Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[acbytesla]

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.

Nonsense about Tulsi. She's a moron.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Nonsense about Tulsi. She's a moron.

Agreed. I said "thought she was doing" not "succeeded in doing."

ETA: Or even "rationalized what she was doing" might be an ever better way to put it.

 

[theprestige]

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.

Yeah, that all makes sense.

I also keep thinking that a lot of people have a set-piece, Perry Mason, West Wing concept of how this is supposed to play out.

Like that scene in A Few Good Men, where Tom Cruise goads Jack Nicholson into admitting his guilt. And as soon as the words fly out of his mouth, his life and career are over. He's been Gotcha'd!

People forget that (a) Nicholson's outburst didn't actually change the outcome of the trial, nor change the fate of the accused. And (b) that kind of telegenic life-ruining gotcha very rarely happens in real life. Courtroom trials are boring. Congressional hearings are boring.

There's a constant stream of "gotcha!" trinkets, but they never actually add up to a life-changing set piece. You watch Rachel Maddow lay out these bits and pieces of information, with this expression on her face like "you see?! You see?!" And of course you see. But in three years of Maddow showing you this stuff, have you ever actually seen one of these gotcha! moments play out?

You* keep telling yourself Pelosi's got some grand strategy that's going to culminate in someone leaping to their feet in open session, stabbing their finger dramatically and shouting "no, Mister President! I accuse you!" And then everybody stands up and claps. And the Sergeant at Arms arrests the President, and Hillary gets sworn in, and we all live happily ever after, roll credits, amen.

But the reality is that Pelosi and McConnell are simply playing out the long-term political grind. It's not a grind of "gotchas!" It's a quiet grind of incremental gains, of PR showpieces for their constituents, quiet backroom deals, handshakes, quid pro quo. They both just want to weather the Trump storm with their power bases intact.

There's a big show of "gotcha!" being put on, for an audience that likes to imagine the real world is kind of the same as The West Wing. But the real show is the show that the politicians are putting on for each other, as they try to figure out what they can get and what they need to give in return.

 

[acbytesla]

Agreed. I said "thought she was doing" not "succeeded in doing."

ETA: Or even "rationalized what she was doing" might be an ever better way to put it.

She not only is not going to win the Democratic nomination, but her career in politics is over. She'll never be elected again.

 

[acbytesla]

Yeah, that all makes sense.

I also keep thinking that a lot of people have a set-piece, Perry Mason, West Wing concept of how this is supposed to play out.

Like that scene in A Few Good Men, where Tom Cruise goads Jack Nicholson into admitting his guilt. And as soon as the words fly out of his mouth, his life and career are over. He's been Gotcha'd!

People forget that (a) Nicholson's outburst didn't actually change the outcome of the trial, nor change the fate of the accused. And (b) that kind of telegenic life-ruining gotcha very rarely happens in real life. Courtroom trials are boring. Congressional hearings are boring.

You and I must have been watching a different movie because Jessup's outburst changed everything.

The two marines were being tried for murder and their motivation was retribution for him naming one of them in a fenceline shooting.

Their only defense was they were ordered to discipline Santiago. They had no evidence of this order which was refuted by their commanding officers as well as their entire squad and even by one of the two marines accused.

Jessup's outburst resulted in Jessup being arrested and the two marines were acquitted of murder, but convicted of conduct unbecoming.

 

[Segnosaur]

Trump Tweets

Why should Crazy Nancy Pelosi, just because she has a slight majority in the House, be allowed to Impeach the President of the United States? Got ZERO Republican votes,...

I assume everyone here recognizes the hypocrisy of Trump complaining about Democrat's actions getting 'Zero' republican votes (while ignoring the fact that there was one individual who was elected as a republican but left the party soon after), when so many of the actions the republicans have taken over the past 3 years have been done with little or no Democratic support.

The republicans have tried (and often succeeded) in pushing various confirmations (such as DeVos) and legislation (the Republican health care plan) in either the house or senate with absolutely no Democratic support.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You and I must have been watching a different movie because Jessup's outburst changed everything.

//Respectful Snip//

Jessup's outburst resulted in Jessup being arrested and the two marines were acquitted of murder, but convicted of conduct unbecoming.

The difference is Jessup didn't strut into the court room already having admitted to everything he's being accused of on live TV at that point.

Again there is a fundamental difference between getting a fact out into the open and convincing people that a fact matters.

Jessup in A Few Good Men, Nixon in real life... those are cases of information that was not previously known getting out to the people who make the decisions (the jury and the voting populace of America, respectfully).

Again Trump's not going to have a Jessup/Nixon moment. Because we already all ready know what he's done, the difference is a lot of people just don't care.

I don't doubt for a moment that the Democrats could get Trump on the stand (literally or proverbially) and prove that he's done some meaningful level of wrongdoing. A toddler with an Etch-a-Sketch could do that.

I'm very doubtful they can do it in a way that convinces anyone who hasn't already rationalized it away that it matters.

We don't need a Jessup/Nixon moment. We need a "To Catch a Mockingbird / Time to Kill" moment, where people are convinced that the facts that are in evidence and not up for debate actually matter.

 

[acbytesla]

.

Again Trump's not going to have a Jessup/Nixon moment. Because we already all ready know what he's done, the difference is a lot of people just don't care.

I don't doubt for a moment that the Democrats could get Trump on the stand (literally or proverbially) and prove that he's done some meaningful level of wrongdoing. A toddler with an Etch-a-Sketch could do that.

I'm very doubtful they can do it in a way that convinces anyone who hasn't already rationalized it away that it matters.

We don't need a Jessup/Nixon moment. We need a "To Catch a Mockingbird / Time to Kill" moment, where people are convinced that the facts that are in evidence and not up for debate actually matter.

No offense I think your entire post is wrong. There have been multiples of Colonel Jessup's moments already. From the phone transcript to Mulvaney's press conference to the Lester Holt interview to Don Jr admitting to the Trump Tower meeting to Ambassador Sondland's testimony.

The difference between the movie and impeachment is military officers in a jury care about truth and honor. Republicans, not so much.

 

[Paul2]

There's a constant stream of "gotcha!" trinkets, but they never actually add up to a life-changing set piece. You watch Rachel Maddow lay out these bits and pieces of information, with this expression on her face like "you see?! You see?!" And of course you see. But in three years of Maddow showing you this stuff, have you ever actually seen one of these gotcha! moments play out?

You* keep telling yourself Pelosi's got some grand strategy that's going to culminate in someone leaping to their feet in open session, stabbing their finger dramatically and shouting "no, Mister President! I accuse you!" And then everybody stands up and claps. And the Sergeant at Arms arrests the President, and Hillary gets sworn in, and we all live happily ever after, roll credits, amen.

But the reality is that Pelosi and McConnell are simply playing out the long-term political grind. It's not a grind of "gotchas!" It's a quiet grind of incremental gains, of PR showpieces for their constituents, quiet backroom deals, handshakes, quid pro quo. They both just want to weather the Trump storm with their power bases intact.

There's a big show of "gotcha!" being put on, for an audience that likes to imagine the real world is kind of the same as The West Wing. But the real show is the show that the politicians are putting on for each other, as they try to figure out what they can get and what they need to give in return.

Maddow and Pelosi would surely love for a gotcha to actually materialize, as would I, but it's possible that they do what they do for other reasons and purposes, too. I'm not saying you would disagree with that, I'm just pointing it out as an addition to what you pointed out.

 

[theprestige]

Maddow and Pelosi would surely love for a gotcha to actually materialize, as would I, but it's possible that they do what they do for other reasons and purposes, too. I'm not saying you would disagree with that, I'm just pointing it out as an addition to what you pointed out.

No, I agree completely.

I think the main reasons Maddow does it are because she really is a partisan hack, and because selling a West Wing version of reality is her livelihood.

And I think the main reason Pelosi does it is because she's a professional politician and grinding out political advantage is her livelihood.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...then why rush through the impeachment?

You mean earlier? Because now it is Moscow Mitch holding things up, whether you think people (other than Trump's minions) see it that way or not.

 

[Lurch]

I see Pelosi's ultimate goal in the holdup as a strategic nod to history. Not as merely a short-term tactical ploy. Our resident nay-sayers who shriek on about the 'wrongness' of the speedy House investigation/impeachment followed by putting on the brakes because the Turtle (and Lindsey) broadcast the trial's coordination with the 'accused' are being short-sighted.

The game now is to at least record for history (and the next election, in the bargain) the manifest corruption of the entire GOP. Suppose this all were to 'backfire' in the immediate term with a re-elected Trump and even a Republican House. Such might happen in any event, given the various and sundry election shenanigans. Going down to defeat in the moment does not mean the war is lost. Especially if said defeat is honorable. If the corrective to this current aberration is not tomorrow, then soon.

 

[Segnosaur]

I disagree.
The investigation lives on. More evidence will continue to be released like Duffey's email telling the pentagon to withhold the aid. Nothing is over.

...then why rush through the impeachment?

There are no easy answers. Everything that is done or could be done has alternatives (that in turn have their own risks).

The advantage to impeaching now (even if the trial in the senate is delayed)? Well, the Trump/Ukraine incident started in the summer. If they wait, the republicans will claim something along the lines of "Oh, the problem isn't serious if the Democrats didn't act on it right away". (That may have also been the complaint against including any of the Mueller report in the articles of impeachment...) The house impeaching now means that it was done soon after Trump's abuses (regarding Ukraine) were discovered.

And if they wait? They risk the impeachment proceedings (and whatever bad publicity it generates for the republicans) getting lost in all the news surrounding the primaries.

Then there is also the "Hail Mary" aspect... Lets say Trump's actions do convince a significant number of Republicans that its best to have him removed. (Very slim chance of that but its not exactly zero, even if its darn low.) Its better for America to have him removed sooner than later.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Again I am just so super-impressed by the Democrats ability to always be planning ahead that way they are never doing anything right now. At this point the Democrats are second only to Jabba in their ability to never lose by never letting the game finish.

I know, I know I've heard the speeches. They're playing the long game (the really, really long game apparently), they are thinking 10 moves ahead, they are getting all the pieces into place and one day they will spring their trap.

And sure that could still be true. But here's the thing.

If the Democrats were just stalling to save face, hoping that sooner or later that Trump is just going to keel over or the literal Hand of God is going to descend down from the heavens to smite him... what exactly would be different right now?

That's the problem with "Oh you see I'm playing 3 dimensional chess and thinking 10 moves ahead." It's the exact same thing as stalling until you get results.

[snipped for space].

Fascinating you have some of these POVs.

Why would the Democrats need to save face?

And all this chess playing metaphors, you're making this way too complicated.

Your measure of the Democrats winning is wrong. If the GOP had won the election, Trump would not be looking at impeachment right now.

The polls want him impeached and removed from office by a slim margin since mid-Dec. There is no evidence of a negative reaction to Pelosi's move to hold the Articles for now.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...ment_and_removal_of_president_trump-6957.html

Few people, if any expect this to result in Trump being removed from office. We do expect the evidence of his corruption to get a lot more airtime between now and next Nov. and that includes seeing how the GOP Senators are in bed with him.

 

[theprestige]

You mean earlier? Because now it is Moscow Mitch holding things up, whether you think people (other than Trump's minions) see it that way or not.

By what mechanism is Senator McConnell holding things up?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think you are, since this is the third time I've had to tell you that that's not my position and nor is it an opinion I've voiced. ....

And yet you've said it again.

I think it is you that is misreading my posts.

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.

Wrong and wrong to the highlighted parts.

Nothing is being undone. Pelosi cannot lose face given she is in the right. Democrats and Independents are behind her standing up to Moscow Mitch.

Trump doesn't have to be impeached for the Democrats to come out ahead here. They are already ahead. Murkowski is not the only Republican to think Moscow Mitch has gone too far. That's where the backfire is going to be.

 

[Segnosaur]

You mean earlier? Because now it is Moscow Mitch holding things up, whether you think people (other than Trump's minions) see it that way or not.

By what mechanism is Senator McConnell holding things up?

While there is nothing that Moscow Mitch is doing to hold things up in a legal sense, I think most people who AREN'T Trump boot-lickers think its reasonable to delay sending the articles of impeachment until they can be assured of at least fair procedures for the trial (if not a fair trial itself).

 

[JoeMorgue]

No offense I think your entire post is wrong.

*Laughs* I'm shocked.

There have been multiples of Colonel Jessup's moments already. From the phone transcript to Mulvaney's press conference to the Lester Holt interview to Don Jr admitting to the Trump Tower meeting to Ambassador Sondland's testimony.

That's my entire point. We've already had the Jessup moment where the "bad guy" confesses his crime and it hasn't mattered yet. Like 10 times now minimum.

Confess hell he openly brags about what he does.

So the Democrats get Trump "on the stand" and play 3 dimensional chess 10 steps ahead at him until he screams "Hell yes I ordered the code red!"

What happens then?

 

[acbytesla]

Fascinating you have some of these POVs.

Why would the Democrats need to save face?

And all this chess playing metaphors, you're making this way too complicated.

Your measure of the Democrats winning is wrong. If the GOP had won the election, Trump would not be looking at impeachment right now.

The polls want him impeached and removed from office by a slim margin since mid-Dec. There is no evidence of a negative reaction to Pelosi's move to hold the Articles for now.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...ment_and_removal_of_president_trump-6957.html

Few people, if any expect this to result in Trump being removed from office. We do expect the evidence of his corruption to get a lot more airtime between now and next Nov. and that includes seeing how the GOP Senators are in bed with him.

In all fairness to Joe. I used Chess as a metaphor first. I didn't respond to his meaphor because I don't think it applies. Trump can knock over the board all he wants but the game goes on.

I agree with you Ginger. I don't think the Democrats had illusions of Republican Senators developing principles and convicting Trump. But they did believe they could expose the public to the facts.

But McConnell made it clear. He doesn't want a documentary, but a fairy tale that says the opposite of the facts.

By not sending the articles over all the Republicans can do is whine about the Democrat's tactics. Which is only something their choir cares about. And the Democrats continue to control the narrative.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Your measure of the Democrats winning is wrong. If the GOP had won the election, Trump would not be looking at impeachment right now.

He's not looking at impeachment now. He's just looking at the Democrats going through the motions until they decide to send it to the Senate to be laughed out of the room by Mitch McConnell and his cronies.

Few people, if any expect this to result in Trump being removed from office. We do expect the evidence of his corruption to get a lot more airtime between now and next Nov. and that includes seeing how the GOP Senators are in bed with him.

Oh okay. Next the Dems can get more airtime to get their message that "Water is Wet" out because there's about the same number of people who don't already know that as well.

I'm really wondering where all these people are who are going to turn on the TV at some point between now and November and go "Holy crap! Trump's dirty?! THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'M HEARING THIS INFORMATION! THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING! WHY DIDN'T ANYONE TELL ME SOONER?! THANK GOD THEY SAID IT AGAIN I MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT!"

Everyone knows Trump is dirty. To the people already on his side it's a feature, not a bug.

I don't know how to say this clearer. The way Trump is being dirty is exactly what appeals him to his base. By keeping it in the news you're practically running a PR Campaign for him.

Trump was specifically elected to break the system, to get all those uppity latte sipping intellectual libruls with their fancy book learning who think they are better then everyone else to run around angry in the most comical way possible. Spend the next year screaming "THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN AND HE'S THE REASON!" and you've basically given him a campaign slogan.

Every... single... thing that you're going "We have to keep hammering this point home" is HIS POINT, not yours.