US Politics, November 2019: These people are truly sick.

At any rate, I appreciate the move towards a hipper, snappier, MTV-style lightning round questioning style. Whatever it takes to alleviate our Commander in Chief's boredom!

Jordan's "Star Witness" line is getting traction as a sound bite.

― a bevy of supermodels, musicians and Lena Dunham (C. Grisso/McCain)

getting some help from the NYT as well. here's their current headline:

https://i.imgur.com/3TuahVC.jpg

GOP Senators publicly arguing w each other, you love to see it

Senators are pushing for a speedy impeachment trial as the proceedings appear poised to spill into 2020.

With House Democrats aiming to vote on articles of impeachment by Christmas, Republicans view a trial as all but guaranteed but are warning they don’t want to drag it out.

How long a trial could last is a rolling point of debate. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) raised eyebrows by suggesting it could last six to eight weeks, longer than the proceedings against former President Clinton, which lasted just over a month.

Burr argued the case against Clinton was “cookie-cutter” compared to the current investigation.

“Bill Clinton admitted that he lied to the FBI,” Burr said. “His took five weeks and it didn’t meet the threshold of removal from office. I figured since the president hadn’t admitted to a crime, nor has the House process proven a crime, that it would probably take them some more time.”

But GOP senators — who view it as all but guaranteed that President Trump will not be convicted — balked at a long timeline, questioning why they would want to eat up extra weeks on a trial that seems prebaked.

Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.), asked about Burr’s prediction, said, “I don’t know who he was kidding, but no, it’s not going to take that long.”

“It doesn’t sound like there’s going to be much they’re going to give us, so I think a week is more than enough time to get all that adjudicated, get it out there and exposed, and be done with this,” Perdue added.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who was in office for the Clinton trial, characterized himself as “in shock” over the idea of taking six to eight weeks for the Senate’s impeachment proceedings.
ADVERTISEMENT

“I’m not sure why it should,” he said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who was a House manager in 1999, also questioned why a trial would need to take up to two months.

“It’s not a complicated fact pattern. I doubt if a trial would last that long,” he said.

Talk about a potential Senate trial comes as the House is holding its first public hearings as part of their impeachment inquiry after weeks of closed-door depositions. House lawmakers are examining if Trump held up Ukraine aid in an effort to pressure the country to open up an investigation into former Vice President Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

One option that has been discussed by some GOP senators, as well as conservative pundits, would be to try to dismiss the articles of impeachment, effectively ending a trial before it could get underway. Democrats tried to dismiss the articles against Clinton, but the vote, which requires a simple majority, fell short.

But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) dismissed the idea during a weekly leadership press conference on Wednesday, telling reporters that there will be a trial if the House sends over articles of impeachment.

“The rules of impeachment are very clear, we’ll have to have a trial. My own view is that we should give people an opportunity to put the case on. ... On the issue of how long it goes on, it’s really kind of up to the Senate,” he said.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), an adviser to McConnell, also told reporters that he didn’t think the votes were there to dismiss impeachment articles.

Meanwhile, Perdue added that Trump should “get his day in court.”

“I’m one that says, no, put it out there and let’s show everybody just how weak this is, how ridiculous this is,” he said.

Democrats had initially aimed to vote on articles of impeachment by Thanksgiving. Under that time frame, McConnell had told GOP senators that a trial could wrap by the end of the year.

But that time frame has slipped amid weeks of closed-door depositions. House Democrats are now aiming to hold a floor vote by Christmas.

The Senate is scheduled to wrap up its work for the year on Dec. 13. Senators are hoping leadership would be able to come up with a deal to avoid working through the holidays.

Sen. Roy Blunt (Mo.), a member of GOP leadership, said a Christmas vote in the House could “encourage us [in the Senate] to come to some quick agreement on both a time frame and some rules that accommodates Christmas at least, and maybe that whole week.”

Bribery is pretty easy to understand, have been wondering why House Dems weren't pushing this as a clear message

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday accused President Trump of "bribery" in his dealings with Ukrainian leaders, linking the president's actions to the Constitution's impeachment clause even while emphasizing that Democrats remain undecided on whether they'll draft impeachment articles.

"That is in the Constitution, attached to the impeachment proceedings," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol.

She then explained the basis for the charge, which stems from a whistleblower's complaint that has since supported by numerous government officials, that Trump leveraged U.S. military aid to Kyiv to secure political favors from Ukrainian leaders.

"The bribe is to grant or withhold military assistance in return for a public statement of a fake investigation into the elections," she said. "That's bribery."

Pelosi declined to say if the bribery charge would become an article of impeachment, insisting Democrats — even as they move ahead with their investigation — have not concluded Trump committed impeachable offenses.

"We haven't even made a decision to impeach," she said. "That's what the inquiry is about. And when the committees decide that, then they will decide what the articles are."

"But I am saying, that what the president has admitted to, and says it's "perfect," I said it's perfectly wrong," she added. "It's bribery."

Trump needs some coaching from Ja Rule on how to deny criminal activity

can i share some naive information age whining, related to how the world sucks?

is anyone else weirded out by how, collectively, we all expect terrible outcomes and anticipate them to the point that we guarantee that the future will be a version of self-fulfilling prophecy?

(when i say "we", i mean people that matter to impeachment decisions. so, rich people, name brand journalists, and a few hundred people voting on impeachment. yes, my assumption is that none of what i, or you, or anyone reading about this thinks about impeachment matters to their decision. yes, this is pessimistic. yes, i'm aware that the current level of support for impeachment (~50%) is very high, historically. no, i don't think it's enough to change the senate vote. yes, if somehow support for impeachment gets above 70-80%, i think it would be enough to peel off some republican votes. no, i don't think that we'll get to 70% support in the public, because the people in this country are so uninformed, misinformed, and disinformed. yes, i'm aware that there is a thread where people answer their own questions. no, i'm not going to admit that i made it)

we've already played out the fight over the senate votes. the senate republicans won't vote for impeachment, no matter what. on the left, we've already gone through the (outdated) kübler-ross stages of grief, with many of us trying to figure out how to accept things as they are (or will be??) and move on (from the future??). by the time the senate actually votes (not guilty!), we will have fully accepted it and moved on. we've already lived through the rage and the disbelief, and we can't live in that state for long without breaking down, so we accept it.

it's amazing how far this infiltrates the population. i heard a podcast this morning with a 3rd grade, talking about impeachment. they asked him what he thought would happen, and he said that he expected the house to vote for it, but not the senate. granted, this boy was precocious as hell.

but the end result is that when it comes down the unthinkable act, the sequel to the merrick garland slow-motion fuckover, the golden boy brett kavanaugh disingenuous pukefest, the sight of several dozen white republican men seeing indisputable evidence that the president is and has been a criminal from day one and voting "not guilty" anyway, we will be exhausted and will have already played out the whole cycle in our head.

we've grown accustomed to using simulations to create models from past events, in order to simulate future outcomes. but now, we're simulating the future, deciding the most likely outcome, socializing that prediction through endless discussions and information sharing, then collectively walking toward the simulated outcome that we think is most likely. it's really fucking weird? we are missing out on the moment of collective SHOCK and RAGE that would come from watching the unthinkable happen in real time.

weirded out? not really, but it is super-annoying.

Booming post.

A lot in there to delve into deeper, though I'm not sure this thread is the best place for that.

optimism is necessary to effect change. cynicism leads to inaction.

I thought the 2018 election was a vital counter to this. It felt so good for the right thing to happen for once, and had the Dems not make that progress last year we wouldn't even be talking about impeachment, and god knows what we *would* be talking about.

the point of impeachment right now isn't to immediately get Trump out of office, it's to stoke rage at the craven amorality of the entire GOP for protecting him, thereby driving turnout and robbing them of the Senate majority and the Presidency in the 2020 election.

which tbh is much more likely than 20 GOP Senators suddenly voting to remove him from office when impeachment support hits 60% in the polls

Yeah the Senate is vital. Court packing a must. I want 33 nominees

if somehow support for impeachment gets above 70-80%, i think it would be enough to peel off some republican votes

While that would be grand, I think it's unlikely these days. Bucking a party-line vote gets more and more impossible. _However_, their kneejerk party loyalty could make them vulnerable at election time, which imo is just as good. As Οὖτις says, flipping the Senate is a pretty desirable prize, perhaps even more important than removing President. (Though of course I'd like both.)

My instinctual pessimism is but a chocolatey outer layer that encloses a delightful nougaty center of optimism

the quite real risk here is that once he does survive trial in the Senate, he is sure to immediately lash out and do something highly provocative and/or even more illegal in an attempt to drive up enthusiasm for his re-election

xp

ultimately the big problem is that politics in this country is just a large scale representation of the "prisoner's dilemma"...if one side is willing to lie & cheat in order to retain power and the other isn't, the dishonest side will always win.

that said impeachment is most certainly worth pursuing, not only because it'll irritate and distract Trump leading up to the election but also because it puts his corruption front and center in the news on a daily basis

The GOP wins elections by keeping its neanderthal base continuously stoked. That's all I've wanted from the impeachment hearings.

optimism is necessary to effect change. cynicism leads to inaction.

yeah, i agree! and i do try to keep that in mind.

but this is something different, more sweeping. (this as in the widespread understanding of the scam that is coming up in the senate). there are precedents, of course. but it's still a uniquely 2010s, information overload kind of thing, where everyone has the information, and the outcome has already been widely discussed months ahead of time.

the dishonest side will always win

this is demonstrably untrue

There is exactly one Republican senator that I would expect to vote to remove him from office if the trial gets that far and that's entirely because her constituency wouldn't punish her for it (Murkowski) and I wouldn't consider that to be a guarantee

The others either agree with what Trump did, agree with the rationale even if they think it was illegal, or are so scared to lose their elections that they will vote to exonerate regardless of the facts.

I think impeachment support getting as high as it already is, is fairly remarkable. I think growth will slow because the general public has been conditioned through the Nixon episode and years of legal procedural television to expect impeachable wrongdoing involves a clear "smoking gun", a solitary piece of evidence that makes the crime obvious like the Nixon tape.

The low info dolts don't really get that it's often not that cut and dry and that we convict civilians in criminal court with far flimsier evidence.

60% might be where it crests.

The United States government is a system which has gone so long without proper upkeep and maintenance and has been fucked with by so many bad actors that I'm not sure why anyone would realistically expect a different outcome at this point. The best we can hope for in the short term is that the dems take the presidency and the entirety of Congress next year, but even if that happens it just feels like a bandaid, like they're just going to do what they can to keep the bloated carcass from spoiling too much more without doing a whole lot to revive it. That doesn't mean that there aren't steadfast forces of good working both within and without that system to keep the human race from devolving into warring tribes of cannibal apes, but...yeah, I'm pretty goddamn cynical wrt the system that's enabled the last several years to happen largely unchecked. It doesn't bode well.

I can envisage Cory Gardner joining Murkowski because he's likely doomed next year, but, yeah, anyone else would shock me

anyway, i'm talking about something different and i don't have anything more to say on it that isn't just rehashing the same old shit. i'll just be over here in the darkness

I think we can expect some dramatic "heightening of the contradictions", as they say, following the trial. Both parties are going to treat it as a referendum on the other, and the rhetoric about how evil the other side is and how the election is the only way to resolve this is going to go into triple-overdrive

xp

The GOP wins elections by keeping its neanderthal base continuously stoked. That's all I've wanted from the impeachment hearings.

― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, November 14, 2019 12:17 PM bookmarkflaglink

Da fuuuck u say holmes?!!!!?!!!

#NotAllNeanderthals

neanderthal, hop on frequency 112.42 - you have been activated. you must infiltrate the GOP base and get them stoked about better things

I think we can expect some dramatic "heightening of the contradictions", as they say, following the trial. Both parties are going to treat it as a referendum on the other, and the rhetoric about how evil the other side is and how the election is the only way to resolve this is going to go into triple-overdrive

i have consulted my 2020 simulation, and i must say, this is otm

PLANNED
PARENTHOOD
BAD

WAR
ON
CHRISTMAS

general - we've lost agent 112.42 - he infiltrated the base and went rogue within 2 minutes

FWIW, I generally maintain a sense of optimism wrt the human race in general even as the bad faith puppetmasters maintain a distressingly powerful hold on the human race's perspectives/beliefs/actions. Nuke every established hierarchy out of existence, basically.

Marc Theissen finally lights upon the "he can't be evil because he's too much of an idiot" defense.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/incompetence-is-not-an-impeachable-offense/2019/11/13/5c473b40-066c-11ea-ac12-3325d49eacaa_story.html

MOAR PLZ

WaPo is reading my posts

I love this GOP defense that it's not a crime cuz the extortion scheme didn't bear fruit - it's like Sideshow Bob's "attempted murder" defense

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, November 12, 2019 8:32 AM (two days ago) bookmarkflaglink

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/470479-ex-simpsons-writer-accuses-republicans-of-sideshow-bob-defense

this is demonstrably untrue

the GOP have created a system in which they can break their own rules at will to install their preferred Supreme Court Justice. they have used gerrymandering and voter suppression to allow themselves to maintain state control despite being massively unpopular and consistently losing the popular vote. in an 'honest' democracy, the GOP would never have signifcant control of anything

Human beings are amalgams of ambition, prejudices, good and bad impulses. I only expect consistency from evil men.

frogbs I'm aware of all that, but "always" is a very high bar that the GOP do not meet

xps

Collins, Murkowski, and Romney might (MIGHT!) vote to remove

feel like it's either gonna be 25 senators voting to remove or 0

being one of the only GOP senators to vote to remove seems like a really bad place to be

their votes a) largely won't matter and b) will be based entirely on re-election calculus

xp to shady's bribery comment-- there's some pushback against using names of actual criminal law offenses as claims for impeachment, rather than other "non-legal" but accurate terms, such as "self-dealing." like criminal bribery has elements to prove "beyond reasonable doubt." that's not what needs to be done for impeachment obv, but part of the gops shit-cyclone is to make everything too difficult for anyone to change sides.

one element for criminal bribery is proving trumps "corrupt intent." don't know exactly how, but gop wants to try to make that a "required" proved beyond reasonable doubt element for the impeachment. schiff and co did a nice job getting new direct testimony to SHOW THE CORRUPT INTENT, but the gop is already posing ride-or-die on no-corrupt-intent ('it was anti corruption waah') and will never never never admit to believing it was corrupt. until they don't i guess, i dunno, it's absurd.

at the same time showing abuse of power by self-dealing would involve some proof or basis. it's typically used in civil process i think, for breach of duty type shit, which makes me think that it would be more of a "preponderance of evidence" level burden--if that even applied to impeachment and it doesn't. there isn't even a standard of proof known at all for impeachment, but gop will shitstorm NO PROOF OF CORRUPT INTENT NO CORRUPT NO CORRUPT YOURE THE CORRUPT!1! everywhere, and they OWN the jury. they ARE the jury. not allowing gop to argue for higher standards of proof, by not using criminal offense terms, seems ok to me.

ah. thx for the legal perspective

Collins, Murkowski, and Romney might (MIGHT!) vote to remove

let's get real, Collins will say "my goodness, all of this is very troubling indeed" into every microphone in her vicinity and then cheerfully vote to dismiss

she's underwater in her state and facing a well-financed challenger, she might try to shore up her "independent" bonafides, knowing she can't win re-election with just Republican votes.

but yeah I don't have high hopes, exactly

and Romney hates Trump but is a coward

"I mean it's problematic but lol, u guyz are libs i mean" -Mitt

How dare you, I'll have you know Mitt was voted "bravest Mormon in Michigan" 6 years in a row

"Amalgams of Ambition" = my Tool tribute band