Pelosi threatens to delay Senate impeachment trial

[Cardinal]

I am completely baffled by this strategy. In 2019 alone, Pelosi has managed two overwhelming battles that would have reduced anybody else to tears. In the winter she successfully steered the country through a government shutdown, facing down and beating the President of the United States. And culminating with today's vote, she steered the House through impeachment hearings without allowing Republicans to turn the proceedings into a circus. Under anybody else's guidance, Democrats in both instances would have been reduced to chaos in under a week.

The point is Pelosi is super smart. But this? McConnell will be pleased as punch if the House doesn't burden him with an impeachment trial. He'll say, "Oh, you mean this stressful thing that has the potential to divide the Republican party is no longer on my plate? Thanks! Now watch as I confirm a hundred lifetime judicial appointments."

And don't tell me he's getting robbed of his acquittal narrative. Mitch McConnell wouldn't give two ****s about an acquittal narrative because he can just say that Democrats aren't sending him the articles, so WTF is he supposed to do?

So help me out here. What's Pelosi's actual leverage here?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to commit Wednesday to delivering articles of impeachment to the Senate, citing concerns about an unfair trial on removing President Donald Trump from office.

Senior Democratic aides said the House was "very unlikely" to take the steps necessary to send the articles to the Senate until at least early January, a delay of at least two weeks and perhaps longer.

Story Continued Below

"So far we haven't seen anything that looks fair to us," Pelosi told reporters at a press conference just moments after the House charged Trump with abuse of power and obstructing congressional investigations. “That would’ve been our intention, but we’ll see what happens over there."

Pelosi threatens to delay Senate impeachment trial - POLITICO

 

[Lutherf]

Have you missed the part where this has all been about the 2020 election? This way she can keep telling her people that Trump was guilty because he was impeached. That's proof. She can also tell them that since the Republicans are too corrupt to convict him there is really no sense in sending the articles over. For her base, it's a "win".

 

[Cardinal]

Have you missed the part where this has all been about the 2020 election? This way she can keep telling her people that Trump was guilty because he was impeached. That's proof. She can also tell them that since the Republicans are too corrupt to convict him there is really no sense in sending the articles over. For her base, it's a "win".

That's not leverage, and that narrative is weak sauce. I don't buy that as being her strategy.

 

[Lutherf]

That's not leverage, and that narrative is weak sauce. I don't buy that as being her strategy.

The whole thing has been "weak sauce"! Why should this be any different? Look, like I've been saying all along, the democrats ran on impeaching Trump in 2018 had had good success. The Mueller report didn't give them what they wanted so they needed something else to keep the narrative going. This is what they have chosen and it's a weak case...like watered down water kind of weak and Pelosi knows it. All she wants to do is keep on promoting the impeachment narrative with the hope that peeople start believing Trump was convicted of some kind of crime thus prompting them to get to the polls next November. The Democrats have lied to their constituents all along about Trump's "crimes" and their poll numbers haven't fallen so why piss away a good thing by sending it to the Senate where there will be a vote that won't go her way? She's got her "win", why should she waste it?

 

[Cardinal]

The whole thing has been "weak sauce"! Why should this be any different?

Lame.

 

[PLizzy]

I am completely baffled by this strategy. In 2019 alone, Pelosi has managed two overwhelming battles that would have reduced anybody else to tears. In the winter she successfully steered the country through a government shutdown, facing down and beating the President of the United States. And culminating with today's vote, she steered the House through impeachment hearings without allowing Republicans to turn the proceedings into a circus. Under anybody else's guidance, Democrats in both instances would have been reduced to chaos in under a week.

The point is Pelosi is super smart. But this? McConnell will be pleased as punch if the House doesn't burden him with an impeachment trial. He'll say, "Oh, you mean this stressful thing that has the potential to divide the Republican party is no longer on my plate? Thanks! Now watch as I confirm a hundred lifetime judicial appointments."

And don't tell me he's getting robbed of his acquittal narrative. Mitch McConnell wouldn't give two ****s about an acquittal narrative because he can just say that Democrats aren't sending him the articles, so WTF is he supposed to do?

So help me out here. What's Pelosi's actual leverage here?



Pelosi threatens to delay Senate impeachment trial - POLITICO

It's not about McConnell, it's about Collins, Gardner, and the other Republicans in purple and blue states, who need to appear as impartial jurors.

This puts pressure on them to put pressure on McConnell to create a more fair trail, or else join Schumer's proposal outright.

It might work, it might not. But it's worth a shot.

 

[The Mark]

I am completely baffled by this strategy. In 2019 alone, Pelosi has managed two overwhelming battles that would have reduced anybody else to tears. In the winter she successfully steered the country through a government shutdown, facing down and beating the President of the United States. And culminating with today's vote, she steered the House through impeachment hearings without allowing Republicans to turn the proceedings into a circus. Under anybody else's guidance, Democrats in both instances would have been reduced to chaos in under a week.

The point is Pelosi is super smart. But this? McConnell will be pleased as punch if the House doesn't burden him with an impeachment trial. He'll say, "Oh, you mean this stressful thing that has the potential to divide the Republican party is no longer on my plate? Thanks! Now watch as I confirm a hundred lifetime judicial appointments."

And don't tell me he's getting robbed of his acquittal narrative. Mitch McConnell wouldn't give two ****s about an acquittal narrative because he can just say that Democrats aren't sending him the articles, so WTF is he supposed to do?

So help me out here. What's Pelosi's actual leverage here?



Pelosi threatens to delay Senate impeachment trial - POLITICO

I am frankly not sure, but I had been wondering why the Democrats didn't investigate longer and include more impeachment articles.

I had assumed it was because they weren't as sure they could get the necessary "Yea" votes.

Now I'm wondering if they wanted to get it voted through fast so their members could go campaign in 2020 and still have the impeachment taken care of - having their cake and eating it too, in a sense.

Remains to be seen what they demand to send the articles to the Senate.

 

[Lutherf]

It's not about McConnell, it's about Collins, Gardner, and the other Republicans in purple and blue states, who need to appear as impartial jurors.

This puts pressure on them to put pressure on McConnell to create a more fair trail, or else join Schumer's proposal outright.

It might work, it might not. But it's worth a shot.

You want a fair trial? Warren, Booker, Klobuchar, Sanders and Bennett should all be prohibited from voting because they all have a vested interest in getting Trump off the GOP ballot so that they don't have to run against him if they win the nomination.

 

[Cardinal]

It's not about McConnell, it's about Collins, Gardner, and the other Republicans in purple and blue states, who need to appear as impartial jurors.

This puts pressure on them to put pressure on McConnell to create a more fair trail, or else join Schumer's proposal outright.

It might work, it might not. But it's worth a shot.

No, not sending articles of impeachment absolves Collins, Gardner and the like of having to feel any pressure for the duration that articles of impeachment aren't in the Senate.

There's no solid, tangible strategy I can wrap my hands around, here.

 

[AProudLefty]

I am completely baffled by this strategy. In 2019 alone, Pelosi has managed two overwhelming battles that would have reduced anybody else to tears. In the winter she successfully steered the country through a government shutdown, facing down and beating the President of the United States. And culminating with today's vote, she steered the House through impeachment hearings without allowing Republicans to turn the proceedings into a circus. Under anybody else's guidance, Democrats in both instances would have been reduced to chaos in under a week.

The point is Pelosi is super smart. But this? McConnell will be pleased as punch if the House doesn't burden him with an impeachment trial. He'll say, "Oh, you mean this stressful thing that has the potential to divide the Republican party is no longer on my plate? Thanks! Now watch as I confirm a hundred lifetime judicial appointments."

And don't tell me he's getting robbed of his acquittal narrative. Mitch McConnell wouldn't give two ****s about an acquittal narrative because he can just say that Democrats aren't sending him the articles, so WTF is he supposed to do?

So help me out here. What's Pelosi's actual leverage here?



Pelosi threatens to delay Senate impeachment trial - POLITICO

If I was to guess (not being partisan or anything) the leverage assumes that Trump is that dumb. (And I am not going to say anything about the House and the Senate.)

 

[PLizzy]

You want a fair trial? Warren, Booker, Klobuchar, Sanders and Bennett should all be prohibited from voting because they all have a vested interest in getting Trump off the GOP ballot so that they don't have to run against him if they win the nomination.

Not how this works.

 

[Chomsky]

I am completely baffled by this strategy. In 2019 alone, Pelosi has managed two overwhelming battles that would have reduced anybody else to tears. In the winter she successfully steered the country through a government shutdown, facing down and beating the President of the United States. And culminating with today's vote, she steered the House through impeachment hearings without allowing Republicans to turn the proceedings into a circus. Under anybody else's guidance, Democrats in both instances would have been reduced to chaos in under a week.

The point is Pelosi is super smart. But this? McConnell will be pleased as punch if the House doesn't burden him with an impeachment trial. He'll say, "Oh, you mean this stressful thing that has the potential to divide the Republican party is no longer on my plate? Thanks! Now watch as I confirm a hundred lifetime judicial appointments."

And don't tell me he's getting robbed of his acquittal narrative. Mitch McConnell wouldn't give two ****s about an acquittal narrative because he can just say that Democrats aren't sending him the articles, so WTF is he supposed to do?

So help me out here. What's Pelosi's actual leverage here?



Pelosi threatens to delay Senate impeachment trial - POLITICO

I am frankly not sure, but I had been wondering why the Democrats didn't investigate longer and include more impeachment articles.

I had assumed it was because they weren't as sure they could get the necessary "Yea" votes.

Now I'm wondering if they wanted to get it voted through fast so their members could go campaign in 2020 and still have the impeachment taken care of - having their cake and eating it too, in a sense.

Remains to be seen what they demand to send the articles to the Senate.

I've come to believe Pelosi - more likely than not - knows what she's doing.

To that, I'm wondering if this is a ploy to get the witnesses & documents Trump refused to relinquish? She could start a narrative that it is a "trial" unlike impeachment, and the Dems need the witnesses Trump denied. McConnell can of course refuse, and simply pass a resolution to not take-up any articles and have the Senate move-on. But then Pelosi would continue with the current court cases, likely winning some & deposing throughout the election year.

It seems like a risky strategy, but who knows what she's doing? But whatever it is, I suspect she's thought it out

 

[Harshaw]

It's not about McConnell, it's about Collins, Gardner, and the other Republicans in purple and blue states, who need to appear as impartial jurors.

This puts pressure on them to put pressure on McConnell to create a more fair trail, or else join Schumer's proposal outright.

It might work, it might not. But it's worth a shot.

No it doesn't. Not even a little bit. Not at all.

 

[PLizzy]

No, not sending articles of impeachment absolves Collins, Gardner and the like of having to feel any pressure for the duration that articles of impeachment aren't in the Senate.

There's no solid, tangible strategy I can wrap my hands around, here.

I doubt Pelosi is just going to hang on to the articles. She knows she has to send them over. But, this makes the rules that the Senate agrees to a story for people to pay attention to. When voters ask what the hold up is, they'll know that it's all down to Republicans wanting to stack the deck, and so this way if and when Gardner and Collins fold to McConnell's whip, it won't be swept under a rug.

At this point, I wouldn't put it past McConnell to pull some stunt to dismiss the articles out of hand, and this keeps that from happening.

 

[jpn]

There's no solid, tangible strategy I can wrap my hands around, here.

The fairer the trial, the better for the Democrats (and the truth). That's why Moscow Mitch is so committed to making it a farce. On the other hand, some House Dem's in swing states want this over as quickly as possible so they can talk about health care, etc.

I've come to have great respect for Pelosi's political acumen. She'll figure out which way is best. Taking a few days to think it over hurts no one.

 

[PLizzy]

No it doesn't. Not even a little bit. Not at all.

Are John Cleese? Because I could swear you're trying to recreate a Monty Python skit, where he just argues "no, itsn't!!"

 

[Lutherf]

Not how this works.

Right. The idea that ANY vote on impeachment will be non-partisan is simply crazy.

That's why witnesses don't matter.

The Democrats did their job and got the articles passed with the best evidence we have ever seen...truly perfect evidence, maybe the best anyone has ever come up with. Maybe not, but it definitely could be. Who knows? Anyway, they did their job and now the Senate has a job to do...if Nancy really wants them to.

 

[Chomsky]

No, not sending articles of impeachment absolves Collins, Gardner and the like of having to feel any pressure for the duration that articles of impeachment aren't in the Senate.

There's no solid, tangible strategy I can wrap my hands around, here.

FYI - I'm watching a Dem congresswomen being interviewed on CNN that is fully onboard Pelosi holding on to the articles, so it seems to be an organized talking point. She claims polling shows 71% of Americans want to see witnesses at the trial, and that's what she wants along with a "fair trial" with "fair jurors".

I'm beginning to think the Dems feel they may believe they can hammer away at the differences between impeachment & removal, by riding the "trial" aspects. Now that I think about it, they may be on to something. What should occurs at a trial is something Americans can relatively easily understand.

 

[Jonsa]

By dictating the timetable for the senate to even a limited degree, she can force Mitch to finalize the impeachment trial process, rules and witness lists prior to turning it over. If he actually does let Trump lawyers structure the trial rules, she can use the Kangaroo court aspect to democratic advantage throughout the election campaign turning the inevitable dismissal (assuming all republicans remain united) into "travesty of justice". Many ways to play it.

Mitch is in control, but he's already prejudiced his position to the extent he will be lying when he takes his oath as a juror, better tread softly. Pelosi is one helluva worthy opponent, regardless of the smearing rights opinion.

 

[Jonsa]

FYI - I'm watching a Dem congresswomen being interviewed on CNN that is fully onboard Pelosi holding on to the articles, so it seems to be an organized talking point. She claims polling shows 71% of Americans want to see witnesses at the trial, and that's what she wants along with a "fair trial" with "fair jurors".

I'm beginning to think the Dems feel they may believe they can hammer away at the differences between impeachment & removal, by riding the "trial" aspects. Now that I think about it, they may be on to something. What should occurs at a trial is something Americans can relatively easily understand.

Its nay a bad strategy and she is deft enough to pull it off. Oh, to be a fly on the wall to observe the pinnacle of political power at its deadliest. Guess I'll have to settle on what the fake news says.

 

[Harshaw]

Are John Cleese? Because I could swear you're trying to recreate a Monty Python skit, where he just argues "no, itsn't!!"

Playing keep-away from the Senate with the impeachment articles puts pressure on absolutely no one in the Senate. The idea that it does is pure fantasy. It is suicide.

 

[Paradoxical]

I am completely baffled by this strategy. In 2019 alone, Pelosi has managed two overwhelming battles that would have reduced anybody else to tears. In the winter she successfully steered the country through a government shutdown, facing down and beating the President of the United States. And culminating with today's vote, she steered the House through impeachment hearings without allowing Republicans to turn the proceedings into a circus. Under anybody else's guidance, Democrats in both instances would have been reduced to chaos in under a week.

The point is Pelosi is super smart. But this? McConnell will be pleased as punch if the House doesn't burden him with an impeachment trial. He'll say, "Oh, you mean this stressful thing that has the potential to divide the Republican party is no longer on my plate? Thanks! Now watch as I confirm a hundred lifetime judicial appointments."

And don't tell me he's getting robbed of his acquittal narrative. Mitch McConnell wouldn't give two ****s about an acquittal narrative because he can just say that Democrats aren't sending him the articles, so WTF is he supposed to do?

So help me out here. What's Pelosi's actual leverage here?



Pelosi threatens to delay Senate impeachment trial - POLITICO

Senility? Just one guess
Wants to wait till he is re-elected?

 

[Harshaw]

I doubt Pelosi is just going to hang on to the articles. She knows she has to send them over. But, this makes the rules that the Senate agrees to a story for people to pay attention to. When voters ask what the hold up is, they'll know that it's all down to Republicans wanting to stack the deck, and so this way if and when Gardner and Collins fold to McConnell's whip, it won't be swept under a rug.

At this point, I wouldn't put it past McConnell to pull some stunt to dismiss the articles out of hand, and this keeps that from happening.

You cannot pressure anyone by refusing to send them something they don't want in the first place.

It continues to baffle me that something so simple eludes you.

 

[Cardinal]

I doubt Pelosi is just going to hang on to the articles. She knows she has to send them over. But, this makes the rules that the Senate agrees to a story for people to pay attention to. When voters ask what the hold up is, they'll know that it's all down to Republicans wanting to stack the deck, and so this way if and when Gardner and Collins fold to McConnell's whip, it won't be swept under a rug.

At this point, I wouldn't put it past McConnell to pull some stunt to dismiss the articles out of hand, and this keeps that from happening.

It's a fool's errand to rely on a public relations narrative to back Democrats up on anything. Fox News will blast "Democrats terrified of sending hyper-partisan impeachment witch hunt articles to Senate!!" 24 hours a day while the New York Times will feature the headline, "Parties disagree on timing for trial."

If Pelosi has leverage, it has to be something beyond a public relations campaign for the simple reason that Democrats don't have a Fox News of their own.

 

[Chomsky]

The fairer the trial, the better for the Democrats (and the truth). That's why Moscow Mitch is so committed to making it a farce. On the other hand, some House Dem's in swing states want this over as quickly as possible so they can talk about health care, etc.

I've come to have great respect for Pelosi's political acumen. She'll figure out which way is best. Taking a few days to think it over hurts no one.

While penning my last post above to Cardinal, I'm thinking your opening line above may carry some weight.

Most Americans don't understand how impeachment works, but they think they understand how trials work. I think the Dems may decide to keep hammering away publicly at the trial aspects, attempting to back McConnel into providing something akin to a fair "trial", or have him take political hits for making it look like a sham. I saw a congresswomen claim 71% of Americans want to hear from witnesses at the Senate "trial". If True, they may be on to something. I'd really like to see what Indies think? My gut feeling is if there's anyone that wants to see a fair "trial" to make a final determination, it might be a subset of them.