Also as an aside, if the GOP is thinking turning on Trump. Reps that represent districts like VA-01 and VA-05 are the ones I would watched. Those are the kinds of districts were they would probably drop trail balloons to see if maybe they should stop enabling Trump for the sake of power.
Also as an aside, if the GOP is thinking turning on Trump. Reps that represent districts like VA-01 and VA-05 are the ones I would watched. Those are the kinds of districts were they would probably drop trail balloons to see if maybe they should stop enabling Trump for the sake of power.
So probably the republican congress critters to watch for if the dam is about to break or if things are looking dire for Trump, but falling short of dam breaking. Are going to be Rep Wittman (VA 01 R) and Rep. Riggleman (VA 05 R). Both districts are purple, but skew enough to the GOP side, that if they jump ship, it probably means that Trump is done. I'd also be looking at districts and states will similar partisan leans as those two's districts for other critters to keep an eye on.
I also see the asshat GOP trying to liken the whistle blowers coming forward to the Kavanaugh scandal, where they confirmed a rapist, by claiming that more people coming forward doesn't make it more reliable. They clearly do not get how the intelligence community works. That shit is documented for a variety of reasons. Still no word on if any of the new whistle blowers have knowledge of scandals outside of the one involving Ukraine.
The other end of it is that if you're whistle blowing, theres a good chance that you've just crippled your career since keeping secrets is job one for spies and for bettter or worse you just showed you can't be trusted to do that.
Also regarding the image I linked earlier and how it's pertinient to the discussion at hand, swamp thing was once a man like any of the rest of us who became an extension of the swamp amd actively sought to defend it and all other forms of plant life. So it is with trump in that he has suffused himself into the swamp of graft and corrruption that plagues DC's underbelly with gusto; hence why I can only roll my eyes at this whole fig leaf of trump's indignation that Biden might have done something years ago.
Also as an aside, if the GOP is thinking turning on Trump. Reps that represent districts like VA-01 and VA-05 are the ones I would watched. Those are the kinds of districts were they would probably drop trail balloons to see if maybe they should stop enabling Trump for the sake of power.
They aren't
Given that Fox news is having a bit of a schism over how to cover this I'm less confident in this.
Also as an aside, if the GOP is thinking turning on Trump. Reps that represent districts like VA-01 and VA-05 are the ones I would watched. Those are the kinds of districts were they would probably drop trail balloons to see if maybe they should stop enabling Trump for the sake of power.
They aren't
Given that Fox news is having a bit of a schism over how to cover this I'm less confident in this.
Fox needs to keep themselves positioned as the GOP hype machine regardless of what happens. I think their game has become "managing expectations," so that the party is seen as being right regardless of what happens between impeachment and the election.
Considering the built in ear-to-the-ground Fox has (with its producer offices full of campaign workers and surrogates) that in and of itself might be a strong indication that impeachment isn't actually a settled issue, I think the most likely outcome is a brokered "who-gets-to-vote" deal like the Obamacare repeal where the vote fails by 1-2 votes, the party plays up a big schism over it, and Trump's gone and forgotten six minutes after being dragged kicking and screaming out of office at the end of his term(s).
If there is one thing I've learned with the shit show that is the modern GOP. Never say never. I mean, I've listed off a number of cases where people said, "that'll never happen!" coughDougcough choughJonescough choughKansascough
Also worth pointing out the cesspool that is the current GOP existed before Trump and they were planning on being around after Trump. Dude is not integral to the party's continued survival. If it makes sense to ice his ace, that's what they are going to do. Right now, they just think the public is clueless and can be persuaded to believe this isn't that bad. I imagine they'll start abandoning those plans given that the media is not having it and Fox seems to be schism over this shit. The GOP is full of opportunistic rat fuckers currently, do not confuse that with loyalty. In fact, that is a very volatile setup that often leads to tons of backstabbing; especially, when the shit hits the fan.
Lindsey Graham is concerned about Trump’s latest bullshit re: Turkey. That may as well be pulling the fire alarm.
he's always concerned about something
all republicans are
the thing they are concerned with most though is keeping their jobs, and since keeping their jobs is synonymous with lustily stroking trumps ego, they will never ever cross him in any meaningful way.
Lindsey Graham is concerned about Trump’s latest bullshit re: Turkey. That may as well be pulling the fire alarm.
Nah its the usual "this is where I stamp my foot and pout a bit" before he goes on another sunday show and goes "The real issue with syria and turkey is what Biden did there."
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Lindsey Graham is concerned about Trump’s latest bullshit re: Turkey. That may as well be pulling the fire alarm.
he's always concerned about something
all republicans are
the thing they are concerned with most though is keeping their jobs, and since keeping their jobs is synonymous with lustily stroking trumps ego, they will never ever cross him in any meaningful way.
Do people believe Mc Mitch will allow a trial before november 2020?
I think it would be dangerous for the GoP, because then it would look like they're trying to avoid their constitutional duties so they don't have to go on the record for voting for or against removing Trump. It would be the surest sign that the Senate would remove his ass in an instant if he didn't have such an absolute sway on the GOP base, and I think there are enough complete sycophants or true believers with microphone that would say that to prove they're more loyal to Trump than Mitch is.
That said, I'm betting the reason Dem leadership wants this to be ready for a vote sooner rather than later is to make it harder for Mitch to spin something like that as a "we're letting the people decide" decision, rather than "we're too afraid of losing our jobs to actually do our job" decision.
NPR had a interesting discussion about the impeachment process a few days ago.
Basically it came down to this. There aren't a lot of codified written down norms for how an impeachment progresses. So in the past, they kinda winged it.
So before, after impeachment made it through the house and into the Senate, they had congressmen come up and give speeches basically either supporting the removal from office or defending the president. Lots of em. But that's not a required way of doing things.
But apparently what Mitch can do is immediately after impeachment passes the house, he can just call for a vote to dismiss it on the grounds of "they don't have enough votes so lets not waste any time on this." Which lets them completely skip the part where the House tries to convince the Senate of something.
The Turkey thing feels like paying back some favors as the whole thing starts crumbling.
I think they're less confident about GOP votes than we think they should be.
My hunch is that this is exactly it. I suspect that many of these calls in Trump's secret server include deals that have some sort of personal upside from Trump himself. Now that it seems like the wheels are coming off, everyone is going to rush to cash in the Trump Rep they have accrued, which will result in more "inexplicable" behavior from the Trump administration and the wheels coming off further.
If there’s any evidence that Trump’s doing it because of Putin or his building in Istanbul, that might, might be enough to start turning the tide.
There are McConnell re-election ads running where he promises to stonewall any impeachment proceedings.
Everyone please keep in mind when considering Mitch McConnell that Oleg Deripaska, one of the Russian oligarchs sanctioned, has been heavily investing millions of dollars into Kentucky.
Also, Oleg is a business associate of Manafort.
He’s called Moscow Mitch for a reason.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Also Senate dems had to force a vote against Trump admin rescinding Deripaska-specific sanctions that easily passed in the house. Some 'pubs defected but not enough to override veto. You can bet McConnell was holding the line.
It’s probably going to take public opinion of Trump and his numerous crimes going to such a negative point that it threatens Senate Republican’s chances of holding seats/the chamber before we see them turn on Trump.
The good news is that we have a bunch of new whistleblowers, so chances of the public getting fed up with Trump and his crimes is an actual possibility.
Obviously something close to 30% of the country think Trump has done nothing wrong, but those voters alone aren’t enough to keep the GOP afloat.
NPR had a interesting discussion about the impeachment process a few days ago.
Basically it came down to this. There aren't a lot of codified written down norms for how an impeachment progresses. So in the past, they kinda winged it.
So before, after impeachment made it through the house and into the Senate, they had congressmen come up and give speeches basically either supporting the removal from office or defending the president. Lots of em. But that's not a required way of doing things.
But apparently what Mitch can do is immediately after impeachment passes the house, he can just call for a vote to dismiss it on the grounds of "they don't have enough votes so lets not waste any time on this." Which lets them completely skip the part where the House tries to convince the Senate of something.
No, I don't think anything says he can do that and if he tries that gets fast tracked to SCOTUS.
NPR had a interesting discussion about the impeachment process a few days ago.
Basically it came down to this. There aren't a lot of codified written down norms for how an impeachment progresses. So in the past, they kinda winged it.
So before, after impeachment made it through the house and into the Senate, they had congressmen come up and give speeches basically either supporting the removal from office or defending the president. Lots of em. But that's not a required way of doing things.
But apparently what Mitch can do is immediately after impeachment passes the house, he can just call for a vote to dismiss it on the grounds of "they don't have enough votes so lets not waste any time on this." Which lets them completely skip the part where the House tries to convince the Senate of something.
No, I don't think anything says he can do that and if he tries that gets fast tracked to SCOTUS.
No, he just says "Lets vote for impeachment. Yea or Nea. Tally 'em up." And then the Senate votes and its all over.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
NPR had a interesting discussion about the impeachment process a few days ago.
Basically it came down to this. There aren't a lot of codified written down norms for how an impeachment progresses. So in the past, they kinda winged it.
So before, after impeachment made it through the house and into the Senate, they had congressmen come up and give speeches basically either supporting the removal from office or defending the president. Lots of em. But that's not a required way of doing things.
But apparently what Mitch can do is immediately after impeachment passes the house, he can just call for a vote to dismiss it on the grounds of "they don't have enough votes so lets not waste any time on this." Which lets them completely skip the part where the House tries to convince the Senate of something.
No, I don't think anything says he can do that and if he tries that gets fast tracked to SCOTUS.
No, he just says "Lets vote for impeachment. Yea or Nea. Tally 'em up." And then the Senate votes and its all over.
Also goes to SCOTUS. Plus he absolutely can't actually call the vote for conviction - that would be Roberts. He can try and bind Roberts with bullshit rules, but Roberts can force him to take it to SCOTUS....
Truthfully I don't see any outcome except SCOTUS or conviction here.
Lindsey Graham is concerned about Trump’s latest bullshit re: Turkey. That may as well be pulling the fire alarm.
Lindsay Graham has been concerned with a lot of stuff Trump does and says. Inevitibly he'll either stop voicing those concerns, or do a 180 and support them because Trump blustered on through.
NPR had a interesting discussion about the impeachment process a few days ago.
Basically it came down to this. There aren't a lot of codified written down norms for how an impeachment progresses. So in the past, they kinda winged it.
So before, after impeachment made it through the house and into the Senate, they had congressmen come up and give speeches basically either supporting the removal from office or defending the president. Lots of em. But that's not a required way of doing things.
But apparently what Mitch can do is immediately after impeachment passes the house, he can just call for a vote to dismiss it on the grounds of "they don't have enough votes so lets not waste any time on this." Which lets them completely skip the part where the House tries to convince the Senate of something.
No, I don't think anything says he can do that and if he tries that gets fast tracked to SCOTUS.
No, he just says "Lets vote for impeachment. Yea or Nea. Tally 'em up." And then the Senate votes and its all over.
Also goes to SCOTUS. Plus he absolutely can't actually call the vote for conviction - that would be Roberts. He can try and bind Roberts with bullshit rules, but Roberts can force him to take it to SCOTUS....
Truthfully I don't see any outcome except SCOTUS or conviction here.
Thing is that SCOTUS ruled once in US v Nixon (completely different Nixon from that one) that impeachment is a 100% political process, and therefore outside of judicial review.
Now, I'd like to think that McConnell attempting to not do the trial at all will get shot down because the Constitution says the Senate "shall" have the trial, but if he wants to have the vote five minutes in, there isn't much the courts would be willing to do.
If there’s any evidence that Trump’s doing it because of Putin or his building in Istanbul, that might, might be enough to start turning the tide.
There are McConnell re-election ads running where he promises to stonewall any impeachment proceedings.
Everyone please keep in mind when considering Mitch McConnell that Oleg Deripaska, one of the Russian oligarchs sanctioned, has been heavily investing millions of dollars into Kentucky.
Also, Oleg is a business associate of Manafort.
He’s called Moscow Mitch for a reason.
Really hope that Amy McGrath capitalizes on this shit. Pointing out how she had to swear an oath of duty, multiple times, to her country and the Constitution, and that McConnell, is at the very least complicit in allowing the President to break his oath.
McConnell can use whatever dodge he wants to pretend he isn't obligated to hold a vote, or whatever dickery he'll do to make sure that the Senate abrogates their responsibility in holding the Criminal-In-Chief accountable. But there's no denying that by doing that, he's allowing the President to get away with high crimes.
NPR had a interesting discussion about the impeachment process a few days ago.
Basically it came down to this. There aren't a lot of codified written down norms for how an impeachment progresses. So in the past, they kinda winged it.
So before, after impeachment made it through the house and into the Senate, they had congressmen come up and give speeches basically either supporting the removal from office or defending the president. Lots of em. But that's not a required way of doing things.
But apparently what Mitch can do is immediately after impeachment passes the house, he can just call for a vote to dismiss it on the grounds of "they don't have enough votes so lets not waste any time on this." Which lets them completely skip the part where the House tries to convince the Senate of something.
No, I don't think anything says he can do that and if he tries that gets fast tracked to SCOTUS.
No, he just says "Lets vote for impeachment. Yea or Nea. Tally 'em up." And then the Senate votes and its all over.
Also goes to SCOTUS. Plus he absolutely can't actually call the vote for conviction - that would be Roberts. He can try and bind Roberts with bullshit rules, but Roberts can force him to take it to SCOTUS....
Truthfully I don't see any outcome except SCOTUS or conviction here.
Thing is that SCOTUS ruled once in US v Nixon (completely different Nixon from that one) that impeachment is a 100% political process, and therefore outside of judicial review.
Now, I'd like to think that McConnell attempting to not do the trial at all will get shot down because the Constitution says the Senate "shall" have the trial, but if he wants to have the vote five minutes in, there isn't much the courts would be willing to do.
So McConnel cant actually force Roberts to preside over a rigged "trial" is what you're telling me, since he can't go to SCOTUS if Roberts ignores him?
NPR had a interesting discussion about the impeachment process a few days ago.
Basically it came down to this. There aren't a lot of codified written down norms for how an impeachment progresses. So in the past, they kinda winged it.
So before, after impeachment made it through the house and into the Senate, they had congressmen come up and give speeches basically either supporting the removal from office or defending the president. Lots of em. But that's not a required way of doing things.
But apparently what Mitch can do is immediately after impeachment passes the house, he can just call for a vote to dismiss it on the grounds of "they don't have enough votes so lets not waste any time on this." Which lets them completely skip the part where the House tries to convince the Senate of something.
No, I don't think anything says he can do that and if he tries that gets fast tracked to SCOTUS.
No, he just says "Lets vote for impeachment. Yea or Nea. Tally 'em up." And then the Senate votes and its all over.
From what I was hearing on NPR, it more that he calls for a dismissal on the basis that they don't have enough votes. And then dismiss the impeachment before it goes to a vote for conviction.
I don't pretend to know actual law on this though...
Yes, but then it looks like a "partisan witch hunt".
Which he's already been bleating for most of the past three years, but people outside of the FOX core might actually start believing him.
Yes, but then it looks like a "partisan witch hunt".
Which he's already been bleating for most of the past three years, but people outside of the FOX core might actually start believing him.
I don't understand why we continue to make the oppositional argument like this. There is no evidence that this is the case.
+14
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Yes, but then it looks like a "partisan witch hunt".
Which he's already been bleating for most of the past three years, but people outside of the FOX core might actually start believing him.
I don't understand why we continue to make the oppositional argument like this. There is no evidence that this is the case.
Because we spent what feels like 20 years listening to people scream Benghazi at the top of their lungs, even after repeated investigations failed to find anything of note.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
NPR had a interesting discussion about the impeachment process a few days ago.
Basically it came down to this. There aren't a lot of codified written down norms for how an impeachment progresses. So in the past, they kinda winged it.
So before, after impeachment made it through the house and into the Senate, they had congressmen come up and give speeches basically either supporting the removal from office or defending the president. Lots of em. But that's not a required way of doing things.
But apparently what Mitch can do is immediately after impeachment passes the house, he can just call for a vote to dismiss it on the grounds of "they don't have enough votes so lets not waste any time on this." Which lets them completely skip the part where the House tries to convince the Senate of something.
No, I don't think anything says he can do that and if he tries that gets fast tracked to SCOTUS.
No, he just says "Lets vote for impeachment. Yea or Nea. Tally 'em up." And then the Senate votes and its all over.
From what I was hearing on NPR, it more that he calls for a dismissal on the basis that they don't have enough votes. And then dismiss the impeachment before it goes to a vote for conviction.
I don't pretend to know actual law on this though...
But as both parties begin to quietly explore their strategic response to potential House action, they are zeroing in on the 1999 Senate impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton for guidance, and that proceeding provides one obvious precedent Republicans could embrace.
As the trial threatened to gain steam after the Senate had heard from Republican House managers of the impeachment and Mr. Clinton’s defenders, Senator Robert C. Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat and the highly regarded conscience of the Senate who had said the Bible and Constitution would be his guide, moved to dismiss the entire case. Democrats were in the minority at the time, and Mr. Byrd’s surprise proposal was defeated along party lines, forcing the trial to move forward for a total of about five weeks before Mr. Clinton prevailed.
I feel sinking the impeachment with this tactic would be about as damaging as holding the real vote. It's saying there's nothing here worth impeaching over, while Trump is out there asking foreign governments to interfere in our elections. The main benefit would be to allow stopping it quickly, and hope people have forgotten about this by the time the primary rolls around.
The other aspect is that this is a 50%+1 vote to kill it, so you need every single Republican to vote for it, which could be deeply damaging for any senators in marginal states.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Yes, but then it looks like a "partisan witch hunt".
Which he's already been bleating for most of the past three years, but people outside of the FOX core might actually start believing him.
I don't understand why we continue to make the oppositional argument like this. There is no evidence that this is the case.
i think it can reasonably be argued that repeatedly trying and failing to convict him after impeachment will seem as much nonsense political posturing as the house voting to repeal the PPACA eighty-some times
Yes, but then it looks like a "partisan witch hunt".
Which he's already been bleating for most of the past three years, but people outside of the FOX core might actually start believing him.
I don't understand why we continue to make the oppositional argument like this. There is no evidence that this is the case.
i think it can reasonably be argued that repeatedly trying and failing to convict him after impeachment will seem as much nonsense political posturing as the house voting to repeal the PPACA eighty-some times
I think the level of public attention as well as outrage would be considerably higher if Mitch shamelessly kills the vote like this though. They can try to hand-wave it away as some partisan hunt, but people are paying much more attention to this than they are to some toothless repeal of Obamacare.
Yes, but then it looks like a "partisan witch hunt".
Which he's already been bleating for most of the past three years, but people outside of the FOX core might actually start believing him.
I don't understand why we continue to make the oppositional argument like this. There is no evidence that this is the case.
i think it can reasonably be argued that repeatedly trying and failing to convict him after impeachment will seem as much nonsense political posturing as the house voting to repeal the PPACA eighty-some times
I think the level of public attention as well as outrage would be considerably higher if Mitch shamelessly kills the vote like this though. They can try to hand-wave it away as some partisan hunt, but people are paying much more attention to this than they are to some toothless repeal of Obamacare.
Yeah, that'd be the key difference. If McConnell at least goes through the pretense of running a proper trial that's made to seem fair (even with his hand on the scale), that'd make another impeachment (because there's like six different avenues of attack that'd be justified) much harder to justify to the public.
But if McConnell just fucks it right up, like having the Senate vote immediately, or use some arcane rule to stop it before it hits the Senate floor, then Democrats NEED to keep going back to that well, to show that McConnell is the one breaking everything, and that the Democrats are going to keep fighting.
Because that's the thing. As we've seen, the public (and especially the base) massively approve of Democrats fighting a good fight. Can't capitulate to these fuckers, and all that does is depress (in multiple ways) the base.
Lindsey Graham is concerned about Trump’s latest bullshit re: Turkey. That may as well be pulling the fire alarm.
Lindsay Graham has been concerned with a lot of stuff Trump does and says. Inevitibly he'll either stop voicing those concerns, or do a 180 and support them because Trump blustered on through.
Graham has been backing everything full force since Kavanaugh, so this is actually a bit of a shift. It'll probably go away, but it's not completely meaningless.
Posts
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
trump doesn't know what a neocon is and couldn't find syria on a map if it was the only thing there.
additionally, he couldn't even finish reading your comment
he just did something he thought might make trump happy and now he'll stick with it until he feels like doing something else
They aren't
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Or he's just stupid and is putting his face in a beartrap, but has thus far gotten away with it by being luckier than Mr. fucking Magoo.
The other end of it is that if you're whistle blowing, theres a good chance that you've just crippled your career since keeping secrets is job one for spies and for bettter or worse you just showed you can't be trusted to do that.
Also regarding the image I linked earlier and how it's pertinient to the discussion at hand, swamp thing was once a man like any of the rest of us who became an extension of the swamp amd actively sought to defend it and all other forms of plant life. So it is with trump in that he has suffused himself into the swamp of graft and corrruption that plagues DC's underbelly with gusto; hence why I can only roll my eyes at this whole fig leaf of trump's indignation that Biden might have done something years ago.
Given that Fox news is having a bit of a schism over how to cover this I'm less confident in this.
Fox needs to keep themselves positioned as the GOP hype machine regardless of what happens. I think their game has become "managing expectations," so that the party is seen as being right regardless of what happens between impeachment and the election.
Considering the built in ear-to-the-ground Fox has (with its producer offices full of campaign workers and surrogates) that in and of itself might be a strong indication that impeachment isn't actually a settled issue, I think the most likely outcome is a brokered "who-gets-to-vote" deal like the Obamacare repeal where the vote fails by 1-2 votes, the party plays up a big schism over it, and Trump's gone and forgotten six minutes after being dragged kicking and screaming out of office at the end of his term(s).
Also worth pointing out the cesspool that is the current GOP existed before Trump and they were planning on being around after Trump. Dude is not integral to the party's continued survival. If it makes sense to ice his ace, that's what they are going to do. Right now, they just think the public is clueless and can be persuaded to believe this isn't that bad. I imagine they'll start abandoning those plans given that the media is not having it and Fox seems to be schism over this shit. The GOP is full of opportunistic rat fuckers currently, do not confuse that with loyalty. In fact, that is a very volatile setup that often leads to tons of backstabbing; especially, when the shit hits the fan.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
he's always concerned about something
all republicans are
the thing they are concerned with most though is keeping their jobs, and since keeping their jobs is synonymous with lustily stroking trumps ego, they will never ever cross him in any meaningful way.
Nah its the usual "this is where I stamp my foot and pout a bit" before he goes on another sunday show and goes "The real issue with syria and turkey is what Biden did there."
pleasepaypreacher.net
Thoughts and prayers
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Do people believe Mc Mitch will allow a trial before november 2020?
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
If there’s any evidence that Trump’s doing it because of Putin or his building in Istanbul, that might, might be enough to start turning the tide.
There are McConnell re-election ads running where he promises to stonewall any impeachment proceedings.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I think it would be dangerous for the GoP, because then it would look like they're trying to avoid their constitutional duties so they don't have to go on the record for voting for or against removing Trump. It would be the surest sign that the Senate would remove his ass in an instant if he didn't have such an absolute sway on the GOP base, and I think there are enough complete sycophants or true believers with microphone that would say that to prove they're more loyal to Trump than Mitch is.
That said, I'm betting the reason Dem leadership wants this to be ready for a vote sooner rather than later is to make it harder for Mitch to spin something like that as a "we're letting the people decide" decision, rather than "we're too afraid of losing our jobs to actually do our job" decision.
I think they're less confident about GOP votes than we think they should be.
Basically it came down to this. There aren't a lot of codified written down norms for how an impeachment progresses. So in the past, they kinda winged it.
So before, after impeachment made it through the house and into the Senate, they had congressmen come up and give speeches basically either supporting the removal from office or defending the president. Lots of em. But that's not a required way of doing things.
But apparently what Mitch can do is immediately after impeachment passes the house, he can just call for a vote to dismiss it on the grounds of "they don't have enough votes so lets not waste any time on this." Which lets them completely skip the part where the House tries to convince the Senate of something.
My hunch is that this is exactly it. I suspect that many of these calls in Trump's secret server include deals that have some sort of personal upside from Trump himself. Now that it seems like the wheels are coming off, everyone is going to rush to cash in the Trump Rep they have accrued, which will result in more "inexplicable" behavior from the Trump administration and the wheels coming off further.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Everyone please keep in mind when considering Mitch McConnell that Oleg Deripaska, one of the Russian oligarchs sanctioned, has been heavily investing millions of dollars into Kentucky.
Also, Oleg is a business associate of Manafort.
He’s called Moscow Mitch for a reason.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
The good news is that we have a bunch of new whistleblowers, so chances of the public getting fed up with Trump and his crimes is an actual possibility.
Obviously something close to 30% of the country think Trump has done nothing wrong, but those voters alone aren’t enough to keep the GOP afloat.
No, I don't think anything says he can do that and if he tries that gets fast tracked to SCOTUS.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
No, he just says "Lets vote for impeachment. Yea or Nea. Tally 'em up." And then the Senate votes and its all over.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Also goes to SCOTUS. Plus he absolutely can't actually call the vote for conviction - that would be Roberts. He can try and bind Roberts with bullshit rules, but Roberts can force him to take it to SCOTUS....
Truthfully I don't see any outcome except SCOTUS or conviction here.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Lindsay Graham has been concerned with a lot of stuff Trump does and says. Inevitibly he'll either stop voicing those concerns, or do a 180 and support them because Trump blustered on through.
Thing is that SCOTUS ruled once in US v Nixon (completely different Nixon from that one) that impeachment is a 100% political process, and therefore outside of judicial review.
Now, I'd like to think that McConnell attempting to not do the trial at all will get shot down because the Constitution says the Senate "shall" have the trial, but if he wants to have the vote five minutes in, there isn't much the courts would be willing to do.
Really hope that Amy McGrath capitalizes on this shit. Pointing out how she had to swear an oath of duty, multiple times, to her country and the Constitution, and that McConnell, is at the very least complicit in allowing the President to break his oath.
McConnell can use whatever dodge he wants to pretend he isn't obligated to hold a vote, or whatever dickery he'll do to make sure that the Senate abrogates their responsibility in holding the Criminal-In-Chief accountable. But there's no denying that by doing that, he's allowing the President to get away with high crimes.
Kentucky, and the country, deserves better.
So McConnel cant actually force Roberts to preside over a rigged "trial" is what you're telling me, since he can't go to SCOTUS if Roberts ignores him?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
From what I was hearing on NPR, it more that he calls for a dismissal on the basis that they don't have enough votes. And then dismiss the impeachment before it goes to a vote for conviction.
I don't pretend to know actual law on this though...
Which he's already been bleating for most of the past three years, but people outside of the FOX core might actually start believing him.
Because we spent what feels like 20 years listening to people scream Benghazi at the top of their lungs, even after repeated investigations failed to find anything of note.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/us/politics/senate-trump-impeachment.html
I feel sinking the impeachment with this tactic would be about as damaging as holding the real vote. It's saying there's nothing here worth impeaching over, while Trump is out there asking foreign governments to interfere in our elections. The main benefit would be to allow stopping it quickly, and hope people have forgotten about this by the time the primary rolls around.
The other aspect is that this is a 50%+1 vote to kill it, so you need every single Republican to vote for it, which could be deeply damaging for any senators in marginal states.
i think it can reasonably be argued that repeatedly trying and failing to convict him after impeachment will seem as much nonsense political posturing as the house voting to repeal the PPACA eighty-some times
I'd be more impressed by his moral outrage if it was backed by any real action.
I think the level of public attention as well as outrage would be considerably higher if Mitch shamelessly kills the vote like this though. They can try to hand-wave it away as some partisan hunt, but people are paying much more attention to this than they are to some toothless repeal of Obamacare.
Yeah, that'd be the key difference. If McConnell at least goes through the pretense of running a proper trial that's made to seem fair (even with his hand on the scale), that'd make another impeachment (because there's like six different avenues of attack that'd be justified) much harder to justify to the public.
But if McConnell just fucks it right up, like having the Senate vote immediately, or use some arcane rule to stop it before it hits the Senate floor, then Democrats NEED to keep going back to that well, to show that McConnell is the one breaking everything, and that the Democrats are going to keep fighting.
Because that's the thing. As we've seen, the public (and especially the base) massively approve of Democrats fighting a good fight. Can't capitulate to these fuckers, and all that does is depress (in multiple ways) the base.
Graham has been backing everything full force since Kavanaugh, so this is actually a bit of a shift. It'll probably go away, but it's not completely meaningless.