe mentions the part of the US Code Trump may have violated:

Quote:
Laurence Tribe‏Verified account @tribelaw 10h10 hours ago

Laurence Tribe Retweeted Laurence Tribe
LITTLE-NOTED LEGAL FACT: 18 USC §794 appears to make Trump’s decision to leak the Israeli agent’s identity to Russia a felony: that anti-espionage law is NOT limited to “classified” information, nor is a sitting president exempt from that crucial criminal statute.

Laurence Tribe added,
Laurence TribeVerified account @tribelaw
Reminds me of Trump’s outing to Lavrov and Kislyak of an Israeli secret agent in Syria when he met with them in the WH right after firing Comey https://twitter.com/BarbMcQuade/stat...07877399351297
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1211648126609764354

There was a lot of outrage at the time, but so far as I know there hasn't been much mention of the US Code relating to the incident.


The May 10, 2017 meeting:

Quote:
President Donald Trump infuriated the US and Israeli intelligence communities when he disclosed details of a highly classified Israeli operation to Russian officials earlier this year.

Vanity Fair reported on Thursday that a top US official told the Israelis in January that Russia had "leverages of pressure" over Trump.
https://www.businessinsider.com/bomb...-comey-2017-11
  #53  
Old 12-31-2019, 12:19 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,959
One other theory I've seen- Pelosi wants the trial not to be completed before the State of the Union speech. So instead of hearing him boast about total exoneration, he's going to rant and rave about how he's such a victim. He could possibly melt down in front of a national audience. I figure that's worth a shot.
  #54  
Old 12-31-2019, 12:50 PM
squeegee's Avatar
squeegee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Aptos CA
Posts: 8,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
One other theory I've seen- Pelosi wants the trial not to be completed before the State of the Union speech. So instead of hearing him boast about total exoneration, he's going to rant and rave about how he's such a victim. He could possibly melt down in front of a national audience. I figure that's worth a shot.
I don't think that's a goal of the strategy, but it seems like it would be a great fringe benefit. The visual of Pelosi looking over Trump's shoulder during the SOTU address, happening while the Senate trial is ongoing, would be pretty cool, especially as everyone (and the news coverage) would remember Pelosi's "clap back" from last SOTU.
  #55  
Old 12-31-2019, 01:13 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,955
Has he accepted the invitation for the SOTU?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #56  
Old 12-31-2019, 01:50 PM
Projammer's Avatar
Projammer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW Arkansas
Posts: 6,748
If she sends the articles over now, it's pretty much a given that they will be laughed at and given short shrift.

My best guess is that she's holding them back to deliver if Trump triumphs in 2020. I don't know what the odds are that the senate will flip during the election, but that could be part of her calculus as well. Better to hang onto a shot to remove him from office at the beginning of the next term than waste it on no chance now.

Last edited by Projammer; 12-31-2019 at 01:51 PM.
  #57  
Old 12-31-2019, 02:40 PM
Gatopescado is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 23,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Q: What is Speaker Pelosi's strategy?
A: Ask her, not us. We can only guess.
What's her username here? I'll PM her.
  #58  
Old 12-31-2019, 02:47 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,347
My take would be that Granny Nancy is following a strategy of keeping her options open. There is too much happening, pretty much relentlessly. It is usually preferable to decide on a solid strategy going forward, but not always. Because usually a "solid" strategy requires commitment that excludes other approaches which may prove to be more valuable. Shit happens, especially when there is an abundance of assholes.

The Pubbies have an out. Vote to proceed with witnesses, on the pretext of wanting a full, fair trial that acquits Il Douche. Accuse those who oppose this as having insufficient faith in the total innocence of Himself. If public opinion gets scary, they can say they were shockedshocked at the revelations of sworn testimony, and are now willing to consider censure. By which, they can hope to appease the Trump base and still claim some civic virtue.

Reasonable, utterly corrupt and cynical, whats not for a Senate Republican to love?
  #59  
Old 12-31-2019, 03:02 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,347
Also, there's this by way of HuffPo and CalMeacham (hat tip)

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ex-bu...b0b2520d1a96ac

Quote:
...“Imagine what it would be like if he got to give the SOTU having been cleared by the Senate ― it would be a full-blown triumphal rant,” Rosenzweig wrote.

“But if the impeachment is still pending, it might, instead, be an unhinged narcissistic screed of almost unimaginable insanity,” he added. “Just think of how painful it would be for 53 Republican Senators to sit in the halls of Congress, watching a live meltdown on national TV. That, alone, would be worth the price of admission.”

“Maybe I’m wrong and this hasn’t crossed her mind ― but I love the idea,” he concluded....
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.

Last edited by elucidator; 12-31-2019 at 03:02 PM.
  #60  
Old 01-01-2020, 10:35 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Troublesome for all those industrious folks: the fact that there are no FBI (headed by a Trump appointee, and ultimately by Trump protector William Barr) or CIA (also headed by a Trump appointee) investigations into the supposedly-criminal Bidens. If Barr thought he could get away with announcing such investigations, of course he would have done so.

And those who are the target of the propaganda are bound to ask why Barr hasn't done this, if there's evidence of wrongdoing by a Biden.
A reporter asked Trump that question, and Trump didn't have an answer.
  #61  
Old 01-01-2020, 11:02 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
My personal take? I'm not seeing any overarching Pelosi strategy.

But she's got this one lever - holding onto the articles of impeachment - and she's using it, and that's good. When Congress comes back from its recess, the focus will still be on the withheld articles, and with that the fact that McConnell's promised to rig the game.

The real game here should be for the Dems to keep the pressure on the handful of GOP Senators who might be vulnerable in November. I have no idea whether the DNC/DSCC/whoever is actually doing anything with this, like running ads in those states. But since the Dems really stink at playing politics, I'm rather concerned that they might not be.
  #62  
Old 01-01-2020, 11:26 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
My personal take? I'm not seeing any overarching Pelosi strategy.

But she's got this one lever - holding onto the articles of impeachment - and she's using it, and that's good. When Congress comes back from its recess, the focus will still be on the withheld articles, and with that the fact that McConnell's promised to rig the game.

The real game here should be for the Dems to keep the pressure on the handful of GOP Senators who might be vulnerable in November. I have no idea whether the DNC/DSCC/whoever is actually doing anything with this, like running ads in those states. But since the Dems really stink at playing politics, I'm rather concerned that they might not be.
I agree - Pelosi is using what leverage she has and she's not going to waste her time trying to use leverage she knows she doesn't have.

She will eventually relent on impeachment and give the articles to McConnell, who will undoubtedly sweep the entire ordeal under the rug. But McConnell's strategy isn't without risk: if something happens that makes Trump wildly unpopular, Trump will take the entire Republican leadership down with him. This impeachment will result in an exoneration for Trump, but this will be a bookmark, and McConnell can't change that. People will remember that we had a chance to get rid of Trump and that Republicans went out of their way to defend him.

That's what Pelosi is left with at this point. She'll play the long game, just like she has been all along - it's why she was never that enthusiastic about impeachment on one hand but understands that she may see some value in it down the road. The entire time, Pelosi's strategy has been the same: let Trump be Trump and use his aggression against him. I think more than anyone, she understands how to slay the beast of Republican corruption. It just takes time and patience, and capitalizing on opportunities when they emerge.

Last edited by asahi; 01-01-2020 at 11:27 AM.
  #63  
Old 01-01-2020, 01:44 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfriver View Post
Now Pelosi is holding it simply to savor the one political win the democrats have in the last three years.
This sounds like a statement from a forgetful or limited perspective. The 2018 midterms were within "the last three years" and Democrats gained 41 seats in the House and the majority. That's a pretty significant political win. The same year, Democrats took nine state and territorial governorships from Republican incumbents (Republicans took one, from an independent).

In each of the 2017 and 2019 governor races, one state changed parties. Want to take a guess if they went Red-to-Blue or Blue-to-Red?

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 01-01-2020 at 01:44 PM.
  #64  
Old 01-01-2020, 04:48 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,959
I'm of the opinion that the articles should not be delivered to the Senate until McConnell pledges to allow the Democrats to call X witnesses. Whether X is 3, 4, 5 or whatever is unimportant, what we need to do is get him to pledge to allow it. Also if witnesses deny the subpoena then the trial shuts down until the appeal is resolved or the witness drops the case.

The Republicans are the ones who want the trial. Let them be the ones to make accommodations.
  #65  
Old 01-01-2020, 06:11 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,444
"Quiet. QUIET. QUIET!! QUIET!!!!!!"

No, Trump has no answer (as to why, if any Bidens need to be investigated, he hasn't asked US agencies specializing in investigation to, you know, investigate).

And Trump's fans have no answer, either, I notice. They just do what Trump did: assert baldly that there's A Lot of Corruption and the Real problem is that The Fake Media Won't Cover It.

It's very helpful to Trump defenders to have extremely low IQs; otherwise their task (to defend him) is quite hard to manage.
  #66  
Old 01-01-2020, 06:21 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I'm of the opinion that the articles should not be delivered to the Senate until McConnell pledges to allow the Democrats to call X witnesses. Whether X is 3, 4, 5 or whatever is unimportant, what we need to do is get him to pledge to allow it. Also if witnesses deny the subpoena then the trial shuts down until the appeal is resolved or the witness drops the case.

The Republicans are the ones who want the trial. Let them be the ones to make accommodations.
Or if they are too terrified to make those accommodations, they could push the task onto the shoulders of the Chief Justice. That would give them political cover: 'sorry, Mr. President, we didn't want this to happen but Roberts forced it on us!!'
  #67  
Old 01-01-2020, 11:27 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I'm of the opinion that the articles should not be delivered to the Senate until McConnell pledges to allow the Democrats to call X witnesses. Whether X is 3, 4, 5 or whatever is unimportant, what we need to do is get him to pledge to allow it. Also if witnesses deny the subpoena then the trial shuts down until the appeal is resolved or the witness drops the case.

The Republicans are the ones who want the trial. Let them be the ones to make accommodations.
The articles just sitting in the house accomplish nothing. What's the point?
  #68  
Old 01-01-2020, 11:37 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
The articles just sitting in the house accomplish nothing. What's the point?
You might try reading the thread. A number of good answers have already been given.
  #69  
Old 01-01-2020, 11:43 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
The articles just sitting in the house accomplish nothing. What's the point?
We have explained this several times.


In any case, whatever Pelosi's game is, it's likely too deep for us.
  #70  
Old 01-02-2020, 12:00 AM
squeegee's Avatar
squeegee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Aptos CA
Posts: 8,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
The articles just sitting in the house accomplish nothing. What's the point?
It focuses the process on the Senate.
  #71  
Old 01-02-2020, 04:11 AM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,728
I think Pelosi is waiting until there's a new Senate. She's hoping there will be enough votes to convict after Jan 3 (or whatever) 2021 with a bunch of new Democrats in the Senate. But if Trump doesn't get re-elected it'll be moot.
  #72  
Old 01-02-2020, 10:57 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
I think Pelosi is waiting until there's a new Senate. She's hoping there will be enough votes to convict after Jan 3 (or whatever) 2021 with a bunch of new Democrats in the Senate. But if Trump doesn't get re-elected it'll be moot.
I'd like to see this for one reason only- convict him and deny him future Secret Service protection. We don't need to be paying top dollar for golf cart rental for agents to follow his fat orange guilty ass all over his overpriced golf courses.
  #73  
Old 01-02-2020, 12:01 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,023
How many times does Pelosi have to prove herself before everyone realizes that she is a much better politician than most other politicians and certainly better than you or me.

Right now she has a lottery ticket that she got for free. The impeachment itself cost her nothing. It might even have helped her and now she has every Republican congressman on the record voting to protect Trump from impeachment in spite of significant evidence (but not proof) that he did something that demands impeachment. Three things can happen:

1) nothing. In which case she can keep the impeachment in her back pocket and use it to needle and annoy republicans into making unforced errors.

2) the case to subpoena trump's advisors gets decided in her favor in which case she gets a second bite at impeachment hearings to amend the original articles of impeachment.

3) enough evidence is presented to convince the senate to remove Trump and now all those republican congressmen have to answer for their vote
  #74  
Old 01-02-2020, 01:30 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
How many times does Pelosi have to prove herself before everyone realizes that she is a much better politician than most other politicians and certainly better than you or me.

Right now she has a lottery ticket that she got for free. The impeachment itself cost her nothing. It might even have helped her and now she has every Republican congressman on the record voting to protect Trump from impeachment in spite of significant evidence (but not proof) that he did something that demands impeachment. Three things can happen:

1) nothing. In which case she can keep the impeachment in her back pocket and use it to needle and annoy republicans into making unforced errors.

2) the case to subpoena trump's advisors gets decided in her favor in which case she gets a second bite at impeachment hearings to amend the original articles of impeachment.

3) enough evidence is presented to convince the senate to remove Trump and now all those republican congressmen have to answer for their vote
I mostly agree with this (shocking, isn't it?). Pelosi gets to choose the timing of the Senate trial. She's proven to be an extremely skilled legislative politician. I trust that she'll choose the most damaging timing to Trump and the Republicans and the most helpful timing for the Democratic party.
  #75  
Old 01-02-2020, 06:20 PM
Senegoid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 15,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
I think Pelosi is waiting until there's a new Senate. She's hoping there will be enough votes to convict after Jan 3 (or whatever) 2021 with a bunch of new Democrats in the Senate. But if Trump doesn't get re-elected it'll be moot.
Does this work? Does an impeachment survive from one Congress to the next, or does it expire (like unresolved Contempt of Congress charges) when the current Congress expires?
__________________
=========================================
  #76  
Old 01-02-2020, 06:34 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,621
I don't see her holding onto the articles of impeachment for long. There's no point in just holding them. Senators wouldn't have the balls to tell the public that they have no intentions of a fair and impartial trial if they worried for a moment about the public backlash against them -- they're not worried about said backlash. And without the backlash, you can't have an impeachment. In short, the public isn't sufficiently behind the impeachment and the Senate knows it. If Nancy just holds them in the House indefinitely, then it risks making the House Dems look like cold, naked partisans. Moreover, it becomes a major distraction during a presidential campaign cycle in which they're desperate to retake the WH.

I admit that I don't read minds and I could be way off base - will admit it later (reluctantly) if I'm wrong - but I think she's just using the recess time that she has to point out that Senate Republicans have no loyalty to the Constitution or the rule of law and she's bookmarking this moment for later reference, which is probably the smart move. She's banking on the idea that Trump will eventually fuck up so badly - either at home or abroad - that the public will turn against him, and the Republicans will be brought down with him*. Nancy has never really felt like she could beat Republicans with impeachment or prosecution. All along, she's known that the way to beat Republicans is at the polls by letting the public see them for the sociopaths that they are.

I predict that Pelosi may drag her feet a wee bit when the Senate comes back, and there's no harm in seeing if she can't put some pressure on Susan Collins, Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski and others. But keep in mind for every possible Republican defector, there are at least two Democratic defectors in the other direction: Doug Jones and Joe Manchin. I think this will be over and done with by the end of February.

*Watch what happens in Iran. I suspect that Iran is setting a trap for the anti-Iran hawks, and if they take Iran's bait, that has the potential to be a catastrophic clusterfuck that would almost certainly turn into a massive waterfall of shit that rains down on Trump's head.

Last edited by asahi; 01-02-2020 at 06:36 PM.
  #77  
Old 01-02-2020, 06:35 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senegoid View Post
Does an impeachment survive from one Congress to the next, or does it expire (like unresolved Contempt of Congress charges) when the current Congress expires?
The Constitution offers no guidance on these questions, and there have been so few impeachments of a President (three, now) that there is no real precedent.

So the answers will depend on some combination of Congressional compromise and/or leverage, potential Supreme Court rulings, and public opinion.
  #78  
Old 01-02-2020, 06:46 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
The Constitution offers no guidance on these questions, and there have been so few impeachments of a President (three, now) that there is no real precedent.
Other federal officers have been impeached (indicted), tried, and sometimes removed. Did any of those lesser-office impeachments cross Congressional sessions?
  #79  
Old 01-02-2020, 07:00 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,266
I think she will wait until the State of the Union address or until the Courts rule in her favor on the witness testimony.

It will be fun watching trump go berzerk during his big speech.
  #80  
Old 01-02-2020, 07:08 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Other federal officers have been impeached (indicted), tried, and sometimes removed. Did any of those lesser-office impeachments cross Congressional sessions?
Wikipedia reminds us:

Quote:
The House of Representatives has initiated impeachment proceedings only 64 times since 1789; only 19 of these proceedings actually resulted in the House's passing Articles of Impeachment, and of those only eight resulted in removal from office (all federal judges).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

Now I'm looking at two pages: one with those 64 initiations of impeachment proceedings, and one with the dates of the various Congresses. Right away I see an example of proceedings beginning during one Congress---the 7th, which ended on March 3, 1803---and concluding during the next Congress (the 8th, which began on 4 March 1803). The impeachment was of John Pickering:

Quote:
John Pickering (September 22, 1737 – April 11, 1805) was President of New Hampshire, Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Superior Court of Judicature and a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. He was the second federal official impeached by the United States House of Representatives and the first person convicted and removed from office by the United States Senate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pickering_(judge)

That conviction and removal occurred on 12 March 1804 (again, according to Wikipedia), which was during the 8th Congress.

There may be more, but at least the question 'has an impeachment process crossed sessions of Congress' has been answered (in the affirmative).


The pages of lists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tes_Congresses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac...ials_impeached

(Sorry to rely on wikipedia, but those lists are awfully useful. Here's another source on Pickering: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...amiliar-issues )

Last edited by Sherrerd; 01-02-2020 at 07:11 PM.
  #81  
Old 01-02-2020, 07:36 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I don't see her holding onto the articles of impeachment for long. There's no point in just holding them.
She's not just holding them but I reckon she'll want to keep the Senate from having their trial until late spring, if possible. The whole drama needs to play out when the primaries are in full swing, in my estimation. It would be better if it could wait until the summer, to be closer to the nominating conventions, but that's prolly to far out for a lot of reasons.
  #82  
Old 01-02-2020, 07:53 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
She's not just holding them but I reckon she'll want to keep the Senate from having their trial until late spring, if possible. The whole drama needs to play out when the primaries are in full swing, in my estimation. It would be better if it could wait until the summer, to be closer to the nominating conventions, but that's prolly to far out for a lot of reasons.
Keep in mind that Warren and Sanders are sitting US senators, which means they would have to come off the campaign trail and participate in the impeachment trial as jurors. Also keep in mind that, whether we like it or not, the Republicans will use the impeachment trial as a chance to drag Joe Biden's name and all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories into the discussion. I see absolutely no advantage to waiting until the middle of primary season.
  #83  
Old 01-02-2020, 08:44 PM
carnivorousplant is online now
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Keep in mind that Warren and Sanders are sitting US senators, which means they would have to come off the campaign trail and participate in the impeachment trial as jurors. Also keep in mind that, whether we like it or not, the Republicans will use the impeachment trial as a chance to drag Joe Biden's name and all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories into the discussion. I see absolutely no advantage to waiting until the middle of primary season.
You might have something there.
  #84  
Old 01-04-2020, 03:53 AM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,377
My speculation, worth whatever.

Speaker Pelosi's strategy: Ratchet-up public pressure; await impending explosion of horrendous evidence.

This POTUS's counter-strategy: If horrendous evidence threatens, start wag-a-dog foreign attack diversion.

I think step 2 has begun. I fear the next step.
  #85  
Old 01-04-2020, 05:59 AM
Senegoid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 15,340
@Sherrerd: Thank you for that detailed analysis of the history of impeachments and their timings.
__________________
=========================================
  #86  
Old 01-04-2020, 05:21 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senegoid View Post
@Sherrerd: Thank you for that detailed analysis of the history of impeachments and their timings.
My thanks also. So the House could hang on to the two Articles of Impeachment beyond the end of this congressional term, with those articles amended and/or new articles filed as more evidence appears. 2020 Senate races could flip enough seats to give conviction and removal a chance if this POTUS is reelected and no IRL or wag-the-dog catastrophe intervenes.

"May you live in interesting times" is an ancient Chinese curse IIRC. Now isn't dull.
  #87  
Old 01-04-2020, 07:05 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senegoid View Post
@Sherrerd: Thank you for that detailed analysis of the history of impeachments and their timings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
My thanks also. So the House could hang on to the two Articles of Impeachment beyond the end of this congressional term, with those articles amended and/or new articles filed as more evidence appears. 2020 Senate races could flip enough seats to give conviction and removal a chance if this POTUS is reelected and no IRL or wag-the-dog catastrophe intervenes.

"May you live in interesting times" is an ancient Chinese curse IIRC. Now isn't dull.
Thanks for the thanks; each of you had posed an important question. Now we're fore-armed with facts to counter any 'the House can't carry this over after November 2020' objections that might be raised.

My answer to the objection 'the House thought it was so urgent to impeach, so why are they waiting now?' is, of course: it WAS urgent to impeach a lawless President. It is not, however, urgent to acquit him in a sham trial.

Last edited by Sherrerd; 01-04-2020 at 07:06 PM.
  #88  
Old 01-04-2020, 09:38 PM
carnivorousplant is online now
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post

My answer to the objection 'the House thought it was so urgent to impeach, so why are they waiting now?' is, of course: it WAS urgent to impeach a lawless President. It is not, however, urgent to acquit him in a sham trial.
Well said, Sir.
  #89  
Old 01-05-2020, 07:12 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Well said, Sir.
Feel free to employ it when, as probably happens several million times a day, a Trump-defender pulls out the 'if Pelosi thought it was so urgent to impeach Him...' card.

They do love that card, even if it's soiled and torn.


We learned today that Lindsey Graham is planning to help man-baby Trump achieve peace of mind by giving him a big gift-wrapped ACQUITTAL!!!!--despite Pelosi waiting to send over the articles:

Quote:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Sunday that he is mulling rule changes in an effort to quickly start the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump without the articles that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is withholding from the upper chamber

Graham told Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that he would work with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to change the chamber's rules if the articles are not sent this week.

“What I would do if she continues to refuse to send the articles as required by the Constitution, I would work with Sen. McConnell to change the rules of the Senate to start the trial without her if necessary,” he said. ...
https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-...-trial-without

Their excuse--that they have to stop out-of-control Nancy Pelosi, who is supposedly Trying To Take Over The Senate!!!1!!1 and Trying To Run The Trial Herself!11!!!!!!! (etc.) is as bad as the 'urgent' one.
  #90  
Old 01-05-2020, 09:57 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,377
Ah, a Senate rule-change to override the Constitution! What's not to like? But as Dubya said, the Constitution is only a scrap of paper, so GO for it, Lindsey-boy! Your god-emperor has already said, "Confiscate guns now. Due process later." He tweeted that twice, so it's policy: Fuck The Law. Got a law you don't like? Fuck The Law.
  #91  
Old 01-05-2020, 10:28 PM
candide is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 201
I don’t see any reason to speed this up. The past two weeks have produced no progress. Nancy must maintain maximum Pucker Factor among Republicans.

Don can’t and won’t be prosecuted by this Justice Department, so he has no reason to retain tautness of sphincter. In the White House then, pressure needs to be kept up on Mick and Ivanka and Jared. They’re the ones who are routinely expected to lie and must therefore maintain control of this deception.

In the Senate, McConnell wants to break out his broom and sweep this under the rug as quickly as possible. The longer this goes on the tighter his asshole puckers, because he knows there is more evidence. The longer this goes, a week, a month or a year – or ten years – eventually the truth will out. The Republican party will be proven complicit in the President’s lies. So, for now, he needs to keep the sphincter puckered and be over with impeachment as quickly as possible.

I keep hearing that it would be a terrible thing if impeachment lasted into Spring. Why would it be so bad if Warren and Sanders and Klobuchar and Booker and that other idiot who hasn’t realized that he doesn’t stand a chance, would be expected to do a job their constituents elected them to do? Moreover, this saw cuts both ways; we’re not appreciating the benefits. During the impeachment trial Jodi Ernst and Cory Gardner and Thom Tillis and Susan Collins and David Perdue and John Cornyn and Kelly Loeffler and Mitch McConnell, they will all have to be in their seats in the Senate chamber with their mouths shut. They will not be in their districts politicking and glad-handing. We should be saying, “Thank you, Nancy!”

Don also wants to turn the State of the Union into his own Nuremberg. And Nancy isn’t going to allow that. They went toe to toe last year and the Speaker came out the winner. I’m sure she has no intention of allowing Stephen Miller to script a two-hour fatuous paean to our corpulent shirker following Mitch’s speedy whitewash. I believe that Nancy has invited Don to address the body on February 3 (although I’m not sure Don has accepted). Between Nancy and Chuck, I would place a bet that Mitch cannot push impeachment through before the SotU.

I think Chuck and Nancy will try to press enough Republican senators to agree to allow Roberts to recommend, after initial presentations during the impeachment, whether he (Roberts) feels further testimony is necessary. If he says to the jurors (the Senate) that he feels limited testimony is warranted, at least a handful of Republicans will vote to allow witness testimony. It is the best that Democrats can get at this point. I would expect Nancy to release the articles around January 24th.
  #92  
Old 01-06-2020, 12:22 AM
drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,504
Hold the trial from September through November 1st 2020. It will only matter to one person, and if it's Bernie, or whoever, they can build this into the Dem 2020 campaign as a grand civics lesson. you're welcome.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017