Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

[Nonlinear FC]

I know there's been a certain level of frustration around Pelosi. But hoo boy. She said in no uncertain terms that Barr perjured himself, said "he lied to congress... that's a crime."

[tennbengal]

I know there's been a certain level of frustration around Pelosi. But hoo boy. She said in no uncertain terms that Barr perjured himself, said "he lied to congress... that's a crime."

Sure. Fine.

But, we come to it.

NOW what? It isn't a crime if there is no one to enforce it, right?

[Johnnie]

Basically how I feel about Pelosi talking big and doing nothing, ultimately:

[tennbengal]

We are now arriving at "I could shoot someone on 5th avenue and nothing would happen" territory officially.

[mister d]

I know there's been a certain level of frustration around Pelosi. But hoo boy. She said in no uncertain terms that Barr perjured himself, said "he lied to congress... that's a crime."

Sure. Fine.

But, we come to it.

NOW what? It isn't a crime if there is no one to enforce it, right?

Yup. Its illegal like Trump does something illegal every week. Laws don't enforce themselves.

[Nonlinear FC]

I get what you guys are saying, and agree with you, to a point.

There are real POLITICAL problems with pursuing impeachment. Yes, they have a constitutional duty here... Everything I'm hearing is that the plan is to do exactly what they're doing -- humiliate Trump and his cronies with hearings. They don't want to show up, fine, you put a chicken on the dias and the cable networks air footage of an empty chair.

Every Democrat I've seen today is now saying Barr should resign. Pelosi saying what he did was criminal. Who knows what they decide to do tomorrow. I wouldn't be shocked if they get Impeachment hearings going in the House on that front. That sure seemed like what the extremely strategic and pragmatic Speaker was doing with that highly inflammatory statement today.

And we haven't even arrived at the spectacle of Meuller being called to testify. That's happening in the House, count on it. And that's going to be a disaster for Trump.

I think too many of you guys are reading the last 3 or 4 years wrong on Pelosi. She's not Shumer -- she got conflated with Shumer when she wasn't in power. She doesn't fuck around, fellas. She doesn't think the American people want an impeachment, but she's sure as shit cool with hearings. And she sure as shit called Barr a criminal today. Not sure why the next logical step isn't a highly public impeachment hearing.

And it's fine if we don't see Meuller for months. I'm all for stretching this shit out into Fall.

[brian]

Christ, almighty. Thank goodness at least one person is being realistic.

Some of these people wouldn't be happy unless there was an impeachment vote on January 4 and even then that wouldn't have been enough.

Damn the torpedoes is a fine strategy if you don't have numerous other options, but the House Dems are working from a position of strength. If you hold kangaroo court impeachment hearings on Day 1 of the new Congress then it really does look like a witchhunt. Investigations are happening, subpoenas are flying. There will be more opportunities for these turds to get shredded to pieces like Barr yesterday.

Watergate took two fucking years to bring Nixon down and that was without an obstructionist Senate. Trust the process.

[tennbengal]

My point wasn't to criticize Peloisi - i am literally asking - is it a crime if the ones doing it are exempting themselves from the laws? Who enforces? If the AG won't enforce - because the AG himself is doing the crime - who enforces?

[brian]

My point wasn't to criticize Peloisi - i am literally asking - is it a crime if the ones doing it are exempting themselves from the laws? Who enforces? If the AG won't enforce - because the AG himself is doing the crime - who enforces?

Congress. And that's why Barr is probably facing impeachment by the House and probably soon at that.

[mister d]

Barr could be out tomorrow but who cares? He did his job, the next person in will do theirs. To just pick one, do you not think there's an iron-clad emoluments case to be made a year ago, let alone now? And if so, what spurs your optimism that *this* will be the time to act versus more long game from a party clearly willing to chose inaction to "unfavorable" action, even if that action is clearly not just right, but their fucking responsibility?

[brian]

Barr could be out tomorrow but who cares? He did his job, the next person in will do theirs. To just pick one, do you not think there's an iron-clad emoluments case to be made a year ago, let alone now? And if so, what spurs your optimism that *this* will be the time to act versus more long game from a party clearly willing to chose inaction to "unfavorable" action, even if that action is clearly not just right, but their fucking responsibility?

So what do you want? I mean, seriously. What do you REALLY fucking want?

The House could impeach Trump tomorrow. Then what?

Seriously, then what? The Senate isn't removing him. Do you think impeaching him is going to some how chasten him? Surely you're not that naive and I'll not insult you because I know you're not.

Those aren't arguments to NOT impeach, they're argument to keep up the fight to make Trump and his enablers (like Barr) look as ridiculous and impotent and stupid as possible to the American people before November 2020. That's the only game in town right now. Investigate, investigate, investigate. Expose everything possible.

[brian]

(And I still say that Trump WILL be impeached before this term is up. But when he is it's gonna be after a year's worth of investigations into EVERYTHING -- the emoluments clause, his personal finances, the money stolen from the inauguration, etc. It's gonna be a Chinese water torture of drip, drip, drip every day for the rest of his term and probably the rest of his life.)

[mister d]

So what do you want? I mean, seriously. What do you REALLY fucking want?

The House could impeach Trump tomorrow. Then what?

Seriously, then what? The Senate isn't removing him. Do you think impeaching him is going to some how chasten him? Surely you're not that naive and I'll not insult you because I know you're not.

So if the house decides to begin impeachment tomorrow, are you mad about the strategical blunder?

[brian]

So what do you want? I mean, seriously. What do you REALLY fucking want?

The House could impeach Trump tomorrow. Then what?

Seriously, then what? The Senate isn't removing him. Do you think impeaching him is going to some how chasten him? Surely you're not that naive and I'll not insult you because I know you're not.

So if the house decides to begin impeachment tomorrow, are you mad about the strategical blunder?

Not mad no, but I DO think it would be a blunder.

[Steve of phpBB]

My point wasn't to criticize Peloisi - i am literally asking - is it a crime if the ones doing it are exempting themselves from the laws? Who enforces? If the AG won't enforce - because the AG himself is doing the crime - who enforces?

In all honesty, I'm not sure Barr said anything clearly enough to be perjury. (Unlike Kavanaugh for example.) So I don't think there's anything to enforce as far as Barr's testimony.

In my opinion, Barr misled the public in his "summary" of Mueller's report. But he's smart enough to say things like "what does suggest mean" instead of outright lying to Congress.

[brian]

I don't want to beat this horse to death too much, but seriously consider what happens after the House impeaches Trump. To crib whatever analogy you like, that's the hardest possible fastball the Democrats can throw at him, the biggest swing at the pinata.

Everyone who follows politics knows exactly what's gonna happen after that. We could probably sketch out the headlines for the next two weeks in advance. The Senate has to have a trial, the vote in the Senate will be 52-48 or 53-47 to acquit. Depending how compelling the evidence is, maybe Collins and/or Murkowski vote with the Dems, ultimately it doesn't matter of course because they need 67 votes which they won't get. So once that's done, what's left?

If that's your best shot, then why are you taking it with 18 months left in his term? Any investigations that come after that are going to look impotent and petty. The House needs to keep up exactly what they've been doing. They need to eventually get Mueller to testify to Congress. (As NLFC noted, Barr shitting himself yesterday opens the door wide for that). They need to go after taxes, the inauguration, emoluments, Russia, all of it. That's gonna take time. Trump will stonewall everything in the courts. That's gonna take time.

But some of the really bad shit that hasn't come out yet is gonna come out eventually. It always does. And that's when the House can come in and say -- yeah, we know there's an election in a few months, but the public has seen the evidence and we need to act. (Realistically, this probably has to happen before the summer of 2020. If there is an impeachment trial my best guess would be it happens around February/March 2020.)

Then they do it and obviously nothing comes of it, but at least they'll have spent a year and a half with the upper hand on offense and make the case to the public they did it the right way.

ETA: One other reason why delaying the impeachment trial is good/important is that it puts the vulnerable GOP senators on the spot a few months before the election also. If they vote to acquit Trump in the face of whatever evidence the House can dig up, they're gonna have to explain that on the campaign trail. If the impeachment vote was tomorrow, they'd get a bigger pass on it 16 months from now.

[Steve of phpBB]

Everyone who follows politics knows exactly what's gonna happen after that. We could probably sketch out the headlines for the next two weeks in advance. The Senate has to have a trial, the vote in the Senate will be 52-48 or 53-47 to acquit. Depending how compelling the evidence is, maybe Collins and/or Murkowski vote with the Dems, ultimately it doesn't matter of course because they need 67 votes which they won't get. So once that's done, what's left?

"You heard it yourself, folks. I've been cleared. Totally exonerated."

[mister d]

He's already fucking said that.

[brian]

He's already fucking said that.

That’s kind of the point.

[mister d]

Maybe all the Dems could LIE down for a photo to imply Trump is a LIAR?

[EdRomero]

But some of the really bad shit that hasn't come out yet is gonna come out eventually. It always does.

This is where I'm cynical. Trump's adult life has been dedicated to covering up evidence against him and controlling narrative. Now he has the justice department, executive privilege, a compliant Senate, wikileaks, a complicit media conglomerate, inept media, people in the FBI and IRS fighting for him, and a crazy base that plays along with every lie and misdirection from him. So I don't know when things will come out, and when they do, I'm worried the interference will be too successful, or people will just not care or report it.

Already, I see countless "what the fuck" stories on twitter or reported on NPR, and then when I go to see what people say about it here, the story isn't even mentioned. Two immediate examples I can think of was today's report that the Justice Department with the help of conservative judges may be getting closer to destroying Obamacare. The more "fun" story is propublica reporting on Trump's buddies getting trashed at mar-a-lago and the white house (taxpayers) paying the bill, which of course is more profit for the Trump family. If either of these stories happened under Obama or Bush, there'd be 3 pages on each already before I got home from work. It's just an overwhelming amount of shittiness, which goes back to my original point of wanting to mute everything and go to my cat videos.

[BSF21]

So what do you want? I mean, seriously. What do you REALLY fucking want?

The House could impeach Trump tomorrow. Then what?

Seriously, then what? The Senate isn't removing him. Do you think impeaching him is going to some how chasten him? Surely you're not that naive and I'll not insult you because I know you're not.

So if the house decides to begin impeachment tomorrow, are you mad about the strategical blunder?

Not mad no, but I DO think it would be a blunder.

I agree 1000%

[mister d]

Strategic slow play through his entire first term and if he wins a second, we decide if we also slow play through that to strategically win 2024. It’s all about trusting leadership and waiting to strike, no matter how far out the perfect time is.

[EdRomero]

I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop on Iran Contra.

[mister d]

(I mean yes, in the meantime there are judges being appointed for life and some foreign kids down south are being separated from their families without any reunification plan beyond “do you know this kid”, but that’s the cost of politics. Gotta wait for that perfect moment to strike that also happens to coincidence with consultant-confirmed minimal job risk.)

[BSF21]

Strategic slow play through his entire first term and if he wins a second, we decide if we also slow play through that to strategically win 2024. It’s all about trusting leadership and waiting to strike, no matter how far out the perfect time is.

The strategic play is unfortunately not the satisfying one. As much as we expound and pontificate and argue here, the real deal is that there’s 2/5 of the voting population that are voting R regardless of you putting Weld or Trump or Rubio or whatever. They’re too uninformed, lazy,or stupid to do anything but push R. There’s 2/5 that are the same with Dems. So you’re trying to appeal to that 20% that gives a shit out of the 23% of the eligible public that votes. Impeachment this far from 2020 solves nothing, opens up a world of blunders, and makes Dems look petty. It ain’t pretty but it’s reality. Let him hang himself with those 6 million that are going to let whether he is an asshole or not against their precious private healthcare make the call, because that’s who’s in charge whether you like it or not.

[mister d]

What if one hypothesizes that the professional subservience of establishment Dems is a massive part of what drives that polling?

[BSF21]

What if one hypothesizes that the professional subservience of establishment Dems is a massive part of what drives that polling?

Of what potion of the polling? I don't really think it's polling, it's reality. 40% of people are slamming R and 40% of people are slamming D no matter what child molester, cousin fucker, wall street sympathizer, commie socialist is running. I don't think who the masters are has much to do with that 80% at all. The last fifth does. If this was 3 months into a 4 year term, I'm screaming go for it. And you can lay out the AOC lines of it being Congress' duty or whatever but we all know that about 1/10 give half a shit about their duty, so I'm not willing to die on the hill of a stonewalled 12 month impeachment process to get this fucker out of office 9 months early. It's a bad look.

[mister d]

I'm saying if there were a competent counter-party to a clearly corrupt president, the base narrative and public opinion would shift.

[brian]

I'm saying if there were a competent counter-party to a clearly corrupt president, the base narrative and public opinion would shift.

Maybe there is a competent counter-party, but the media narrative has to always tear down whatever they do to counteract Trump as pointless, as does the sniping from the extremely online "experts" (myself included) who definitely would have known the perfect response to that bully immediately and not the next morning damn it!

It certainly looked like the Dem senators who questioned Barr the other day knew what they were doing.

[mister d]

I will disagree and say history won't look back at this iteration of Dem leadership and say "yup, job well done".

[brian]

I will disagree and say history won't look back at this iteration of Dem leadership and say "yup, job well done".

If Trump loses in 2020, it will. If he doesn't it won't. Simple as that.

[Giff]

I will disagree and say history won't look back at this iteration of Dem leadership and say "yup, job well done".

Probably not, but I don't think there will be classes taught about how the Dem leadership in the one branch of Congress they controlled didn't impeach Trump in the first three months of holding office either.

[The Sybian]

Christ, almighty. Thank goodness at least one person is being realistic.

Some of these people wouldn't be happy unless there was an impeachment vote on January 4 and even then that wouldn't have been enough.

Damn the torpedoes is a fine strategy if you don't have numerous other options, but the House Dems are working from a position of strength. If you hold kangaroo court impeachment hearings on Day 1 of the new Congress then it really does look like a witchhunt. Investigations are happening, subpoenas are flying. There will be more opportunities for these turds to get shredded to pieces like Barr yesterday.

Watergate took two fucking years to bring Nixon down and that was without an obstructionist Senate. Trust the process.

How can we trust the process when McConnell holds the Senate? McConnell has shown he will go to shocking lengths to put Party above country and the institutions, how can we trust the process in his hands? The GOP members i both Houses have shown they will work to obstruct justice and lie and rig the process in Trump's favor. Look at Devin Nunes, instead of leading the oversight into Trump's potential collusion with Russia, he runs over and hands secret documents to the White House, and attacks those doing their job in trying to check the powers of a corrupt President. The process called for nominating Merrick Garland, why should we expect the process will work now?

[brian]

Christ, almighty. Thank goodness at least one person is being realistic.

Some of these people wouldn't be happy unless there was an impeachment vote on January 4 and even then that wouldn't have been enough.

Damn the torpedoes is a fine strategy if you don't have numerous other options, but the House Dems are working from a position of strength. If you hold kangaroo court impeachment hearings on Day 1 of the new Congress then it really does look like a witchhunt. Investigations are happening, subpoenas are flying. There will be more opportunities for these turds to get shredded to pieces like Barr yesterday.

Watergate took two fucking years to bring Nixon down and that was without an obstructionist Senate. Trust the process.

How can we trust the process when McConnell holds the Senate? McConnell has shown he will go to shocking lengths to put Party above country and the institutions, how can we trust the process in his hands? The GOP members i both Houses have shown they will work to obstruct justice and lie and rig the process in Trump's favor. Look at Devin Nunes, instead of leading the oversight into Trump's potential collusion with Russia, he runs over and hands secret documents to the White House, and attacks those doing their job in trying to check the powers of a corrupt President. The process called for nominating Merrick Garland, why should we expect the process will work now?

I don't mean trust Congress, I mean trust the House leadership. I'm not suggesting the Republicans in the Senate are going to grow a spine or put the country over their party and nowhere did I imply anything so crazy.

Assume I'm right about one thing and that leaving impeachment in the quiver for the time being is the right move. What is the House not doing as far as trying to investigate Trump that it should be? What is it not doing from a PR perspective that it should be doing? (These are honest, legitimate questions. I don't think there's too many wrong answers.)

The United States declared war on Germany in December 1941, but didn't participate in a single battle on the continent of Europe until July 1943 and didn't launch a full continental invasion until June 1944.

Because as much as I'm sure Eisenhower, Roosevelt and the other American leaders would have loved to attack immediately, they didn't have the men, the materiel or a successful plan. I'm sure it was frustrating as hell essentially sitting around and not doing anything about going after the most dangerous man on the Earth during that time, but history has shown it was the right move.

And if you think the analogy is stupid, it's not. (At least not completely.) This IS a war and it's not sexy to spend time building up resources and sticking to a plan, but sometimes it's the right move.

[mister d]

Probably not, but I don't think there will be classes taught about how the Dem leadership in the one branch of Congress they controlled didn't impeach Trump in the first three months of holding office either.

[checks calendar]

[Giff]

Probably not, but I don't think there will be classes taught about how the Dem leadership in the one branch of Congress they controlled didn't impeach Trump in the first three months of holding office either.

[checks calendar]

Sorry, 3 and a half months.

[Johnnie]

So cool that Trump called Putin about the Russian Hoax, you guys.

Time for Democrats to say TOUGH WORDS ABOUT HOW HIS ACTIONS ARE A NATIONAL SECURITY THAT TO AMERICA.

So he basically gets to do whatever he wants because it's not politically advantageous? Sounds legit.

One day, when there are 67 non cowards in the Senate, maybe we could hold him accountable. That's bound to happen, right!?!?

Edit:

This nation is at the mercy of a criminal administration

It's Max Boot. But he makes sense. We're basically powerless. Good job, America.

[Johnnie]

More to add to the pile.

[Johnnie]

So there's this:



And this:



This is fucking madness.