Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[JoeMorgue]

The reality is that more factors inserted themselves between the steps of rushing to impeach and stalling the impeachment. Did you miss where Mitch admitted on Fox News that he wasn't going to even pretend to hold a fair trial?

Did you miss where every human being with a brain stem already knew he was going to do that?

That's the big "gotcha?"

"OH MY GOD OUR CAREFULLY LAID OUT PLAN TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR THE REPUBLICAN LEAD CONGRESS NOT MAKING IT EASY FOR US! WHO COULD HAVE FORESEEN THIS!?"

 

[I Am The Scum]

Take a walk, Joe.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Suppose a Congresswoman perceives herself to be under a moral imperative...

Again spare me the "Oh we can't do anything useful or efficient because we've come down with a sudden onset acute case of the Morals" argument.

The Democrats have played dirtier pool then this for reasons much less important then Trump and both them and their supporters managed to sleep soundly in their beds.

These are people who eat their own young alive when a decade old tweet of them dressed like a Native American or whatever comes out, they can stand up to a slow moving coup without hand wringing over their moral compasses.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Take a walk, Joe.

We've got enough people doing the "Democrats you're doing great, don't change a thing no matter the evidence." act.

One counter-voice won't kill you. Don't like it, ignore me. Really don't like it, let me know when I'm proved wrong and Trump's actually removed from office.

Or we can just all go around the room agreeing that the Orange Man Is Bad in the most colorful language some more.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The reality is that more factors inserted themselves between the steps of rushing to impeach and stalling the impeachment. Did you miss where Mitch admitted on Fox News that he wasn't going to even pretend to hold a fair trial?

But again, how could that possibly have come as a surprise to anybody paying even the slightest bit of attention over the last few years? How can that have changed the situation for anybody even vaguely aware of the current state of US politics?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

They gained a minor increase of strength in the least important house of one of the 3 branches of Government while the Republicans held or gained strength in all the others.

As I posted evidence of upthread - the results of the 2016 midterms are about the same in terms of number of seats flipped as about half of all midterms going back to 1946.

Trump lost 41 seats. For comparison, in 2010 Obama lost 63. I wonder how many people talking about the "Blue Tsunami" would be happy describing Obama's loss as a "Red Megatsunami"?

The Republicans' losses in the midterms were 100%, completely normal. Anything else is spin, hope, and optimism.

 

[acbytesla]

...then why rush through the impeachment?

Maybe they shouldn't have. Oh well.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Trump lost 41 seats. For comparison, in 2010 Obama lost 63. I wonder how many people talking about the "Blue Tsunami" would be happy describing Obama's loss as a "Red Megatsunami"?

I understand, and even respect to some degree, that the Democrats needed an emotional "win" after 2016 and were going to latch onto the first positive thing that happened.

But yes this sort of minor midterm power balancing, the kind of which we see nearly every midterm election because... well that's just how politics works, is nothing special.

It wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't one of the things pointed at the most to "prove" that "tide is turning against Trump and his downfall is now inevitable if we're just patient."

The 2018 midterm election was NOT a sign of eroding support for Donald Trump.

 

[I Am The Scum]

We've got enough people doing the "Democrats you're doing great, don't change a thing no matter the evidence." act.

One counter-voice won't kill you. Don't like it, ignore me. Really don't like it, let me know when I'm proved wrong and Trump's actually removed from office.

Or we can just all go around the room agreeing that the Orange Man Is Bad in the most colorful language some more.

I'm not trying to be negative. I honestly think you're one of the cooler posters on this forum. But it's abundantly clear that there's nothing that will make you happy until election day.

The neighborhood is burning down, and the fire department is run by arsonists. Yeah, I wish the kid with the super soaker could accomplish more, but that's not very realistic.

 

[Paul2]

"Because of the moral imperative!"

Then why stall the impeachment now?

"Because it's the politically tactical thing to do!"

Wash, rinse, repeat.

I did not hear anyone say that the reason to rush the impeachment was the moral imperative. I heard that the reason to conduct the impeachment was the moral imperative, and the reason to "rush" the impeachment was the imminent election (given that what Trump would be impeached for was soliciting foreign interference in the election).



Now, there may be a zero-sum game between rushing the impeachment because of the election and stalling the impeachment in order to try to get the trial to be fair. Both laudable goals, but both at cross-purposes to each other in terms of timing and pacing.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Maybe they shouldn't have. Oh well.

The thing is, I think they were right to. This is about interference in the upcoming election, therefore it makes sense to bring it forwards with a sense of urgency. They got two simple Articles of impeachment, which was a nice result.

And now they're undoing all of that by saying that the speed of the impeachment wasn't necessary and, if your spin on the withholding is accurate, that the Articles aren't good enough to stand by themselves and they now have to wait for more evidence.

This is precisely why it seems more like an own-goal than a genius move. And, given that it's not going to accomplish the stated goal of ensuring a fair trial, an own-goal that is eventually going to result in a loss of face, as well.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm not trying to be negative. I honestly think you're one of the cooler posters on this forum. But it's abundantly clear that there's nothing that will make you happy until election day.

The neighborhood is burning down, and the fire department is run by arsonists. Yeah, I wish the kid with the super soaker could accomplish more, but that's not very realistic.

I don't think anything will ever make Joe happy. No offense Joe.

 

[d4m10n]

Again spare me the "Oh we can't do anything useful or efficient because we've come down with a sudden onset acute case of the Morals" argument.

I did spare you. In fact, the highlighted bit is basically the opposite of what I actually said.

In other words, why imply tactics and morals are somehow at odds, if someone is politically tactical for the sake of moral ends?

 

[theprestige]

Take a walk, Joe.

Ignore the naysayers, Joe. Cassandra stayed true to her prophetic gift, and so should you. Don't let the slings and arrows of outraged Trojans get you down.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't think anything will ever make Joe happy. No offense Joe.

I've said it a million times at this point. If I'm wrong it doesn't matter, we're all going to get the results we want and whatever crow I have to eat at that point won't bring my buzz down on that day. If JoeMorgue having to have a dozen people do an "I told ya so dance" on his head is the price paid to get rid of Trump, I'll pay it gladly.

If I'm right it also won't matter and I won't be in the mood to "I told ya so" anyone because we're all going to have more important things to worry about.

If you believe nothing else I ever say, me being right in the end is the least important thing to me on this topic.

 

[theprestige]

The reality is that more factors inserted themselves between the steps of rushing to impeach and stalling the impeachment. Did you miss where Mitch admitted on Fox News that he wasn't going to even pretend to hold a fair trial?

What if Mitch did it to give Nancy political cover for slow-playing the Articles, after the other House Dems insisted on an impeachment she was against from the beginning?

 

[acbytesla]

What if Mitch did it to give Nancy political cover for slow-playing the Articles, after the other House Dems insisted on an impeachment she was against from the beginning?

That's a stretch.

Why would Moscow Mitch help Pelosi? Doesn't sound likely to me.

 

[theprestige]

That's a stretch.

Agreed. But is it really that much of a stretch?

Why would Moscow Mitch help Pelosi? Doesn't sound likely to me.

They're both career politicians who have been working with (and against) each other for a lot longer than OMB has been around. They'd be helping each other. Pelosi gets to appease the impeachment wing of her party, without having to move on to a trial she doesn't want. Mitch doesn't want the trial either, so giving her an out gives him an out. It's a win-win situation for both of them, in classic "you wash my back, I'll wash yours" political style.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't see it happening at that high level, Pelosi and McConnell have too much skin in the game, too much stubborn pride, and I sorta get the impression that they actually hate each other personally but YMMV, but there's probably some cross-aisle shenanigans of some kind happening at the mid and lower levels.

I kind of get the impression that is what Tulsi thought she was doing with the whole "Voting Present" thing.

Don't think it's happening enough to make a difference in how this is all going to play out though, mainly because again it's people think the problem is they aren't playing the game well enough against someone who obviously is playing a different game.

 

[acbytesla]

Agreed. But is it really that much of a stretch?


They're both career politicians who have been working with (and against) each other for a lot longer than OMB has been around. They'd be helping each other. Pelosi gets to appease the impeachment wing of her party, without having to move on to a trial she doesn't want. Mitch doesn't want the trial either, so giving her an out gives him an out. It's a win-win situation for both of them, in classic "you wash my back, I'll wash yours" political style.

I still don't buy it. I do know this. McConnell is not the least bit interested in helping Trump actually pushing through any legislation.