Impeachmen' 2: Electoral Boogaloo

[Belsnickel]

(02-15-2021, 11:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I watched much of the trial, to my eternal disappointment.  I don't think a case was made to convict.  Trump is a POS, but they didn't make sedition stick.

I didn't watch any of it because I knew what the outcome would be and knew that the Democrats were just intent on making sure they would be able to write history. I see the impeachment trials as political theater because that is what they are. They are ineffective tools for the oversight Congress is supposed to provide.

Anyway, all that being said I heard an interesting take on Left, Right, and Center this weekend. Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner and AEI was discussing the effort of the House managers and said he actually was swayed by them. Now, he had previously written an article saying, in essence, the impeachment was bullshit. He talked about his problems with criminalizing speech and even though this isn't a criminal proceeding the bar should be the same. He talked about the things that need to be met for incitement and he said he wasn't there, until there was the discussion about Trump on the phone with McCarthy. He said that conversation and things like it are what swayed him and made him see Trump as being responsible for the attempted insurrection. He was aware of what his words were doing. When he tweeted out against Pence after having been told Pence had to be evacuated from the Senate floor, he knew what his words were doing.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-16-2021, 08:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I didn't watch any of it because I knew what the outcome would be and knew that the Democrats were just intent on making sure they would be able to write history. I see the impeachment trials as political theater because that is what they are. They are ineffective tools for the oversight Congress is supposed to provide.

Anyway, all that being said I heard an interesting take on Left, Right, and Center this weekend. Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner and AEI was discussing the effort of the House managers and said he actually was swayed by them. Now, he had previously written an article saying, in essence, the impeachment was bullshit. He talked about his problems with criminalizing speech and even though this isn't a criminal proceeding the bar should be the same. He talked about the things that need to be met for incitement and he said he wasn't there, until there was the discussion about Trump on the phone with McCarthy. He said that conversation and things like it are what swayed him and made him see Trump as being responsible for the attempted insurrection. He was aware of what his words were doing. When he tweeted out against Pence after having been told Pence had to be evacuated from the Senate floor, he knew what his words were doing.

Yeah, a definite case can be made, I just can't see it passing muster in a court of law.

[GMDino]

(02-16-2021, 08:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I didn't watch any of it because I knew what the outcome would be and knew that the Democrats were just intent on making sure they would be able to write history. I see the impeachment trials as political theater because that is what they are. They are ineffective tools for the oversight Congress is supposed to provide.

Anyway, all that being said I heard an interesting take on Left, Right, and Center this weekend. Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner and AEI was discussing the effort of the House managers and said he actually was swayed by them. Now, he had previously written an article saying, in essence, the impeachment was bullshit. He talked about his problems with criminalizing speech and even though this isn't a criminal proceeding the bar should be the same. He talked about the things that need to be met for incitement and he said he wasn't there, until there was the discussion about Trump on the phone with McCarthy. He said that conversation and things like it are what swayed him and made him see Trump as being responsible for the attempted insurrection. He was aware of what his words were doing. When he tweeted out against Pence after having been told Pence had to be evacuated from the Senate floor, he knew what his words were doing.

Once again I'll just say if no case was made McConnell doesn't make a speech saying the case was made.  Even he, who is a master at playing partisan politics, wouldn't grant that much no matter how much he wants to distance the party from Trump and his ilk.

Of course he voted to acquit though because...party over everything.

[Belsnickel]

(02-16-2021, 11:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, a definite case can be made, I just can't see it passing muster in a court of law.

That doesn't matter, though. The bar isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" like in a criminal court. It isn't intended to be.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-16-2021, 11:52 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: That doesn't matter, though. The bar isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" like in a criminal court. It isn't intended to be.

I am aware.  I was referencing your post in which the host made a comparison to criminal court.

[BigPapaKain]

(02-15-2021, 11:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You mean lying under oath, right?  Clinton wasn't impeached for his infidelity and stating as such is untruthful.

(02-16-2021, 12:13 AM)michaelsean Wrote: 25 years later and people still don’t know why Clinton was impeached.

Y'all need to learn to tell when someone is using hyperbole to make a joke.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-16-2021, 12:56 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Y'all need to learn to tell when someone is using hyperbole to make a joke.

Again, it's difficult because; 1. people legitimately make this error all the time and 2. it's not exactly easy to discern sarcasm through text.

[BigPapaKain]

(02-16-2021, 01:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, it's difficult because; 1. people legitimately make this error all the time and 2. it's not exactly easy to discern sarcasm through text.

I thought the rim shot at the end of my original post kind of sealed it, but alas.

I did really just mean to point out how quick all Republicans were to condemn and impeach a Democratic presdient. The flip side of that of course was the Democrats played the party lines instead of doing the right thing, too. But the current political climate proves why politicians have to play party line games instead of doing what is widely perceived as the right thing - how many of those GoP Senators are being censured in their home states for daring to vote against former Dear Leader?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-16-2021, 01:05 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I thought the rim shot at the end of my original post kind of sealed it, but alas.

I did really just mean to point out how quick all Republicans were to condemn and impeach a Democratic presdient. The flip side of that of course was the Democrats played the party lines instead of doing the right thing, too. But the current political climate proves why politicians have to play party line games instead of doing what is widely perceived as the right thing - how many of those GoP Senators are being censured in their home states for daring to vote against former Dear Leader?

It's partly that, but I don't think that's the main reason.  I think they don't want the first POTUS to ever be impeached to be of their party.  Additionally, it's a calculation on what will best serve them in 2022.  The latter is exactly why McConnell made the speech he made.  As slimy as he can be, McConnell plays the game as well as it's ever been played.

[Dill]

(02-16-2021, 08:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I didn't watch any of it because I knew what the outcome would be and knew that the Democrats were just intent on making sure they would be able to write history. I see the impeachment trials as political theater because that is what they are. They are ineffective tools for the oversight Congress is supposed to provide.

Anyway, all that being said I heard an interesting take on Left, Right, and Center this weekend. Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner and AEI was discussing the effort of the House managers and said he actually was swayed by them. Now, he had previously written an article saying, in essence, the impeachment was bullshit. He talked about his problems with criminalizing speech and even though this isn't a criminal proceeding the bar should be the same. He talked about the things that need to be met for incitement and he said he wasn't there, until there was the discussion about Trump on the phone with McCarthy. He said that conversation and things like it are what swayed him and made him see Trump as being responsible for the attempted insurrection. He was aware of what his words were doing. When he tweeted out against Pence after having been told Pence had to be evacuated from the Senate floor, he knew what his words were doing.

Seems to me the impeachment charge, as presented by the House managers, was always centered on the CONDUCT of the president AS PRESIDENT.  Not simply on incitement as a question of free speech. 

In the RWM the issue has been rather successfully cast as limitation of the president's "free speech" as an ordinary citizen, which, if allowed to stand, would place all our 1st Amendment rights at risk and establish precedent for impeaching Harris and Pelosi and Schumer as well. Hence the limitation of the defense's analysis to "the presidents words" which, de-contextualized, are the equivalent to what many Dems have said: "Fight to win." Both sides do it.

On the House managers' side, "incitement" included the act of Trump priming his base with the Big Lie, arranging for them to meet in Washington on the day and time, whipping them to a "peaceful" frenzy, sending them to the Capitol as electoral college votes were to be certified, and "standing by" as people under siege desperately called for help. In the latter phase, the managers made clear that tweeting about Pence to a mob was targeting him for their anger, as rioters repeatedly referenced Trump tweets for guidance--especially the guy reading them aloud over a bull horn.

It sounds like Carney only finally grasped the managers' point when he heard Beutler's account of the McCarthy-Trump phone call.

What would people of twenty years ago have thought, though, if they'd heard that in 2020 a president, after failing 60 court challenges to an election, not only continued to claim that he had really won but called a "rally" on the day the ballots were to be certified by his VP and sent an angry mob to "peacefully" protest at the Capitol during the count?  Would that pre-Trump electorate have had Carney's difficulty perceiving "intent"?

I think that what has come to seem "normal" or at least unremarkable to us would seem a national calamity to previous generations, and there would be no difficulty assigning primary responsibility for the Capitol riot.  It's still a calamity in that the bulk of the GOP still believes the election was stolen and Biden was illegitimate.  The MSM continues to speak as if that issue is settled and the lie is exposed.  But for tens of millions that is only more MSM fake news.

[BigPapaKain]

(02-16-2021, 01:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's partly that, but I don't think that's the main reason.  I think they don't want the first POTUS to ever be impeached to be of their party.  Additionally, it's a calculation on what will best serve them in 2022.  The latter is exactly why McConnell made the speech he made.  As slimy as he can be, McConnell plays the game as well as it's ever been played.

Oh I get that they're playing the long game. Unfortunately for them, the long game is currently being held hostage by the whims of Donald J. Trump and whether or not he's going to follow through on splintering the GoP. Gambling on that lunatic isn't exactly something I would do, but I'm not a gambling man by nature. As good as McConnell is at politics, even his plans can't afford to lose a third of the Republican voting base.

[GMDino]

As the gqp rails about "cancel culture" they continue to censure their own who voted in favor of convicting Trump during the second impeachment trial.

To that end one PA republican official says the quiet part outloud.

Actual quote from a PA GOP official, explaining why Sen. Toomey should be censured: “We did not send him there to vote his conscience. We did not send him there to ‘do the right thing’ or whatever”
pic.twitter.com/p0sA960GEp

— Jan Wolfe (@JanNWolfe) February 16, 2021

 

[Belsnickel]

(02-16-2021, 02:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: As the gqp rails about "cancel culture" they continue to censure their own who voted in favor of convicting Trump during the second impeachment trial.

To that end one PA republican official says the quiet part outloud.

Actual quote from a PA GOP official, explaining why Sen. Toomey should be censured: “We did not send him there to vote his conscience. We did not send him there to ‘do the right thing’ or whatever”
pic.twitter.com/p0sA960GEp

— Jan Wolfe (@JanNWolfe) February 16, 2021

 

You know, this just highlights the problem with parties. The party didn't send the Senator to Washington, the people of Pennsylvania did.

[GMDino]

(02-16-2021, 02:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You know, this just highlights the problem with parties. The party didn't send the Senator to Washington, the people of Pennsylvania did.

I see it as a problem with the people who lead the parties.  Now I've only be aware of politics since the early 80's but in reading I don't remember being *this* blatantly bad.

And mind you Trump won PA and the republicans still tried to fight the their own rules that they made to change that.

[Dill]

(02-16-2021, 02:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You know, this just highlights the problem with parties. The party didn't send the Senator to Washington, the people of Pennsylvania did.

(02-16-2021, 03:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: I see it as a problem with the people who lead the parties.  Now I've only be aware of politics since the early 80's but in reading I don't remember being *this* blatantly bad.

And mind you Trump won PA and the republicans still tried to fight the their own rules that they made to change that.

Well, I think it likely that many of those who "lead" the Republican party thought Trump was guilty. But they voted as they did because they worried not only about party censure, but also about "the people"--their people, the ones who voted them into office and overwhelmingly believe the election was stolen.

And I think it quite likely "the people" of many districts did send their Senators to Washington to support Trump at all costs, and NOT to "defend the Constitution." The GOP has become an illiberal, anti-democratic party. It shapes the beliefs of the people who vote for it, but not without considerable help from other illiberal institutions, like Evangelical churches and the RWMM.

But if by "the people" we mean the total population of the U.S., they, on the other hand, certainly thought Trump guilty AND impeachable under the Constitution, and would have been happy if their Senate representatives had voted appropriately.

David Leonhardt has it right. The GOP has figured out how to rule as minority party, especially via control of the Senate, which they largely keep with the filibuster.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/15/briefing/winter-storm-president-biden-meghan-markle-pregnant.html

Today’s Republican Party is less concerned with national public opinion than it used to be — or than today’s Democratic Party is.

The Republican Party of the past won elections by persuading most Americans that it would do a better job than Democrats of running the country. Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower each won at least 57 percent of the vote in their re-election campaigns. George W. Bush won 51 percent, largely by appealing to swing voters on national security, education, immigration and other issues. A party focused on rebuilding a national majority probably could not stay tethered to Trump.

But the modern Republican Party has found ways other than majority support to achieve its goals.

It benefits from a large built-in advantage in the Senate, which gives more power to rural and heavily white states. The filibuster also helps Republicans more than it does Democrats. In the House and state legislatures, both parties have gerrymandered, but Republicans have done more of it. In the courts, Republicans have been more aggressive about putting judges on the bench and blocking Democratic presidents from doing so. In the Electoral College, Democrats currently waste more votes than Republicans by running up large state-level victories.

All of this helps explain Trump’s second acquittal. The Republican Party is in the midst of the worst run that any party has endured — across American history — in the popular vote of presidential elections, having lost seven of the past eight. Yet the party has had a pretty good few decades, policy-wise. It has figured out how to succeed with minority support.

Republican-appointed justices dominate the Supreme Court. Republicans are optimistic they can retake control of both the House and the Senate next year (even if they win fewer votes nationwide). Taxes on the wealthy are near their lowest level in a century. Democrats have failed to enact many of their biggest priorities — on climate change, Medicare, the minimum wage, preschool, gun control, immigration and more.

Yes, Trump’s acquittal bucks public opinion. But it still might not cost the Republicans political power.