The Democratic House Caucus has a meeting this afternoon. There has been a lot of speculation, especially in light of the seven first year Democratic representatives’ op-ed in favor of impeachment published last night in The Washington Post. The reporting, or rather the framing within the reporting, has shifted to Speaker Pelosi trying to see just how much support impeachment has, considering a Special Select Committee to streamline everything, including a formal impeachment inquiry, and that the tide has turned on this. A social media rumor spread last night, which appears to originate with one of the anonymous accounts claiming to be a White House staffer/insider, that Speaker Pelosi now has the votes, just among the Democrats and Congressman Amash, for impeachment. The reality is that we really don’t know if that is true, just as we really don’t know who is behind that Twitter account. As the day progresses, as the President gives his speech at the UN General Assembly, which has been previewed as being a Stephen Miller “America First” address, and speaks off the cuff to reporters covering him and the UN General Assembly, we’ll see what happens. I think it is important, however, to both temper expectations and to consider Speaker Pelosi’s strategic calculus to this point and the assumption of risk.
My impression has been that Speaker Pelosi’s plan is to not move until she has the votes. She can count, and right now, even with last night’s op-ed and additional Democratic representatives coming out in favor of impeachment, she doesn’t have the votes. She may have them by this afternoon or be close enough that she feels that she can act, but she may also not. I honestly don’t know if this is a good strategy. My impression is that it isn’t, but it appears to be the one she is using. I think that part of her strategic calculus is the result of learning the wrong lessons from GOP and conservative misbehavior. She specifically stated in 2007 that she wouldn’t even consider impeaching President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney, nor did she have her committees spend a lot of time doing highly political/politicized investigations of them, because she was convinced, and I think not incorrectly, that the Republicans and the conservative movement that sustains them had decided that impeachment of presidents you oppose, which means for Republicans and conservatives, any Democratic president, is a standard, acceptable, and routine political action of Congress. She correctly understood that the GOP and conservative movement as it had evolved had learned the wrong lessons from Watergate, especially about impeachment. So by taking it off the table for President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney, she thought she could retrain them. That was a fool’s wish and errand, but I think she carries this assumption with her now.
This assumption has led her to conclude that if she moves the House to impeach Trump, even if it correctly rebalances some power to Congress and places some brakes on his lawlessness and puts so much negative pressure on Senators Collins, McSally Gardner, Tillis, and even a couple of other Republican senators so that the Democrats retake the Senate next year, that as soon as a Democrat is elected president, say in 2020, and as soon as the GOP retakes the House, they’ll just immediately impeach him or her – potentially after the midterms in 2023. I think she both understands, but can’t really bring herself to move on this despite her knowing and understanding just what the Republican Party and conservative movement have become. And the result is what you’re seeing.
The problem with this strategic calculus is that other than preventing really bad legislation from getting rammed through a Republican controlled House and Senate, as of right now there is nothing to justify the current Democratic majority in the House, why they should keep that majority, and why they should be given the majority in the Senate. No one cares how many bills the Democrats have passed given that they’ll never become law because Senator McConnell controls the Senate. And Senator McConnell only has two items on his agenda: confirming Federalist Society chosen judicial nominees and maintaining his majority next year. Every effective strategy requires the assumption of risk. And sometimes choosing not to assume one risk, or set of risks, means that by default one is assuming other risks or sets of risk. Up to this point Speaker Pelosi seems to be afraid of assuming the risks of formally opening an impeachment inquiry, which, as a result, means she is assuming the risk that the President and the Republican majority in the Senate will not simply devour the entire Federal government, the Constitution, and all laws, norms, and customs before the President can be voted out of office and that he will, indeed, be voted out next November.
I think this is the wrong strategic calculus, but no one is really asking me.
Open thread!
Spanky
At this stage of the game, anonymous Twitter accounts will be considered Russian govt until proven otherwise.
Carry on.
Villago Delenda Est
The inquiries need to continue. Open hearings laying out all of Donald’s crimes in excruciating detail. Those of us who were around for Watergate remember how the public was gradually brought around to impeach Nixon, and how the “Smoking Gun” tape sealed his fate. I think Pelosi knows she has the votes now. The thing here is, this needs to be prolonged a bit to have maximum impact on the 2020 election…the GOP needs to be branded the party of criminality if they refuse to vote to convict Individual One, and remove his criminal ass from office.
Spanky
@Villago Delenda Est: In comparison to the Nixon impeachment process, the “Trump tapes” are blasted over all media in real time, every time he opens his yap or twiddles his Twitter thumbs. Pelosi risks getting run over by an out of control administration unless she starts exercising Congress’ power toot sweet.
Immanentize
@Spanky: Agreed.
And now we luckily have another thread for everyone to restate their continuing position and concerns on impeachment. I swear, an unsophisticated algorithm could handle this comment section just using randomized old posts of each of us.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I’d consider the formation of special committee to be a huge step in the right direction. I think we’re still a long way from an actual floor vote on impeachment. “we are in pursuit of the truth, of the facts, our Constitutional duty to inform the American people….”
BGinCHI
1. This is a solid analysis that captures how Pelosi is both trying to rescue norms on one hand, while risking them on the other. I do think that her worst moves have to do with failing to show strength by appealing to broadly accepted principles, whether she has the votes or not. By waiting until the votes are in, she signals that principles are only good when one is in the majority. Playing it safe only works when the game isn’t rigged. And Trump is a game-rigger, not a game-player.
2. Anyone watching “Unbelievable” on Netflix? I’m floored by how smart it is at demonstrating the chasm between men and women doing policing/investigating, particularly of sexual assault. The show isn’t preachy but incredibly smart and subtle (and sometimes not) in the ways it highlights this disparity. A must-watch show.
guachi
If the Democrats go forward they need “shock and awe” to let potential witnesses know they aren’t playing. Jail and/or fine a witness or two if they stonewall and the rest will hopefully fall in line. Use professional prosecutors as questioners of witnesses. No time limit on witnesses. If they filibuster the question, they can sit their all day long until they answer it.
jl
@Villago Delenda Est: I think Adam is over concerned about when official impeachment hearings begin. But the House Democrats have to do something, both for political reasons and because Trump needs something to check him. Trump has more to fear than impeachment. Any further erosion of his support will be extremely dangerous for 2020, and need to put all eyes on his behavior regarding the integrity of the 2020 elections.
Even Fox News is wavering by thins point. I’m in Pelosi’s district and her office has heard from me, not sure what good it does.
MattF
It was noted in a previous thread that Pelosi’s constituency is the Dem House caucus– they’re the ones who elected her Speaker, and leading the Dem caucus is, quite specifically, one of Pelosi’s jobs. And it’s a hard and thankless job.
However, Trump is actually sorta coming to the rescue– his dishonesty, assholishness, and criminality are making Pelosi’s job easier. I feel some uneasiness in relying on Trump for anything, even for being an asshole. It’s certainly a high-percentage bet, though.
Fair Economist
That would result in nothing worse than the end of action to stop climate change, permanent Republican control via Orban-style gerrymandering and voting restrictions, repealing Obamacare, repealing Social Security for current workers, elimination of Medicaid, and selling off the national parks.
So these aren’t important?
Spanky
@Immanentize: There’s a Russian app for that.
Shalimar
I think Pelosi has been quietly counting votes since the mid-term. Her great skill politically has been whipping and counting votes. She will move if she ever has the votes to impeach.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
interesting, I do wonder if that’s not conflating “calling for impeachment” and “calling for an impeachment inquiry”
Spanky
Ooooh, and I just remembered that McConnell also actively squished funding efforts that would help secure the 2020 election, so we’ve got that going
foragainst us.ETA: I guess I should have tied that fact in with Democratic action will most likely drive voter turnout.
Nicole
The election is still over a year away. I don’t think it’s the worst thing if impeachment proceedings are delayed a few more months, as the media has A) the attention span of a grasshopper, and B) will be eagerly seeking ways to both-sides the situation and lord only knows what kind of pointless tempest in a teapot they can invent for the Democrats over the course of a full year.
Frankensteinbeck
Those two words are doing one Hell of a lot of heavy lifting, since I see none of those things happening because of a failed impeachment.
Has it disappeared down the memory hole just how BAD that legislation was? Look at @Fair Economist‘s list. Blocking McConnell’s unspeakably evil wishlist was what I was voting for in the midterms, and every time I remember I got it, my knees go weak with relief.
phein60
Patience, patience, patience: I think that’s what’s in play. It looks like House leadership is letting a reservoir of pressure for impeachment build, and want to keep it pent up until it becomes irresistible, sweeping Trump, Pence and all their supporters away. I just hope they have an accurate way of gauging the political capacitors.
Adam L Silverman
@Fair Economist: They’re important. Other than political junkies, no one in the US is paying any attention to them. Remember, every time someone actually explains and shows the Republican platform to people the response is “I don’t believe it”.
Betty Cracker
@Spanky: McConnell finally caved on election security. He had no other choice.
BlueDWarrior
At a certain point, you just don’t move forward with an army until most of the people agree on which direction to march. The fact it’s taking this long to get more than half the caucus willing to at least agree on a direction means that you have a lot of concerns both politically and institutionally about what the hell to do. Especially given that there is no guarantee of a fair trail out of McConnell’s Senate. He has basically carved out one of the Houses of Congress into his own personal Kangaroo Court, where he gets to be judge, jury, and executioner on everything because the Senate Republicans will fall in line and do what he asks(tells) them to do.
The Inquiry needs to happen, it needs to leads to Articles, which need to get voted up to the Senate. After that, who the hell knows what might happen, though…
Fair Economist
I don’t think Pelosi is under any delusions about Republicans following norms in the future, regardless of what she does. She has had a ringside seat for the endless Republican abuses over the past 14 years or so. Likewise if should *could* somehow snap her fingers and have Trump and Pence removed from office she would, because *she* would become President and she’d want that like any other politician.
Hence any reluctance to impeach by Pelosi is about actual limitation to what she can do (for example, she can’t impeach if there’s more than trivial dissent in the Dem Caucus; she needs 93% support) or a belief that an impeachment effort will have harmful consequences in the voting booth.
Her public pronouncements don’t mean much. She has said her primary job is to take the heat for Dems in tough seats. Her own seat is as safe as can be and as long as the Dem caucus sees her as their most effective support they’ll keep her as Speaker.
Adam L Silverman
@Frankensteinbeck: See my comment at 18
Leto
@Villago Delenda Est: Two issues with this comparison: 1) Fox News and the 24/7 media. People keep asking for TV coverage of hearings, but guess what? We have more than 3 channels now. Hearings are relegated to news media channels, if not the CSPAN channels. They’re not the same prime time viewing as they were. Plus: Fox News.
Edit: You know what would maybe produce televised hearings? An actual impeachment inquiry. Networks don’t televise oversight committees going about their regular work.
2) You’re not going to have a “Smoking Gun” piece because none of his thugs are willing to testify. You don’t have a John Dean, who’ll come before the panel and speak openly about the criminality that’s occurring. People are openly defying subpoenas, openly defying Congress. They don’t give a shit. Barr won’t prosecute, Pelosi won’t get the Sgt at Arms to detain. So when we do get TV hearings, we get empty chairs and befuddled committee members. Or we get Lewandowski’s: fuckers who are openly hostile, lying, and have open contempt for the congress people there. Or drunk frat boys yelling at Senators.
They don’t give a shit. They don’t fear prosecution by the law. They’re willing to let the slow ass courts take eternity to decide things because either a Dem will take office and the lens will move off of them, or Trumpov is re-elected and the corruption continues. They’re playing the long game.
Adam L Silverman
@Betty Cracker: He caved on the bit that sends money to each state, not the pet that mandates they actually do things. So in blue states it will get used appropriately. In red states it won’t.
JPL
Somehow I missed this..
Some one needs to ask Johnson whether or not he knew trump wanted info on Biden
link
jl
The House Democrats have to start doing something very public, whether it is formal impeachment hearings or more public and clearly explained investigations.
Nice that some commenters have complete trust in the world historical political genius of Democratic congressional leadership. But Pelosi needs to consider that the votes may not come around by some magic or cosmic force when all the stars are aligned. Maybe attempting to shape public opinion through leadership will do something?
I’m a Pelosi constituent and have contacted her office several times saying just that. And that there are things that bolder action can accomplish that will severely damage and check an obviously lawless Trump. And that a failed trial in the Senate is not the only criterion for success for failure. If others want to contact her office to laud her obvious and unquestionable political genius and tell her to disregard the impertinence of some of her constituents, they are free to do that. It is, still, a free country. If something isn’t done soon to check Trump, not sure how long that will last.
Fair Economist
@Adam L Silverman:
Not quite true; there was a lot of response to several of the Republican proposals. Focus is elsewhere now, but that’s reasonable since they can’t pass any of it as long as the House is Democratic.
All the same, it is really *essential* that the Democrats maintain some kind of veto point in the system, and the filibuster can’t be trusted at this point. Pelosi is probably somewhat overconcerned with losing control of the House, due to her position and responsibilities, but at present maintaining control of the House is legitimately critical.
Ohio Mom
I feel weirdly liberated knowing that what I think doesn’t make a difference. Other than the wasted call to the office of my Tea Party Rep to say ITMFA, there is nothing for me to do.
I mean, I’ll take to the streets if the occasion arises, and I’ll vote, contribute, etc., as always. And keep hoping that the leadership of what I consider MY Democratic Party know what they are doing.
Jeffro
I’ve been shocked that Nancy Smash hasn’t come to the realization that a) trumpov will crow about not being impeached even louder than he would a Senate acquittal, and that b) not impeaching an obviously guilty and corrupt president* totally demoralizes our side and everything we fought so hard for in 2018.
Also c) while trumpov is almost certain to lose next November, far, far too much is at stake for the US to chance a completely unrestrained toddler moron with zero (negative?) accountability for an additional four years. Hell, I think the reason congressional Dems are coming around is that we can’t even take 14 more months of this crap without incurring deep and serious losses as a country.
Frankensteinbeck
@Adam L Silverman:
So? They’re still incredibly important. And as political junkies, our perceptions of impeachment enthusiasm are distorted. The polls have said that the Democratic voting base is split on whether they want impeachment. I think it will motivate more than demotivate, but those polls do change the political calculus for elected officials utterly.
@Leto:
Quibble: For all practical purposes, she does not have that power.
They’re not. They’re playing the immediate moment-to-moment game. It may or may not turn out to be the right decision or to bite them in the ass in the long term. Those slow-ass courts might crush them when the decisions are finally made, or might not. But here and now, they’re stalling every way they can. That is short-term thinking.
gratuitous
Were I in that Democratic caucus meeting today, I would approach the question of impeachment from the opposite angle: Okay, you’re not ready to impeach based on an incredible number of high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the President. I get that. Lots of balls in the air, tough to juggle. What, then, will it take to get any of you off the schneid and support impeachment? Seven of you went from no to yes just last night when the news broke that Trump had pre-emptively held up $400 million in aid to Ukraine, so we know that was a marker. What more do you need to see, because I really don’t think this administration is going to suddenly get all law-abiding after 30 months of naked banditry.
Tell me what else you need to see the administration do that would have you say, “That’s it! No more.”
oldgold
This morning Trump explicitly admitted to a Constitutional High Crime equivalent to shooting someone on Fifth Avenue.
You can see Trump’s admission here: https://twitter.com/BGrueskin/status/1176495433759232002
Now, Trump’s Fifth Avenue hypothesis will be tested. We’ll see.
Baud
@Fair Economist:
I can’t believe a functioning adult said that.
jl
@oldgold: Pelosi is waiting for a written signed and notarized Trump confession and plea to be impeached, then will wait to see how the flies with the public? The consult an oracle to be assured of 100 percent chance of success before she does anything? Or what. I’m contacting Pelosi’s office again later today if nothing happens.
Yesterday I ventured that maybe some of what we see is Kabuki theater, but at this point, I can’t trust that is true.
Frankensteinbeck
@gratuitous:
My personal guess is that we’ve seen a steady trickle of ‘Okay, now this has gone too far’ announcements because that’s the plan. A lot of Representatives want political cover for making a decision they know isn’t popular with their constituents. Trump is a non-stop scandal machine. The votes can accumulate a bit at a time as reasons come up the Representatives can be publicly shocked by, and the impeachment can happen at what they think is the most politically useful time. It’s not going to have any practical effect other than how it affects voters, so that’s the calculus being used.
JPL
@oldgold: He’ll deny he said it.
Leto
@Frankensteinbeck:
Trumpov has played this his entire life and it landed him the presidency. My original analysis is sound: a Dem is elected, the spot light shifts to them and what they’re doing. Considering we don’t prosecute previous administrations, they’ll be fine. Trump is elected, the criminality continues. Who’s going to enforce the court orders that his administration comply with the decisions? Barr and Trumpov’s DoJ? Yeah, they’re stalling because it’s proven effective.
Frankensteinbeck
@JPL:
And Republicans will claim to believe him, because Fuck You, Liberals.
Frankensteinbeck
@Leto:
Everybody but Biden have said they plan on prosecuting this one, including Pelosi, and I might have merely missed Biden saying it.
Cheryl Rofer
Adam: I think her calculus may be changing.
Another thing wrong with the calculus you describe is that it is totally defensive, and politics always needs an offense.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
“Front-liners” refers to the GOP’s top House targets, especially freshmen like Lizzie Fletcher who flipped GOP seats
low-tech cyclist
@Shalimar:
Two thoughts:
1) If that had been the case, I’d have expected Pelosi to be studiously neutral about impeachment. Instead, she’s been openly critical and derogatory about those pushing for impeachment.
2) When the Nixon impeachment inquiry was authorized on February 6, 1974, I can guarantee you that the votes weren’t even remotely close to being there for impeachment. The votes were only there after the evidence had been marshaled, and the arguments publicly made, in the House Judiciary Committee.
You get the votes by laying out the evidence and making the case. The votes don’t just happen by themselves.
And in Trump’s case, the evidence is much more clear and the case far more direct than it was in Nixon’s case. So it shouldn’t be hard or time-consuming. It just needs to be done publicly and with reasonable care.
artem1s
She also correctly understood the public’s lack of tolerance for endless investigations and she learned a lesson from Whitewater/Clenis-gate. The Speaker lost his chair over his handling of that ‘scandal’. Numerous people were forced/coerced into dragging out a nothing-burger investigation for five years because Newt wanted retribution for his seating on airforce one. Nancy knows this impeachment can’t even hint of appearing to look like Dems trying to get revenge for Hillary. This news about the Ukraine might be the exact thing that will allow her to move forward because it isn’t related to the 2016 election.
Millard Filmore
@Shalimar:
The votes she should be counting are Senate votes. Impeachment hearings can be held for as many years as Democrats hold the House. The only reason to throw this over the wall to the Senate is if THOSE votes will convict.
the Conster
Pelosi wants to preserve the House majority, and wants the courts to enforce the House’s Article I powers. That’s the battle, whether there’s an official impeachment inquiry or not, and it looks like that’s coming. The impeachment vote won’t happen until much closer to the election, as the courts, the House, the WH and DOJ battle it out. The only thing, and the most important thing is that Pelosi controls the timing and the release of the committees’ investigatory products, but without enforcing compliance to release the financial records and the grand jury testimony and the unredacted Mueller report, it’s going to take time. In no instance does it make sense to let Moscow Mitch get his filthy mitts on any of the House’s work so he can turn it into a deep state kangaroo court shit show show trial of DERP for the media idiots like Ken Vogel and the Fox nuts to chase.
@BGinCHI:
I watched Unbelievable twice. I either want to be Merritt Wever or stalk her. Every man needs to watch.this.show.
Gin & Tonic
@JPL: The EU already provides Ukraine more than double the assistance the US provides.
Cheryl Rofer
The Ukraine and whistleblower things have a clear story line, easy to understand for anyone who has watched “The Sopranos.” Or, probably, “The Wire.” (I am not current on popular culture, don’t @ me.)
That’s a big plus, if the House committees will work with those stories. It will be a little tricky, because there are so many crimes.
I’ve been wondering how many of them will make it into the articles of impeachment. I would suggest the big ones with easy story lines, but a few littler and easily proved ones too. But they don’t listen to me either.
Adam L Silverman
@Fair Economist: There was a lot of response by political junkies and Democrats/Democratic leaning independents. Among everyone else was the same, confirmed disbelief that any elected official would want to do this, let alone try to do so. And that has been consistent for almost a decade now.
Leto
@Frankensteinbeck: It’d be the first in the history of our nation. We’ll see if they break with this norm/tradition because it’d open up another avenue of attack for future presidents and their DoJ: prosecution of previous administrations. It happened with the impeachment process (Nixon begat Clinton). It would happen with that.
TLDR?: I’ll believe it when I see it.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
A thought from today’s kitten wrangling:
When you want to herd cats, it’s helpful to have a laser pointer. And not every cat will respond every time you wiggle the red dot near them.
Applicability to the topic is left as an exercise for the reader.
piratedan
I believe that a huge factor on Pelosi’s “reluctance” to push for impeachment or to be seen as leading the charge for it would be the public perception of it and how it would be presented by the media, which I believe we can safely acknowledge has a GOP tilt. So, not only does she have to whip the votes, it’s likely understood that not only would the impeachment likely be directed at the President, but a good many members of his administration would be involved, including the VP and multiple cabinet members. Depending on their inherit stupidity, it could also extend into the Senate and the Hill. In short, it could bring down the entire GOP administration (treason has a way of doing that, methinks) and with our current media environment, the next most likely question to be asked would be “who benefits?” would suddenly appear.
Strangely enough, that question has been missing from our national discourse considering the policies and executive actions that have been issued from the Oval Office and the Cabinet, but I would predict that it would suddenly be back in fashion as those that are beholden to the GOP would use it as the cudgel to question Pelosi’s motives (its always projection with these guys isn’t it?) and I could see them attempt to change the focus of the proceedings from the crimes of this Administration, to making this about a perceived Pelosi ambition to be The President.
Hell, last night on MSNBC, I got to witness Kornacki talk about the Ukraine scandal not in terms of the President’s lawbreaking and treason but instead on its potential affect on the 2020 Dem primary…. So there we are, we have the President using his office to coerce other nations to provide him dirt on his political opponents and the most prominent “liberal” news organization turns it into a fucking horse race question about the 2020 election.
BGinCHI
@the Conster: Totally agree.
It’s brilliant: writing, cast, pacing, and observations on police procedural fails (Patriarchy Division).
Cheryl Rofer
@the Conster: Nice point.
Trump likes to use the courts in delaying tactics, but delaying too long will push things toward the election. Pelosi will have more control over timing than he will. This will drive him crazy.
dmsilev
Off-topic, except that Trump asshattery is always on topic: Trump officials threaten to withhold highway funds from California for its ‘chronic air quality problems’
Adam L Silverman
@Leto: @Frankensteinbeck: The Sergeant at Arms in the House isn’t going to detain anyone. Largely because he has no place to detain them. Despite the oft repeated belief that there’s actually a set of jail cells in the basement of the Capitol, there aren’t. Having Speaker Pelosi or Congressman Nadler or Congressman Schiff or Congressman Cummings bellow “clap that man in irons!” may be a very gratifying thought, but it is also fantasy bullshit made up by people who don’t know what they’re talking about.
rikyrah
@JPL:
want a list of all of the GOP Senators who knew what was happening.
Adam L Silverman
@gratuitous: Nothing, there is nothing that will move them because the interest of the holdouts isn’t good government or good governance it is reelection. I understand that Congressman Rose is Jewish and is in his first term in what is normally a safe Republican seat in Staten Island, but if he, as a combat veteran, can’t beat Joey Salads, a man who makes videos of himself urinating into his own mouth and posts them to YouTube as an attempt to monetize himself, regardless of his support for impeachment, then he should just not run for reelection.
Millard Filmore
@Frankensteinbeck:
I have to disagree with your outlook. The entire leadership of the GOP is participating in Trumps ongoing international crime spree. The sign of Republicans “breaking” is when they start taking Fact Finding trips to particular countries, then start making excuses to not come back.
Fair Economist
@low-tech cyclist:
Pelosi’s concern is Dems from tough seats. As long as impeachment is controversial among Democratic voters, taking a stand on it is a lose-lose proposition for such Representatives. For and they lose swing votes they must get; against and they lose Dem hardliners. By *saying* impeachment is “off the table” (without actually taking it off) Pelosi inoculates those Representatives from having to take a stand and taking the loss.
Now a number of those Representatives have come out for impeachment, which means they think the calculus has changed *for them*. This in turn frees Pelosi to do as she wishes, which I suspect is to conduct an extended impeachment inquiry (because the actual inquiry process is most beneficial to us and her), and drop the actual impeachment on the Senate late in the 2020 campaign to make it as hot an issue as possible.
Eolirin
@Millard Filmore: Pretty sure he’s talking about democratic reps.
Raoul
Ian Dunt had this to say today after the UK High Court handed down a unanimous slap across the face to Boris and the Tory leavers. Applies at least as much here.
Adam L Silverman
@Baud: Perhaps you want to rethink that comment?
Adam L Silverman
@Cheryl Rofer: I think it may be changing too. And I agree with you that she has been completely defensive up to this point.
Millard Filmore
@Eolirin: Oops. I saw what I wanted to see.
Raoul
Now to your larger analysis, Adam. One of the risks I think the Speaker isn’t pricing correctly is the risk that the left/progressive wing of the party will not tolerate inaction in impeachment, and this will badly f**k up not just Senate races, but House races.
If she sits on her hands (and yes, I know that Mitch and the Senate matter in this whole calculus, but she may yet stall), if she balks, a lot of the left-er side of the coalition may fracture. In which case the GOP can run the table for an extended period with a minority party. That risk isn’t zero now. It gets far worse if people feel voting Dem is useless in the face of blatant ripoffs and authoritarian hooliganism.
gvg
@artem1s: It was not about Newt’s seating. I saw an impeach Clinton billboard before he was inaugurated. There was someone who was out to get him and funding fever swamps of spite and stupidity before Newt did anything. I assume it was rich fanatics and I think they pressured the GOP to go along with it.
I remember being shocked because Clinton hadn’t done anything yet. I also grew so used to baseless accusations from the GOP that I didn’t know Clinton was lying until the DNA evidence. By that point, I had been trained to assume the GOP was all liars. That was the point when my being anti republican permanent too. They have gotten worse though. My memories of Clinton are that he compromised when he didn’t have the votes to sustain a veto. Mainly, he protected my issues by vetoing most of the worst ideas of the GOP. At the time, that seemed to be mostly anti-environmental and somewhat racist, not completely nuts like now.
Baud
@Adam L Silverman:
Nope. But I’m starting to rethink Balloon Juice.
Bobby Thomson
@Betty Cracker: Not really. McConnell’s bill provides money that can be used to buy easily hackable technology. The House bill has more conditions.
Comey lied. Many machines either have modems or are modem ready so as to transmit results to the county.
Raoul
@Cheryl Rofer: The Democratic ‘defensive crouch’ is so ingrained, it can feel like standing up is nearly impossible.
patrick II
Low energy Donald Trump is putting the world to sleep right now at his UN speech. He is speaking in his quiet monotone passive-aggressive voice, used for speeches written for him that he doesn’t agree with but feels compelled to give. Poor little boy.
Leto
@Adam L Silverman: Capitol Police headquarters on D Street Northeast does have a holding facility. /shrug
jl
@Adam L Silverman: I think centrist Democrats, like some commenters here, have a defeatist attitude, a learned helplessness. Nothing ever works. Anything they do must always backfire. It is impossible to shape public opinion because it is a fact of nature, like the orbit of the earth, and can never shift no matter what you do. And if you do anything it will backfire, because you have no agency in the world. Just wait until you can somehow know anything you do must work, or disaster looms.
They suffer from a form of political depression and need to see a therapist.
Edit: too bad Dr. Warren doesn’t have a professional license.
Bobby Thomson
@Fair Economist: what have the Romans done for us?
Kay
@Jeffro:
I think her basic argument fell apart. If they’re going to manipulate another election, then using “the ballot box” to remove him becomes unworkable.
Democratic voters are actual citizens. We have an interest in this. The President and his Party are infringing on our right to a free and fair election.
Cheryl from Maryland
@Gin & Tonic: This is important information to refute another Trump lie. Link? Thanks.
Adam L Silverman
@Raoul: Yep.
Adam L Silverman
@Baud: No one is forcing you to be here.
Leto
@Kay: ???
Gin & Tonic
@Cheryl from Maryland: Hope this link works; if it takes you to the summary you may have to select Ukraine as “recipient” in the drop-down at top left.
Kay
@Jeffro:
The frame of this whole nightmare has been “what will be the effect on people in power?”
There’s another interest here. Voters. They, we, have a right to have an election free of foreign interference, whether the interference is because the other country is promoting their interests or defending on Donald Trump withholding aid they need.
If elections belong to anyone they belong to voters. Donald Trump can’t just take that away from people. It doesn’t belong to him.
dimmsdale
@Betty Cracker: @Adam L Silverman: Jennifer cohn (@jennycohn1) has been beating a lone, mostly solitary drum for a LONG time that only hand-marked, hand-counted PAPER ballots are truly secure; anything with a barcode on it is subject to manipulation/hacking, as are machines working off servers. Purveyors of this equipment are generally Republicans, contributing generously to local Republican officials, and the devices that will be bought by this new “security” bill will be no more secure than our current setups, which is to say, not very much at all.
I’d recommend checking Jennifer Cohn’s twitter feed, simply because she’s spent more time and horsepower on election security than anyone else I read.
Her tweet today runs thus: “McConnell didn’t “cave.” He omitted the #SAFEAct’s ban on internet connectivity, on paperless machines, & on barcode voting. In fact, he omitted ALL election-security requirements. His funding bill is a “free for all” for the corrupt vendors who made donations to his campaign…McConnell’s funding bill will make things WORSE bc it has “no strings,” enabling corrupt officials to buy whatever hackable unauditable voting machines they want. McConnell is conning everyone by calling it “election security” funding. This is what happened w/ HAVA.”
judyinsd
My Rep. from CA 53, Susan Davis, is a part of Team Nancy, and despite her seat being very safe and now her decision to not run for another term, she has not come out for an Impeachment Inquiry. I think she and others like her, who will stand by Pelosi to the bitter end, make up a fair number votes. They will go for the Impeachment Inquiry once enough other members are on board. So we will see not a trickle of support as we are seeing now, but a flood. This is my hope and fondest wish…………….
Raoul
DNC Vice Chair Grace Meng has now said she is for impeachment proceedings. I don’t know if that’s new (I’m not in NY, not that familiar with her) but if a high level DNCer is for it, things are shifting. I have long felt that the DNC is the center of defensive crouching.
Raoul
@Bobby Thomson: The House bill has more conditions. So this is going to conference committee?
What sort of mobilization is happening to reach out to House conferees (and, if Mitch or the arcane rules allow it, and Dem Senate conferees?)
Mandalay
Completely O/T, but Laura Ingraham’s brother sent out a couple of heartwarming tweets:..
Ouch.
Adam L Silverman
@dimmsdale: I’ve seen her stuff, she is absolutely right.
Adam L Silverman
@Raoul: It is not going to conference committee. The House can either take up an pass McConnell’s bill or nothing happens at all. There’s no conference committee to reconcile the two competing bills as they aren’t just House and Senate variations of each other. There is the bill the House passed, which was very comprehensive. There is the bill McConnell allowed the Senate to pass, which is very superficial. McConnell is trying to jam the House and the House Democratic majority. He is daring them to defeat his bill so he can then go an tell the media, in sadness, that the Democrats defeated election security measures because they don’t really want secure elections. He will continue to use this same strategy, which he’s been using since January 2009, until it stops working for him.
UncleEbeneezer
@Adam L Silverman: “Other than political junkies, no one in the US is paying any attention to them.”
Isn’t the same thing true of Impeachment? Are non-political junkies talking about it?
What concerns me is that The-House-Didn’t-Impeach-Fast-Enough(Or At All) is a bullshit reason for anyone to justify not supporting the Democratic Party in 2020. For countless, existential and moral reasons that I don’t think I need to spell out here. We should be pushing back against that narrative not spreading it and giving it undue merit.
Major Major Major Major
@Immanentize:
Who says it isn’t?
Raoul
@Adam L Silverman: Aw, fuck.
Adam L Silverman
@UncleEbeneezer: I may have been unclear or obtuse or something analogous, so let me try to make my point clearly for you and everyone else that seems to have misunderstood or misinterpreted what I was trying to say. 1) It is very important that all of those bad things were blocked because the Democrats can use the House as a veto point to prevent anti-climate change legislation or getting rid of the ACA or a dozen other equally bad and terrible things. At the same time, 2) most Americans don’t pay attention to and don’t understand process. So, 3) campaigning on all the the really bad things you prevented won’t make a dent or move the needle because the majority of Americans aren’t paying attention and don’t understand the process and why this is actually important, affirmative stuff that should be rewarded. That’s why, for all practical purposes, just using that veto point and preventing all that really terrible stuff from happening, isn’t an argument for maintaining the majority for the vast majority of Americans.
Adam L Silverman
@Raoul: He’s got a very well delineated and, to be honest, very basic, but effective strategy. And he’s very good at using it.
Betty Cracker
@dimmsdale: Well, that sucks.
the Conster
@jl:
gee, who to trust? Nancy Fucking Pelosi who got the ACA passed through the House with the public option, who is unsurpassed at counting votes, whipping votes, and who knows more than anyone other than Trump himself about what’s going on in the Oval, or *squints* Balloon Juice poster jl.
Do you understand how stupid (or misogynistic) you sound? She hired Douglas Letter to run the legal strategy before she even got the gavel back, and has Hakeem Jeffries as her right hand to keep order and info flowing throughout the caucus. DC is populated with literally thousands of *powerful* white men, each one who rolled over for the reality tv show/mob boss/con man demented drug addicted serial sex assaulter, so let’s blame Pelosi for not unfucking the country because *squints* jl thinks it isn’t being done just the right way and fast enough? GFO.
Chris Johnson
@Millard Filmore:
Bullshit. We do not reserve judgement on a pack of criminals on the condition that they agree to not be criminals for long enough to cuff ’em.
You go forward, for the country we’re SUPPOSED to have, because not doing so conveniently guarantees we will never have it.
Warren gets this but she is far, far from alone.
Rand Careaga
@piratedan:
Obligatory:
Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@the Conster: the first woman Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the first Speaker to retake the gavel since… I don’t know which legendary figure from the misty past? Rayburn? Reed? Cannon? What does she know about politics, anyway.
I don’t remember a purity left from the pre-internet days. I know the sort of negative spin on the Cult of the Presidency really took hold of them during the Obama years (‘if he really wanted X…”), and now we have the negative Cult of Pelosi
Betty Cracker
John Lewis is calling for an impeachment inquiry, which means impeachment hearings are happening:
I thought Pelosi would wait until Trump’s hand-picked “acting” DNI refused to turn over the illegally withheld whistleblower complaint on Thursday, but now that Lewis is on board, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if Pelosi announces an impeachment investigation this afternoon.
gratuitous
@Frankensteinbeck: It’s also instructive to remember (I think it was America’s Best Christian Betty Bowers who tweeted it out yesterday) that it’s less important how many members of Congress are in favor of impeachment before hearings start and evidence is presented, but how many members favor impeachment after the facts have been laid out.
the Conster
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Being from Massachusetts, I liken her to John McCormack and the liberal Democratic agenda he passed as Speaker. There will be a building in DC named after Pelosi. She knows she gets one shot at Trump, and she knows how to shoot.
Kelly
@Adam L Silverman:
epidemic levels electile dysfunction
schrodingers_cat
@Baud: FWIW I agree with your assessment about Ds in Congress, they held strong against the spurious DACA deal in T’s first year in office when many of our esteemed FPers and commenters wanted to throw those in line for a Green Card, permanent residents and naturalized citizens under the bus, on the supposed assurances of the then DHS chief Kelly. The D leadership knows what it is doing than the angry Twitterati. Who will be the first to tell us how Ds are doing it wrong when the impeachment proceedings begin.
Adam L Silverman
@Kelly: Unfortunately.
Ksmiami
@dmsilev: Californians should just stop paying the IRS. trump is the first President who really is fighting his own countrymen – (I don’t count treasonous Confederates as countrymen FYI)
SectionH
@dimmsdale: Thanks for the rec. – off to follow her as soon as I finish this comment. Mr S and I, and quite a few people we know, have been saying the same thing: all votes on paper ballots, hand-counted in public (with representatives of all parties fielding candidates in all races overseeing, etc. etc.) And we’ve been saying this since 2000. I’m not sure how you make provision for legit absentee ballots, but I’m sure it can be done. Doesn’t address voter suppression, which of course also needs dealing with too many places, but we need to tackle both vote suppression and vote tampering.
Uncle Cosmo
@Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism: Per Jim Hightower, it helps even more if you have a can opener. And cans of cat food. Just sayin’.
Bobby Thomson
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
It existed, but only in liberal enclaves and academia.