US Politics, December 2019: Profound procedural deficiencies

xps

I kinda agree. The people trying to make this confusing would be doing it no matter what the impeachment was about. I understand that US-Ukraine politics isn’t something most people gaf about but bribery and election tampering seem to be the most unassailable reasons for impeachment that exist.

obnoxious pedant voice: nixon was not impeached

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-n35wAjB_u78/T1G-sL_peBI/AAAAAAAABJc/UZc0x2bI0M8/s1600/Caveman+Lawyer+Jury.png

yeah. i can understand perlstein's point, but what is the more obvious set of charges that he recommends that would be more viscerally understood by americans?

xp dr casino ugh, i do that all the time. but YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN

On climate change I'm afraid that them moving past outright denial isn't necessarily any kind of progress on the issue. It's getting to where outright denial is becoming politically untenable

Update: the PM has ruled out any emergency funding because the firefighters “want to be there.”

For anyone not following, there are over 100 wildfires in two states, many of which have been burning for a month. Over five million acres of bushland and 700 homes have been destroyed. The air quality in Australia’s most populous city is E L E V E N times above “hazardous” level, and fires to the north of it have joined into a 60-km-long “megablaze.”

Climate change denial is working just fine for the Prime Minister, who attends a pentecostal / prosperity gospel megachurch, and has a personal QAnon adviser.

(At the time Ukraine were trying to negotiate around the Biden / Burisma demand, this PM attempted to quid pro quo bringing his pastor, who funded conversion camps for lesbian teens and covered up his own pastor /father’s multinational child molestation for years, along on his White House visit.)

i believe perlstein's thesis is they should throw everything at him, maximalist charges, because 1) they won't impeach him again 2) the overhwelming maximalist "this man is a huge crook" blunderbuss case is easier to make than the "this specific set of acts is a high crime" case.

they (the democrats) won't vote to impeach him again because that's a political impossibility from their POV.

but also 3) the senate won't vote to remove, so they may as well throw it all out there. he calls their current strategy "narrow bore"

I just heard a smart liberal say the very least this inquiry will provide a check going forward on Trump using state power to sabotage his enemies. I think that's goofytown. The calamity of the narrow-bore impeachment strategy is... 1/4.

— Rick Perlstein (@rickperlstein) November 14, 2019

At least they could include obstruction of justice articles based on the Mueller Report, since Mueller already did all the leg work for them and tied it all up in a neat package with a ribbon and handed it to Congress, saying "here's a little something you may want to impeach him for, 'cuz my hands are tied".

if only mueller would have actually said that

FLASH POLL

which % is higher:

% of americans who know where ukraine (anywhere within 2000 miles of it)
% of americans who understood why the mueller report didn't say that trump committed a crime

i know a lot of americans are dumb but surely the first of those two, cmon

i think perlstein has in mind the obvious petty corruption stuff rather than the mueller stuff?

if only mueller would have actually said that

Aimless is barely paraphrasing tbf

lmfao

NEWS: A small group of Democrats are floating censuring Trump instead of impeaching him.

About a dozen moderates met on Monday to discuss the idea. Some have also been reaching out to House Rs to gauge support.

w/ @MZanonahttps://t.co/0WbRqlNt8c

— Sarah Ferris (@sarahnferris) December 10, 2019

That is a terrible idea that sets a terrible precedent

Cool, like half-assed pet owners squeaking out a feeble 'no, down' when their dog starts humping a neighbor's leg. Should prove very effective!

fuckin moderates

and all dudes

apologies if this has been covered but good to see harris getting back to business
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/stephen-miller-kamala-harris-senators-letter-white-nationalist_n_5ded8571e4b00563b8534265

I'm with Josh Marshall--the Dems shouldn't be trained monkeys doing ever more elaborate tricks for a Senate audience that has folded its arms and refuses to be impressed. It's wasted effort and it does make the dems look weak. The point isn't to change Republicans' minds, which is impossible--the point is to demonstrate that the Republicans are unwilling to put any bounds on his power or behavior. That's about the best the Dems can do right now.

President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees — in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees — in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael “Mick” Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

they left out bolton

goofytown

looking forward to perlstein's upcoming book about the trump era

at the rate he's working through GOP presidential history we may all be living in Waterworld by the time he gets to it.

rebuttal: waterworld will actually be good for the world, not bad. we need water to live

(Ben Garrison takes notes furiously for his next cartoon.)

water water everywhere and you have to flush ten fifteen times

it seems like as i get older and older, i have to flush more times. must be a problem with water pressure laws and the epa

Have to wonder how many of the ten-to-fifteen were because he was unwittingly attempting to flush his drooping, wizened scrote after his boys had sunk to the bottom of the bowl.

^hurtling toward the borderline of very bad fanfic

how ironic that an Old Lunch post would make me regurgitate my old lunch

speaking of Old Lunch, here comes mine

― master of nuggets (Neanderthal), Tuesday, December 10, 2019 6:42 AM (six hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/rookie-cop/2868167

http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040416/040416_campaign_daily_vlarge5p.grid-4x2.jpg

they left out bolton
― Peaceful Warrior I Poser (Karl Malone)

Bolton wasn't subpoenaed.

parties that are not organized along ideological lines are useless; the 'moderate' Dems can gtfo

at least the Republicans figured this out and all turned into cavepeople

If the Dems can't muster the votes for impeachment, they are well and truly fucked

um

House Democrats can push their sham impeachment all they want.

President Trump's re-election is 𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲. pic.twitter.com/O7o02S26nS

— Trump War Room (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@TrumpWarRoom) December 10, 2019

If the Dems can't muster the votes for impeachment, they are well and truly fucked

they overwhelmingly have the votes, only 2 Dems are on the record as opposing it. The "moderates" referenced above don't even have the 18 necessary to pass the procedural blocks they would need to throw up.

TBF, there's nothing stopping them from throwing up anyway.

*VLTF*

Lemieux thinks the trade vote after the articles of impeachment announcement was the right thing to do:

Politically, the passage of USMCA will almost certainly have the same material impact most of the other political events that have happened since Trump was elected have had — i.e. none. Trump’s approval ratings are incredibly stable and a trade deal coverage of which will be quickly drowned our by impeachment is not going to change that. If the deal is good for labor on the merits, and labor groups themselves at least think it is, then passing it is the right thing. And I really don’t understand how so many people who understand how inane the Halperin/Cillizza school of punditry is will turn around and assess everything House Dems do through a lens of completely baseless speculation about MESSAGING.

Also:

Among the biggest victories was an agreement to remove intellectual property protections for the pharmaceutical industry, which Democrats warned could undermine efforts to make health care more affordable. Democrats also persuaded the White House to strengthen the deal’s enforcement provisions, and obtained commitments to ensure Mexico is adhering to labor reforms.

Those changes were critical to winning the support of labor unions, including the influential AFL-CIO, which endorsed the revised pact just moments before Ms. Pelosi’s announcement.

In fact, the deal addressed so many of the Democrats’ concerns that some Republicans appeared skeptical of the final agreement and suggested that Mr. Lighthizer had given away too much.

Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, voiced concern that Mr. Lighthizer had potentially spent more time talking with House Democrats than Republicans on the final product. And Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania and one of the most ardent critics of the deal, railed against both the original deal and the new changes, including the removal of the pharmaceutical provision.

“It’s clearly moved way to the left,” Mr. Toomey told reporters. “It seemed to be just a one-way direction in the direction of Democrats.”

just a one-way direction in the direction of Democrats... whose votes will be absolutely vital to passing the implementing legislation. But, of course, crafting the agreement in a way that allows it to pass and take effect instead of being thrown in the trash is a small consideration compared to bitching about the Democrats.

It has to get through the Senate first, right? And idiot might still not sign it.

Sure. My point is I didn't get the complaints earlier today about the announcement of this trade deal. I said to a friend on his FB page that this was exactly the kind of "optics" twaddle that my most anti-Dem friends crow denounce. Of course it may not go anywhere -- so what? If the deal's good for American workers, why the hell wouldn't you promote it?

xp i agree with perlstein

the democrats should have presented a calvalcade of charges. it can all be connected anyway, in some kind of RICO way. he is essentially corrupt and is using the office for personal gain.

It has to get through the Senate first, right? And idiot might still not sign it.

OK, now explain how THAT will look bad for Democrats...they take the one thing King Asshole really, really wants and turn it into a poison pill he rejects, in an election year.