• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.

US PoliERA 2019 |OT4| Sum Up the Last 400 Pages in 4

Oct 27, 2017
7,919
But you're ignoring all the other possible positive outcomes and my tool/baseball bat analogy that I was particularly proud of. Impeachment can be used for other things than removal from office, and those other things can result in bringing down some of the dumbasses working to suppress voting rights and representation from the white house to state legislatures.
What? Impeachment doesn't do anything on this front. Impeachment is aimed at the president and people who commit crimes on his behalf, not Republican state legislators and interest groups. It'd be nice to think that impeachment would have a cascading effect on bringing down everyone from the Heritage Foundation to the Wisconsin state Republican party but it doesn't actually do that.

Use this process as a tool to get all these people on record for what they stand for. Use it as a tool to show what the Democrats stand for, and that they have a spine and will fight for what they stand for. Republicans voting against when the evidence is laid bare could be much more devastating to them than you think.
It's 2019. Republicans have long since made their calculation on sticking to Trump. The ones who have been punished for that have been punished. The ones who haven't were re-elected. Sorry, I just don't buy this "put the Republicans on record defending Trump" line of thinking at all. It doesn't mean anything and thinking that the specter of supporting Trump in a trial in the Senate would somehow pressure Republicans to turn on him just strikes me as really naive. That goes for any process that banks on pressuring or shaming Republicans into turning on Trump. They won't do it, certainly not in any meaningful numbers.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,133
I'm just thinking of the electoral calculus next year.

All of our senators can vote to convict. Shaheen and Peters won't lose because of their votes. Jones would've lost anyway.

Vulnerable Republicans, however, can't win. If they acquit him, which they will, they piss off everybody but the MAGA base. On the off chance they vote to convict, they lose their primaries and hand us open seats.
 
Oct 29, 2017
1,294
What? Impeachment doesn't do anything on this front. Impeachment is aimed at the president and people who commit crimes on his behalf, not Republican state legislators and interest groups. It'd be nice to think that impeachment would have a cascading effect on bringing down everyone from the Heritage Foundation to the Wisconsin state Republican party but it doesn't actually do that.
Congresspeople/Senators showing complicity post-Mueller report and post hearings could really be damaged by that. Statewide elections (i.e. for senators) affect down ballot candidates. Wound senators, you can suppress their down ballot party support, or activate the opposition's. I'm not saying that it's a for sure thing, but we're still in the middle of this and the more we find out, the more likely it is..

It's 2019. Republicans have long since made their calculation on sticking to Trump. The ones who have been punished for that have been punished. The ones who haven't were re-elected. Sorry, I just don't buy this "put the Republicans on record defending Trump" line of thinking at all. It doesn't mean anything and thinking that the specter of supporting Trump in a trial in the Senate would somehow pressure Republicans to turn on him just strikes me as really naive. That goes for any process that banks on pressuring or shaming Republicans into turning on Trump. They won't do it, certainly not in any meaningful numbers.
There are vulnerable Republicans Senators coming up for reelection in 2020 that weren't in 16 or 18. Besides the tax cut and healthcare votes, make them vote on another thing that makes them look like partisan garbage.

And besides all that, just use a flow chart. Is it the right thing to do and constitutionally the duty of congress? Yes - it's exactly the moment this process was meant for. Is it politically expedient, neutral, or harmful? Probably more so one of the first two than harmful. Is it going to work? It's irrelevant if you're reasonably sure it's the right thing to do and the political expediency isn't terribly in question.

Vulnerable Republicans, however, can't win. If they acquit him, which they will, they piss off everybody but the MAGA base. On the off chance they vote to convict, they lose their primaries and hand us open seats.
Right- it's one more vote to their shit votes on Kavanaugh, health care, the tax cuts, etc. that can be used to drag them.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,133
Strongly disagree with this assessment. If there's one thing republicans are good at, it's unifying behind their president. This goes well beyond MAGA in terms of support.
I actually make no functional distinction between the two; I should've been clearer.

They piss off everybody but Republicans. Collins can't win with Republican votes alone.
 
Oct 26, 2017
271

Shockingly Marchant's name did not come up considering he's pretty vulnerable also pretty funny considering McCaul said two weeks ago that his district wasn't in play
Really wish someone decent would step up to run in NE-02. Right now it's looking like an Eastman v Ashford (albeit a different Ashford) rematch and neither of them inspire confidence. Also, their fundraising for Q1 was terrible.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,984
There would be resignation pressure leading up to and into an impeachment trial, too.

I don’t know how much or whether it would be particularly effective, but even with too many Republicans in the Senate for guaranteed conviction, there would be some feelers sent out to maybe avoid having to vote at all. Depends how bad it all looks and how the public is taking it, probably. Deals discussed perhaps, etc.

The math isn’t there in the abstract, but the process itself changes the calculus, to a degree.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,363
There would be resignation pressure leading up to and into an impeachment trial, too.

I don’t know how much or whether it would be particularly effective, but even with too many Republicans in the Senate for guaranteed conviction, there would be some feelers sent out to maybe avoid having to vote at all. Depends how bad it all looks and how the public is taking it, probably. Deals discussed perhaps, etc.

The math isn’t there in the abstract, but the process itself changes the calculus, to a degree.
Trump will never resign. He knows the office is the only thing shielding him from indictments right now.
 
Oct 27, 2017
8,887
Trump will never resign. He knows the office is the only thing shielding him from indictments right now.
If the deal is immunity/a pardon in exchange for stepping down he might take it.

For the same reasoning I am actually pretty worried he will do everything he can to not leave the office if he loses in 2020. Like he is fucking insane. He will go the invalidate the election martial law route.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,919
There would be resignation pressure leading up to and into an impeachment trial, too.

I don’t know how much or whether it would be particularly effective, but even with too many Republicans in the Senate for guaranteed conviction, there would be some feelers sent out to maybe avoid having to vote at all. Depends how bad it all looks and how the public is taking it, probably. Deals discussed perhaps, etc.

The math isn’t there in the abstract, but the process itself changes the calculus, to a degree.
Not only will Trump absolutely not resign (putting aside the criminal exposure he faces the minute he leaves office, he is constitutionally incapable of doing anything that looks like giving in) but I don't think McConnell will try to duck having that vote at all. Actually, I'm not sure if McConnell can even decide whether or not a trial would take place anyway; it might not be up to him.

If the deal is immunity/a pardon in exchange for stepping down he might take it.

For the same reasoning I am actually pretty worried he will do everything he can to not leave the office if he loses in 2020. Like he is fucking insane. He will go the invalidate the election martial law route.
Who would be offering that deal: his bodyman AG who just nuked his own reputation to cravenly protect Trump or Chuck Schumer who does not have the numbers to convict Trump anyway?
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,984
Trump will never resign. He knows the office is the only thing shielding him from indictments right now.
Again, in the abstract, I agree. I don’t really see many scenarios where he resigns. Perhaps some deal like Zoonami mentioned. But the possibility even coming up affects the whole picture—maybe it makes the situation look worse, maybe it makes more Senate Republicans nervous about their vote, maybe the resignation discussions get stronger, etc etc. All these things affect each other in ways that can’t happen until they start to happen.

For the same reasoning I am actually pretty worried he will do everything he can to not leave the office if he loses in 2020. Like he is fucking insane. He will go the invalidate the election martial law route.
There’s no mechanism for this and nothing he can directly do. If you’re worried about him *saying* destructive things, yeah, and that wouldn’t be healthy, for sure. But who’s going to “invalidate the election”? The House? Similarly he can’t just refuse to leave. He’s automatically not-President on Jan. 20 if he loses. That’s it.
 
Oct 28, 2017
4,115
Arkansas, USA
It just occured to me that conceivably Republicans would be more willing to remove Trump from office if he loses the election next year. That's a long time from now, and it would make his removal from office mostly symbolic. But on the plus side it would avoid the potential for a disputed election and/or a crisis in the exchange of power come early 2021.

All that said a hypothetical lame duck impeachment doesn't provide any guidance or answers for what to do about the Mueller report from now until then.
 
Oct 29, 2017
72
I don't want Biden to run. Ugh.
Same here man, he needs to go away. He should have run in 2016, but as of now, with all the changes in the party and public at large (Trump supporters don't count, they're a lost cause) moving toward progressive policies, he represents the old party, and will only be a stick in the gears, gumming everything up, splitting the party.

Here's hoping Buttigeig, Bernie, Kamala and Yang show him the door in the first debate or two.
 
Mar 30, 2019
166
Illinois
Let's check up on Scott Pruitt and see what's he doing


Scott Pruitt, the embattled former administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, registered Thursday as a lobbyist with state regulators.

Pruitt's filings with the Indiana Lobby Registration Commission identify him as a self-employed consultant and list RailPoint Solutions LLC as his sole client. His lobbying topics include "energy" and "natural resources."

It's unclear what, exactly, Pruitt is working on or who he is meeting with at the Statehouse, but he has ties to the Indiana coal industry. IndyStar's attempts to reach him Thursday afternoon were unsuccessful.

RailPoint Solutions does not appear to have a web address, nor is a company by that name registered to do business in Indiana. A search of Delaware business records, however, shows an incorporation date of Jan. 22.

The lobbying registration lists Heather Tryon as a responsible party. Heather Tryon is also the name of the chief financial officer of Sunrise Coal, Indiana's second largest coal producer, according to the company's website.

Pruitt is not unfamiliar with Indiana coal interests. While working at the EPA, he met with Steven Chancellor, CEO of White Stallion Energy, which owns coal mines in the state, according to emails released through a Freedom of Information Act filed by the Sierra Club.

Pruitt's appearance in Indiana affairs comes at a time when the state's energy future is in question.

Two of the state's utilities — NIPSCO and Vectren — have released plans to retire all or nearly all of their coal generating plants over the next several years.

The Indiana Coal Council, Peabody Energy and Alliance Coal all have filed challenges to those plans with state regulators. The cases are pending.

The utilities' plans were further imperiled by a now-defeated measure that would have prohibited state regulators from approving new electric generation, like NIPSCO's wind projects and Vectren's natural gas plant.

That moratorium, introduced as an amendment onto a Senate bill by Rep. Ed Soliday, R-Valparaiso, received heavy criticism by utility companies as well as environmental groups, who said it was a way to keep coal power plants running in Indiana. Currently, Indiana generates about 65 percent of its electricity from coal.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,919
The Vice President or the relevant federal districts, though the idea that a US attorney would countenance it is a little wild.
Mike Pence has already signed his soul away. He is far more likely to play the "No, take me instead!" card than broker a resignation deal with Trump.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,942
If they do move to impeachment it is going to take a while, they're going to go through a Mueller testimony and other steps before they get there. It isn't going to happen at the speed of twitter.