Mitch McConnell is openly conspiring with Trump on Impeachment

[Giordano]

I fully expected the Republican-held Senate to do whatever possible in their "consideration" of impeachment to minimize the visibility and possible negative impacts on Trump. I fully expected many of these efforts to be outrageous, unpatriotic, and despicable, as already demonstrated by the public statements by much of the Republican leadership and by the actions of the Republican Representatives on the House committee. But making a proud and enthusiastic public statement that they are closely coordinating their roles as members of the jury with Trump, the accused, is just beyond the pale...

 

[theprestige]

How about Congress recuse itself? : rolleyes :

Now we're talking!

Actually I'm not all that concerned about recusal. Like I said in the other thread:

It's conflicts of interest all the way down. The real question is, where is it reasonable to draw the line?

I think the line is drawn reasonably at the moment. The President of the Senate casts tie-breaker votes. The President of the Senate is normally the Vice President. In an impeachment of the President or the Vice President, he could literally end up in a position where he's voting himself into the presidency, or voting himself out of removal from office. So it makes a lot of sense to not have him voting on those specific impeachment questions. Hence the Chief Justice as a stand-in for the role of President of the Senate.

In our hypothetical Pelosi case, yes she's pushing to make herself president, and yes that's a conflict of interest, but the vote on that question is up to other people.

And while the chief justice could conceivably vote to keep his benefactor from being removed, that's a much lesser degree of conflict than voting himself into the presidency.

If you're concerned about conflicts of interest, and you don't like where the Constitution has drawn the line, then where do you think the line should be drawn, and why?

On the other hand, if you agree with me that the Constitution draws the line in probably the best place, then we can put the matter to bed.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The line can be drawn at the place where the public starts trusting the person in question again and don't have to be defined or hand-wrung over to any level beyond that.

 

[Babbylonian]

I fully expected the Republican-held Senate to do whatever possible in their "consideration" of impeachment to minimize the visibility and possible negative impacts on Trump. I fully expected many of these efforts to be outrageous, unpatriotic, and despicable, as already demonstrated by the public statements by much of the Republican leadership and by the actions of the Republican Representatives on the House committee. But making a proud and enthusiastic public statement that they are closely coordinating their roles as members of the jury with Trump, the accused, is just beyond the pale...

Exactly. While we all know that there are people who will accept anything their team does, this action is a huge risk with seemingly no upside. All it can do is harden the will of the opposition and potentially make others wonder if their team is any good at all.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Can any concept of "Separation/Balance of Power"/"Checks and Balances" not fall victim to the "Powers" forming unofficial groups outside the separation?

It certainly seems to me like "We're gonna form a club and just not go after people in our club" counters any possible "Separation of Power" anyone could put on the table.

It seems to me that the main problems are a) that most of the checks and balances being enacted by politicians, b) those that are not enacteed by politicians being enacted by political appointees.

The UK system is far from perfect, but the House of Lords are not elected politicians and are appointed by an independent commission (although some are recommended appointments, with the recommendations made by parties), and the Supreme Court who are (like all UK judges) not political appointees and not themselves politicians. And then, of course, if things get really, really far, then there's the Queen whose role is almost - but not quite entirely ceremonial. There were serious questions very recently about whether she'd have to wield the power to remove a Prime Minister, and how legal that would actually be, but the constitution didn't end up being tested like that in the end.

As I say, it's far from perfect, but it was tested very recently when Boris Johnson unlawfully tried to prorogue parliament and was very quickly and decisively slapped down by the Supreme Court. In other words, it seems to work better than the US system, mainly because no UK political party can stack either the House of Lords or the Supreme Court with partisans. Therefore those bodies, nominally at least, remain independent of party politics.

Or, to put it another way, the Supreme Court didn't slap Johnson down because they were opposed to him personally, but because what he did was unlawful. And they didn't do it quickly because that served anybody's agenda, but because the issue at hand was extremely time-sensitive.

There are unquestionably flaws in the system (just one of which is that it's likely that now Johnson has formed a majority government he's going to curtail the power of the Supreme Court out of revenge), but I think there's evidence that it's more effective than the US system which, as you've observed, is proving fairly ineffective once people decide they're no longer obeying the gentleperson's agreement to play fair.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But making a proud and enthusiastic public statement that they are closely coordinating their roles as members of the jury with Trump, the accused, is just beyond the pale...

Yes, I think everybody expected that to happen behind closed doors. Publicly acknowledging it just seems like crowing that their power really is unchecked.

 

[Minoosh]

You can't use the "Oh but history is going to harshly judge you" argument against people who aggressively don't care that the Earth is going to be a burned out cinder in a few generations.

Or who would actually welcome an apocalyptic conflagration.

It's also a sign of optimism from folks who think civilization is going to collapse in the next couple of generations due to climate change and related disasters and upheavals.

 

[ahhell]

Yes, I think everybody expected that to happen behind closed doors. Publicly acknowledging it just seems like crowing that their power really is unchecked.

I think its more like signally to Trump's base that they are on his side. Trump is much more popular than any other republican. They need to suck up to him in order to suck up to their base.

Shouldn't have done it for sure, I do think it probably helps McConnel though. Its not like he's going to get the vote of any of the anti-trumpers. There really isn't much down side for him on this.

The UK system is far from perfect, but the House of Lords are not elected politicians and are appointed by an independent commission (although some are recommended appointments, with the recommendations made by parties), and the Supreme Court who are (like all UK judges) not political appointees and not themselves politicians. And then, of course, if things get really, really far, then there's the Queen whose role is almost - but not quite entirely ceremonial. There were serious questions very recently about whether she'd have to wield the power to remove a Prime Minister, and how legal that would actually be, but the constitution didn't end up being tested like that in the end.

As I say, it's far from perfect, but it was tested very recently when Boris Johnson unlawfully tried to prorogue parliament and was very quickly and decisively slapped down by the Supreme Court. In other words, it seems to work better than the US system, mainly because no UK political party can stack either the House of Lords or the Supreme Court with partisans. Therefore those bodies, nominally at least, remain independent of party politics.
.

Mildly amusing, that's closer to the US Senate as originally conceived was selected. Senators were appointed by the State governments rather than elected. There is an strong argument that what is currently wrong with US democracy could improved with less democracy.

If the Party leadership still selected the president at the convention instead of via primaries there would be no Trump. The Senate would be more independent of masses and freer to vote against trump too.

 

[Minoosh]

I fully expected the Republican-held Senate to do whatever possible in their "consideration" of impeachment to minimize the visibility and possible negative impacts on Trump

Only I wonder: By doing this they would also minimize their own visibility. Look at how arguments are droning on in the House. It might be a different dynamic there but I suspect some senators are going to want to grandstand as well.

I know the circumstances are much different though.

One of the senators in my state will be very vulnerable if perceived as a total toady for Trump.

 

[DallasDad]

What are the chances Moscow Mitch won't be re-elected? Do his actions in the impeachment trial affect things either way? I know that Kentucky is considered solid red by the pundits, but is it really that monolithic?

 

[Horatius]

It certainly seems to me like "We're gonna form a club and just not go after people in our club" counters any possible "Separation of Power" anyone could put on the table.

It's a known problem in security systems that the greatest flaw in any system is in the people entrusted with ensuring security. If they are lazy, incompetent or corrupt, no system will work, no matter how well-designed it is in theory.

Checks and balances are probably the best way we have to overcome this problem, because it requires multiple people to be lazy, incompetent or corrupt, but as we're seeing here, it still can fail, if enough people are lazy, incompetent or corrupt.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What are the chances Moscow Mitch won't be re-elected? Do his actions in the impeachment trial affect things either way? I know that Kentucky is considered solid red by the pundits, but is it really that monolithic?

Pretty on the edge. He was elected 56-41% in 2014 and it's hard to get a firm feel for how the last few years will effect his image with the voters.

Sadly, I lean toward him getting relected in 2020.

 

[Babbylonian]

Checks and balances are probably the best way we have to overcome this problem, because it requires multiple people to be lazy, incompetent or corrupt, but as we're seeing here, it still can fail, if enough people are lazy, incompetent or AND corrupt.

Forgive my impertinence, but FTFY.

 

[Minoosh]

What are the chances Moscow Mitch won't be re-elected? Do his actions in the impeachment trial affect things either way? I know that Kentucky is considered solid red by the pundits, but is it really that monolithic?

His approval numbers are pretty low, but I'm not sure how that affects votes.

 

[Babbylonian]

Pretty on the edge. He was elected 56-41% in 2014 and it's hard to get a firm feel for how the last few years will effect his image with the voters.

Sadly, I lean toward him getting relected in 2020.

I'd rate it as a near-certainty. It's not like he's going to get any serious competition from within his own party, and as majority leader he is virtually guaranteed to have as much campaign money as he needs or wants to spend. What Republican power-broker is going to say no to him?

 

[Mumbles]

I'd rate it as a near-certainty. It's not like he's going to get any serious competition from within his own party, and as majority leader he is virtually guaranteed to have as much campaign money as he needs or wants to spend. What Republican power-broker is going to say no to him?

Dolt 45 would, and since he's in charge now...

Ordinarily, I'd say that he's sunk, since he tried to destroy Kynect, left coal miners lose their pensions (while dems supported their protests quite openly), and any number of other monsterous things. But most people vote party, so...

 

[Babbylonian]

Dolt 45 would, and since he's in charge now...

He would if McConnell didn't give him every benefit he can possibly provide. But let's say the rapist did say no; Trump still doesn't have the juice to stop Koch and other Republicans with huge money from supporting their little turtle.

Ordinarily, I'd say that he's sunk, since he tried to destroy Kynect, left coal miners lose their pensions (while dems supported their protests quite openly), and any number of other monsterous things. But most people vote party, so...

If screwing over their base kept Republicans from being reelected, they'd lose their incumbents every election cycle. While Democrats may support workers' rights, it's not like they're going to even say that they support the coal industry over, you know, every other energy source. Republican coal miners will vote Republican, both because they're, in general, true believers and because they can't read the writing on the wall...because their Republican representatives won't properly fund their schools.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If screwing over their base kept Republicans from being reelected, they'd lose their incumbents every election cycle.

"If X was going to make Republicans lose it would have happened by now" is the retort to the entire Democratic strategy at this point.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Some of these posts seems to be saying that partisanship is leading people to take a course of action they know is wrong. I wonder if partisanship is actually causing people to think their actions are correct and based on evidence.... cognitive dissonance rather than ethical lapse.

 

[Babbylonian]

"If X was going to make Republicans lose it would have happened by now" is the retort to the entire Democratic strategy at this point.

There's no question that Democrats should fight hard in every race, especially since their message should appeal to the working class, but I have to note that my hyperbole was meant to express that they'd lose their incumbents every cycle with new Republicans replacing old ones. This is on the assumption that there are still too many who will vote based entirely on the party affiliation of the candidate...a practice I despised even among those with whom I agree when there were more reasonable Republicans in the mix.