How Should Pelosi Conduct the Presidency?

[Saint_Cad]

Some of the things Trump is accused of are not crimes although the House can decide to make them (questionable) impeachable offenses.
Some of the things Trump is accused of are not illegal but may be impeachable to the point of having a trial and letting the Senate decide.
Some of the things Trump is accused of may be actual crimes.
I still have yet to hear of what Pence has done that rises to the level of an impeachable offense.
ETA: Appropriately ninja’d by ElvisL1ves. Still waiting to hear about what Pence has done.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@HurricaneDitka

“… the ICIG’s preliminary reviewed identified some indicia of bias of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate…”

What point do you believe you’re making here?

[HurricaneDitka]

@HMS_Irruncible

What point do you believe you’re making here?

It was a counter-point to “this is not a partisan affair”.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@HurricaneDitka

“… the ICIG’s preliminary reviewed identified some indicia of bias of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate…”

Those ellipses are doing so much work that either you or your source owes an abject apology. The full quote, with the parts you left out bolded, is as follows:

@Intelligent Community's Inspector General

Further although the ICIG’s preliminary reviewed identified some indicia of bias of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate, such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern ‘appears credible’ particularly given the other information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review

I understand why you didn’t link to the source, but I do wish you’d present arguments that aren’t so thoroughly stripped of context.

Edit: note also, according to the article I linked:

The “possible political bias” mentioned --and then dismissed – in the Intelligence Community Inspector General report refers to the fact that the anonymous whistleblower who filed a complaint about President Donald Trump’s interactions with the Ukrainian President is a registered Democrat, a source familiar with the ongoing investigation told CNN Thursday.

So the only evidence anyone has offered that there’s partisanship is that the whistleblower is a registered Democrat. Surely you can see what weak tea that is, and why the ICIG does not think it’s particularly damning. Right? Right?

[HMS_Irruncible]

@HurricaneDitka

It was a counter-point to “this is not a partisan affair”.

Actually it isn’t. Trump corroborated what the whistleblower reported, and furthermore went on to repeat the behavior in full public view with respect to China. This is bipartisan agreement on the facts.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Those ellipses are doing so much work that either you or your source owes an abject apology. The full quote, with the parts you left out bolded, is as follows:

I understand why you didn’t link to the source, but I do wish you’d present arguments that aren’t so thoroughly stripped of context. …

I quoted the bits that directly responded to “Therefore this is not a partisan affair.”

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

… Edit: note also, according to the article I linked:

So the only evidence anyone has offered that there’s partisanship is that the whistleblower is a registered Democrat. Surely you can see what weak tea that is, and why the ICIG does not think it’s particularly damning. Right? Right?

Given CNN’s track record with anonymous sources, I’m not yet convinced “a source familiar with the ongoing investigation” (as cited by CNN) is credible. They certainly aren’t sufficient evidence for me to accept it as verified fact. The ICIG report mentioned possible political bias “in favor of a rival political candidate”. That sounds to me like more than just being a registered dem.

[The_Tooth]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

So the only evidence anyone has offered that there’s partisanship is that the whistleblower is a registered Democrat. Surely you can see what weak tea that is, and why the ICIG does not think it’s particularly damning. Right? Right?

Good luck; Mormons don’t drink tea.

[HurricaneDitka]

@HurricaneDitka

… Given CNN’s track record with anonymous sources, I’m not yet convinced “a source familiar with the ongoing investigation” (as cited by CNN) is credible. They certainly aren’t sufficient evidence for me to accept it as verified fact. The ICIG report mentioned possible political bias “in favor of a rival political candidate”. That sounds to me like more than just being a registered dem.

BTW, while we’re on the topic of the political bias of the “whistleblower”, it seems that CNN’s anonymous source has once again failed it:

Now, however, there is word of more evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower’s part. Under questioning from Republicans during last Friday’s impeachment inquiry interview with Atkinson, the inspector general revealed that the whistleblower’s possible bias was not that he was simply a registered Democrat. It was that he had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge President Trump in next year’s election.

“The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates,” said one person with knowledge of what was said.

“The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates,” said another person with knowledge of what was said.

“What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate,” said a third person with knowledge of what was said.

All three sources said Atkinson did not identify the Democratic candidate with whom the whistleblower had a connection. It is unclear what the working or professional relationship between the two was.

source

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@HurricaneDitka

I quoted the bits that directly responded to “Therefore this is not a partisan affair.”

It wouldn’t matter if Joe Biden himself had blown the whistle. The evidence is what matters, and unless the evidence itself is from a partisan source, the it’s not partisan.

As it happens, the direct source of the evidence is Donald Trump.

The claim that the ICIG finds it partisan is obviously disproven by the part of the quote that you elided.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Saint_Cad

As long as we’re going down this rabbit hole, what should we expect President Grassley to do when Pelosi is expelled from the House and Trump and Pence are both convicted?

I like the way you think (assuming you’re sincere but just wrong about the rabbit hole characterization). If Pelosi is also implicated in the Ukraine scandal, or any other impeachable offense, she should also get the boot and yes, #4 should step up to the plate. I’m Try2B Comprehensive and I approve this message.

Thing is, Pelosi is a congressional lifer and has too much of both class and knowledge of the law to cross that line, or even play footsie with it. If she’s guilty, fine, the law applies. But AFAIK the only thing she’s guilty of is being a “liberal” (whatever that actually means:rolleyes:).

@Saint_Cad

I still have yet to hear of what Pence has done that rises to the level of an impeachable offense.

See Pence: I Participated in the Ukraine Plot But Only As a Patsy

Vice-President Mike Pence is knee-deep in the Ukraine scandal. He is floating the absurd defense that, while he did participate in Trump’s plan to extort Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden, he was completely ignorant of what he was doing.

Not that that utterly, finally settles it. The whole thread is contingent on what Articles can actually be drafted and what is the evidence supporting them, it is just awkward to keep repeating that. But it does look devastatingly bad for both #1 and #2 from my perspective. I bet they gotta go. Should Pelosi draw up a list of military adventures that can/should be discontinued? She’ll be the commander in chief after all and will be able to do stuff like this even if the Senate denies her a cabinet (she can have acting staff members, or will the MAGAhats view that as horribly scandalous?) After all, if we are serious about cutting waste from the Defense budget, it makes sense to have concrete missions you are willing to cut. Shouldn’t she restore food stamps and put the nation on firmer financial footing in anticipation of the next few administrations rolling out social programs?

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

It wouldn’t matter if Joe Biden himself had blown the whistle. The evidence is what matters, and unless the evidence itself is from a partisan source, the it’s not partisan.

As it happens, the direct source of the evidence is Donald Trump.

The claim that the ICIG finds it partisan is obviously disproven by the part of the quote that you elided.

I’m afraid you are not understanding the current Republican usage of the word “partisan”.

“Partisan” does not mean “Prejudiced in favor of a particular cause.”

“Partisan” in Republican talk means “Refuses to hide the truth if it makes stable genius Trump look bad”. A “non-partisan” person here means “someone who will shut the hell up and look the other way.”

[Superdude]

@kaylasdad99

I delineated my fantasy “Pelosi’s Path to the Presidency” some time last year. Someone makes a statement impugning the A-HFS’s physical fitness. In an attempt to respond to this, he accepts a challenge to run up the staircase to the top of the Washington Monument. Sycophantic Pence insists on completing the challenge with him (but he has to stay behind the A-HFS for the whole thing, because do I even need to explain why?). Halfway up, the A-HFS has the heart attack he’s been courting for several years. It’s survivable, or would be, but for the fact that he tumbled down some 450 stair steps, breaking his neck. Incidentally, he lands on the Veep, on the way down, squishing him like a bug (an incident which is NOT survivable).

A hastily-sworn-in President Pelosi declares a week-long national period of foot-shuffling, awkward throat-clearing, and not-directly-meeting-anyone’s-gaz-ing.

No muss, no fuss.

Would that be the optimal time for “thoughts and prayers?”

[alphaboi867]

@Chronos

The only way that Pelosi becomes President is if one or probably both of them die. Which could of course happen, but it’s unlikely.

I’ve often joked that the best way to ensure the Senate removes Trump from office would be for Pence to go around threating resignation to GOP Senators if they acquit Trump, thus leaving us one Trump heartbeat away from President Pelosi.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Whoever the next president is, they are going to have one hell of a time restoring the image of the USA in the international community.

[Velocity]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Whoever the next president is, they are going to have one hell of a time restoring the image of the USA in the international community.

I don’t think that would be hard at all. Bear in mind that Obama was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize just 12 days after he took office in 2009. (The Prize wasn’t actually bestowed until months later, but he was already nominated mere days after becoming president.) It was argued that the reason he got the Prize was because the world wanted it to be a repudiation of the Bush presidency.

So I’d expect whoever succeeds Trump to be instantly accoladed by the world, especially if it’s a (D) who is the polar opposite of Trump.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Velocity

I don’t dispute for one moment that Trump has done plenty of things that are impeach-able. (Not sure about Pence, but I’m sure people can cite stuff for that.) You could probably make a 10-page list of impeach-able offenses by Trump.

But as long as Pelosi is next in line, Republican senators would never impeach and depose Trump and Pence simultaneously. Half a century ago, maybe, but not today. We are in a hyper-polarized political society. For 20 Republican senators to vote Pelosi in as the 46th president would be political suicide; they’d be primaried out of office in their very next election in their red states. The only way they’d depose Trump+Pence is if doing so gets them Colin Powell, Nikki Haley or some Republican as the new president.

To say “It’s the morally/constitutionally right thing to do” is one thing. To actually get people to do it, when doing so has immensely negative political consequences for their side (having a D-president instead of an R), is another thing entirely.

You’re basically saying, “The Constitution requires Republicans to fall on their swords now” and then acting perplexed when Republicans do not, in fact, fall on their swords.

Well I’m not blind to this line of reasoning. All I can say is that the one thing everyone in America seems to agree on is the GOPs lack of good faith and disregard for the law. You and many others have faith in it the way you are sure that 2 + 2 = 4. Meanwhile, conservatives are absolutely Counting on their representatives to do the wrong thing.

I suppose the political calculation is that putting party above the highest crimes which undermine the entire American project is less damaging than honestly following the evidence where it leads. Me, I see being so utterly contemptuous of the law as Senators is pretty damn close to falling on their swords, they just bleed out a little slower.

Anyway, we’re not prophets. We can’t say for sure that the GOP will burn “faithless criminals” onto their brand in front of the whole world for all eternity.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@Velocity

I don’t think that would be hard at all. Bear in mind that Obama was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize just 12 days after he took office in 2009. (The Prize wasn’t actually bestowed until months later, but he was already nominated mere days after becoming president.) It was argued that the reason he got the Prize was because the world wanted it to be a repudiation of the Bush presidency.

So I’d expect whoever succeeds Trump to be instantly accoladed by the world, especially if it’s a (D) who is the polar opposite of Trump.

I agree with that sentiment, but not the action taken. Bush was horrible and Obama was good, but Obama absolutely didn’t earn the Nobel Peace Prize, nor should said prize be a middle-finger toward unsavory politicians.

[Thing_Fish]

It’s hard enough for me to imagine the Republican Senate actually doing the right thing in any circumstance. If it means accepting President Pelosi, no freaking way. And really, they SHOULDN’T have to. Yes, Electoral College, Russian collusion and all, but they DID win the election. There’s no reason the results of that election should be overturned except to the extent necessary to remove the current criminal buffoon from office. If, as is looking likely, Pence is found to have been a co-conspirator, some mechanism should be worked out to get someone like Romney or Condoleeza into the Oval Office Ideally that person should not be a candidate for re-election in 2020, and should concentrate on re-establishing normal government functions, not trying to implement a new policy agenda.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

I’m not on board with all those ‘shoulds’ at all. I can’t see why the Dems would consider such a concession- #1 and #2 are implicated in the same impeachable offenses at the same time. They both go. The people didn’t elect Condoleeza Rice or Mitt Romney Speaker of the House. If you want to make the entire government look rigged, get rid of the POTUS and Veep and just install whoever the hell They The Corporations or whatever want!

It’s a unique circumstance. We’ve never had impeachable co-conspirators before. But just like the EC decides who wins the election and them’s the rules, the Speaker becomes POTUS when #1 and #2 are out.

Political impossibility? Um, they seemed happy enough to follow the EC rules and claim the White House for themselves. But they blew it when they turned criminal, and I’m sorry, they don’t get some kind of mulligan after selling out the country to foreign countries. I mean, wtf? That’s not overturning the last election, that’s honoring it. Pelosi is speaker, is she not?

[HurricaneDitka]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

… I can’t see why the Dems would consider such a concession- #1 and #2 are implicated in the same impeachable offenses at the same time. They both go. The people didn’t elect Condoleeza Rice or Mitt Romney Speaker of the House. If you want to make the entire government look rigged, get rid of the POTUS and Veep and just install whoever the hell They The Corporations or whatever want! …

You “can’t see why the Dems would consider a concession”? Really? They’d consider it because they don’t have the votes to impeach President Trump and Vice-President Pence. They DON’T. HAVE. THE. VOTES. That’s reality.