US Politics, December 2019: Profound procedural deficiencies

er, the Senators will not be testifying under oath during the trial. this oath is different.

"impartial" and "justice", the Lewis Carroll definitions

Supreme Court decision expected in late June, so they're obviously feeling a sense of urgency....

the fact that they want to take it up instead of just denying cert to the challenges of the lower court rulings does not bode well

If they rule for Trump, giving him a unique immunity from the reach of legal investigations which every other citizen must submit to, it will just be another nail in the coffin of presidential accountability to anyone for anything they do or choose not to do, no matter how those actions may violate the law, defraud others, or evade their plain duty. The appeals court ruling makes this unambiguously clear.

Then again perhaps they delayed because they knew they couldn't deny the subpoenas, so they are giving Trump some extra time.

I want to believe that, but I don't really

Just depends how fully in the tank they are for their king, I suppose

Judge stymies Trump's border wall by invoking GOP law targeting Obama

President Donald Trump’s border wall is facing a surprising new legal hurdle down in Texas: an obscure legislative provision crafted by House Republicans in 2014 when the GOP was targeting then-President Barack Obama’s budget powers.

The amendment, carried forward into current law, has resurfaced with a vengeance in El Paso, Texas. U.S District Court Judge David Briones has been quoting back its words in a series of rulings against Trump’s decision to take $3.6 billion from military construction projects to expedite his wall.

As first adopted, the Republican language specifically prohibited Obama from taking any step to “eliminate or reduce funding for any program, project, or activity as proposed in the President’s budget request” until it's cleared with Congress.

Story Continued Below

The triggering event was a relatively narrow dispute in 2013 over funding for space exploration. But when they were enacted in Jan. 2014, the restrictions applied government-wide. And a year later, under full Republican control, Congress added the word “increase” alongside “eliminate or reduce” funding.

What goes around, in other words, comes around.

Ha?

Yeah, well, they have a whole lot more of this to look forward to as they continue to erode norms. They're too stupid to realize that what benefits them while they're in power will just as likely benefit their opponents when power shifts.

Except Democrats will shy away from taking advantage of these situations

november 22: https://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/politics/van-drew-vows-to-stay-a-democrat-even-as-he/article_3beada82-3912-5b15-8859-55103dddaefc.html

december 14: https://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/politics/democrat-officials-say-jeff-van-drew-poised-to-switch-parties/article_1fccb81e-050c-548b-a7d7-ee6b7768b1ce.html

srsly though, what is going on?

That cocaine kicking her ass pic.twitter.com/B0P1NFtAq4

— CURE (@CureHipHop) December 13, 2019

(Angie Craig, D-MN)

do her eyelids mean something in morse code

Superhypercaffeinatedexpialidocious

This evening I turned on MSNBC and watched Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland express deep concern about whether his Republican colleagues were going to keep an open mind as jurors in the Senate trial of the President. At one point he went as far as to say that Mitch McConnell had “raise[d] serious questions whether he will be objective in carrying out the responsibilities of the Senate or whether he’s going to try to stack the deck in favor of the president.”

My point here is not to pick on Ben Cardin. This is one example of rhetoric you can hear from many Democrats and most Senate Democrats. It’s just the example that is ready at hand. But it is terrible and completely pathetic.

It is grievously irresponsible to be expressing “concerns” that Republicans may not do their job and uphold their responsibility as Senators. Republicans have made crystal clear that they understand the nature of the President’s abuses of power and that they will not only protect him from the consequences of his actions but, in an effort to do so, bend reality to pretend that it is in fact fine and even admirable for a President to use extortion to force a foreign power to intervene in a US election. To see Republicans do this in the open and not state that fact clearly is a total abdication of responsibility.

[sport metaphor. military battle metaphor.]

Republicans have made their intentions crystal clear. It is an abdication of responsibility not to state this clearly. Republicans have already decided to protect a lawless President from constitutional accountability. They’ve betrayed the constitution and their oaths. This is a point to make consistently over and over and over again. Because it is true. If some Republican Senator decides to change his mind and the right thing they are welcome to do so.

Perhaps Cardin and others are too squeamish for that language or too wedded to Senate collegiality. I’m sure many Republican colleagues are amiable enough people when you meet them at the congressional gym. But language does not need to be hot to state clearly where the facts of the matter stand. There’s nothing to be “concerned” about. Senate Republicans have made very clear there is no level of lawless behavior from this President that they will not defend. The public needs to know that. It needs to be said over and over. To say anything else, to express hopes this or that doesn’t happen when it already has happened only signals a damaging, demoralizing and shameful weakness.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/terrible-terrible-terrible

if all the pundits make this point at the same time, i believe we can levitate the pentagon

i have been getting bad feelings for the past week or two. ever since the baton was passed to nadler, basically, not to blame him specifically. i think a lot of it is the whole thing i've complained about before with everyone knowing the outcome (acquitted in senate, easily) and spinning that future result weeks before it happens. i do it, too, for sure. liberal democracies sometimes die, and sometimes the people that held power during the nominal democratic time continue to hold power afterward as well. have a dark glass of wine or two and it's easy to see kevin mccarthy as this kind of person, mitch mcconnell of course, matt gaetz as the dumb jock, a bunch of older white men with shaved heads as the anonymous supporting meathead cast

huh?

as for Van Drew, who gives a shit?

I regret to inform you that Trump announcing that he has the support of a dipshit New Jersey House backbencher nobody has ever heard of is going to be a YOOOOGE game changer pic.twitter.com/yXmUdc9ydd

— Scott Lemieux (@LemieuxLGM) December 15, 2019

the majority of the Dems Just Don’t Care

^Fresh Prince repeating ideas

I've been hearing thaty compromising on this infrastructure deal is likely to send absolutely the wrong message to significant parts of the electorate which could heavily undermine everything else the Dems are trying to accomplish over the next year.
& that in trying to seem too reasonable they may just blow any form of credibility they have.
NOt worth it for a bill that isn't going to immediately show positive results for marginalised people or whatever.

Hearing from where?

It's a frequent dilemma these days, where attempting to govern the nation might not mesh smoothly with image-building and message-sending. I know the Republicans have constructed a coalition that has no interest in governance, since that would also include regulating their ability to make the highest possible profits, which enables the Republicans to take and hold extreme positions without much interest in making compromises.

However frustrating this dynamic is, I still would rather have the option of voting for someone who intends to prevent the government from falling into complete ruin. Even at the cost of sending "wrong messages". This doesn't mean I expect Democrats to be supine before the excessive demands of the Republicans, but if they expect to get better at messaging, their principle tool ought to be explaining their vision for the nation in simple and direct terms, not some voodoo based on the details of appropriations bills.

Was hearing from various political podcasts, a few of the Pod Save ones and a couple of other places.
Not that Obama himself has been showing himself in the best light recently in terms of what his opinion re democratic behaviour/policy ought to be.

Idea is taht to compromise and go along with this infrastructure deal right now means that they are having to put forward 2 coinflicting stories at the same time. Impeachment needs t to be a totally unscrupulous momster taht you can't trust from one moment to the next, I think there's plenty of evidence of that. But at the same time they are trying to show that they can make a deal, in order for them to show themselves to be reasonable, but that also shows that they think they can rely on t to some extent. Seems like a not very thought out strategy when the more important thing right now is the first part. & since there is no immediate effect this just undermines their message.

Those messages only conflict for people who cannot think their way out of a paper bag, most of whom vote republican anyway. The president is not the living embodiment of infrastructure appropriations, except to people who think the president is the government while the Congress is some inexplicable bunch of people who have no discernible purpose but just stand around being ornamental and irrelevant. It is unfortunate that this kindergartner's view of government seems to be very prevalent in the USA these days.

But at the same time they are trying to show that they can make a deal

Again, maybe they aren't trying to "show" anything, maybe they are trying to do something. Trade war sucks, Trump's status quo is going to fuck lots of Americans very hard (indeed has already done so) and a policy of "let's not do anything to alleviate or slow the fucking over of Americans until November 2020 lest it look good for Trump" is just too sad and cynical for me to accept, even if I thought it were sound political strategy.

SCOOP: 30 freshman House Democrats are trying 2 draft Rep. @JustinAmash (I) as an impeachment manager 4 the Senate trial of Trump

Pelosi makes the call, but these Dems want a bipartisan showing & Amash is among the most conservative members in the Househttps://t.co/oua44qujW0

— Rachael Bade (@rachaelmbade) December 15, 2019

galaxy brain stuff here

You can question a witnesses credibility but you cannot question hard documentary evidence, which each firsthand witness part of this investigation provide. pic.twitter.com/FBTMpTySuQ

— Rudy Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) December 15, 2019

shit that looks like an onion article but isn't

the whole tweet thread is fucking insane

Christ, the 'bipartisan' delusion will never die, at least not in my life

kind of a pointless endeavor. no matter what Republican you get to join up, they'll be called a "RINO" or a "secretly angry Democrat". when it's Flake, who is already seen as a defector, that work is already done.

everybody should just quit auditioning for the Independent vote because that isn't how they're gonna win it.

err sorry, Amash, not Flake, though the point remains

It's not a terrible idea, given that Amash has been more forcefully articulate about impeachment than most Democrats.

Amash is a person of principle, many of which I disagree with, but even a pillar of libertarianism is more useful than amorphous self-interested slime.

Oh look, there’s Justice Roberts sitting next to Secretary of State Pompeo at the Kennedy Center Honors on tv now.

was that taped a month ago?

but is it a fact that he's rapidly declining

Usually, his painfully obvious projection is simply loudly shouting that other people are committing the crime that he himself is committing at that moment. Lately he's been going at Biden for Biden's mental acuity, and now:

Because Nancy’s teeth were falling out of her mouth, and she didn’t have time to think! https://t.co/rx3pcyofip

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 15, 2019

Two years ago:

🔥🔥Sooo this is interesting. Trump’s dentures are trying to escape his mouth as this speech is ending. Join the club dentures! Unbelievable. pic.twitter.com/QqYv7whxDF

— Power to the People (@KeepMyPowerOrg) December 6, 2017

Looks like he's starting to get sensitive about / aware of aspects of his physical condition, beyond dictating a bullshit health report and then believing it himself.

y'all were right, he's not gonna do the debates

I look very much forward to debating whoever the lucky person is who stumbles across the finish line in the little watched Do Nothing Democrat Debates. My record is so good on the Economy and all else, including debating, that perhaps I would consider more than 3 debates.....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 16, 2019

....to me, and there are many options, including doing them directly & avoiding the nasty politics of this very biased Commission. I will make a decision at an appropriate time but in the meantime, the Commission on Presidential Debates is NOT authorized to speak for me (or R’s)!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 16, 2019

good morning!

Profound dentural deficiencies

Ace Dentura, Prez Defective

lol

The Polident of the United States of America

Bridgegate II

Make America Chew Again

Grab 'em by the bicuspid

(I could do this all day)

Movement of Jaw People

America's Teeth Are Falling Out
Some Dream Analysts Believe This is a Sign of Financial Stress
Take It or Leave It, Many Are Saying
DONATEDONALDTRUMP2020.COMNOW

My Country 'Tis of Teeth

for the love of all that is good and holy, stop