,
13 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
I've been writing a lot about the lawfulness of declaring a National Emergency to build the wall.
Now, let's talk about why it's the right political strategy - EVEN IF it would probably be held up by the courts and even if the GOP's Washington Generals disagree.
Now, let's talk about why it's the right political strategy - EVEN IF it would probably be held up by the courts and even if the GOP's Washington Generals disagree.
Here, @benshapiro attempts to lay out the problem in a simple, concise manner.
The problem? He's asking the wrong question(s).
The question for the GOP should be: are we more likely to get the wall if an NE is declared, or not?
The problem? He's asking the wrong question(s).
The question for the GOP should be: are we more likely to get the wall if an NE is declared, or not?
He argues that declaring a national emergency is *probably* not legal and that the NE move *probably* won't work because the courts will throttle it.
I've explained why I think both of these conclusions are wrong. But even if he were right - it still makes sense to go for it!
I've explained why I think both of these conclusions are wrong. But even if he were right - it still makes sense to go for it!
The status quo is trench warfare. Both sides are dug in, no one can budge.
And yet @benshapiro's plan is: go after Democrats in swing districts!!!
Yeah, right.
The moment @AOC and her minions hear about any waffling on the Dem side, they will swarm.
And yet @benshapiro's plan is: go after Democrats in swing districts!!!
Yeah, right.
The moment @AOC and her minions hear about any waffling on the Dem side, they will swarm.
I mean - really, if you were a Democratic strategist, would you tell ANY democrat that they should buck their party on Trump's wall?
You will INFURIATE your base.
Remember - only 1 Democratic senator defected on Kavanaugh - and did so only after it was clear the vote was there!
You will INFURIATE your base.
Remember - only 1 Democratic senator defected on Kavanaugh - and did so only after it was clear the vote was there!
The House Democrats are solid. They have a workable majority. Any member thinking about buckling would be defying BOTH Pelosi and the @AOC wing.
I don't think there are that many suicidal Dem Reps.
So - gridlock.
I don't think there are that many suicidal Dem Reps.
So - gridlock.
What could break the gridlock?
A risk that Trump could get the wall WITHOUT GIVING UP ANYTHING.
I.e., by declaring a NE and successfully defending it in the courts.
Honestly, if that chance is greater than 5%, Trump has to go for it.
A risk that Trump could get the wall WITHOUT GIVING UP ANYTHING.
I.e., by declaring a NE and successfully defending it in the courts.
Honestly, if that chance is greater than 5%, Trump has to go for it.
And this is GRANTING the asinine legal arguments of the Generals.
That declaring an NE is unlawful (it isn't).
That Trump wouldn't be able to move money around (he would).
That the courts would hold it up (doubtful, no one has standing).
That declaring an NE is unlawful (it isn't).
That Trump wouldn't be able to move money around (he would).
That the courts would hold it up (doubtful, no one has standing).
Oh, but you say - what about the PRECEDENT IT WOULD SET?
If we use emergency powers this way, well, then the Dems might use them on gun control?
This argument is incredibly dumb and it's distressing so many are taking it seriously.
If we use emergency powers this way, well, then the Dems might use them on gun control?
This argument is incredibly dumb and it's distressing so many are taking it seriously.
First - you're arguing the courts will probably stop this, yes?
Well, if the courts stop it, then no precedent has been set! Congratulations, disaster averted.
If the courts throw out the legal challenge, will that hurt us in future battles?
No.
Well, if the courts stop it, then no precedent has been set! Congratulations, disaster averted.
If the courts throw out the legal challenge, will that hurt us in future battles?
No.
Why not?
If the courts rule that no plaintiff has standing (because no one is injured by a funding move) - that doesn't apply to climate change/gun control like debates.
If the courts rule that we acted pursuant to statute - that doesn't mean the left's ideas are lawful!
If the courts rule that no plaintiff has standing (because no one is injured by a funding move) - that doesn't apply to climate change/gun control like debates.
If the courts rule that we acted pursuant to statute - that doesn't mean the left's ideas are lawful!
And what if it loses?
Well, we're right back where we started. With no wall and a Democratic House.
Face it, guys - a National Emergency declaration is our only realistic leverage.
Renouncing it is akin to giving up.
Well, we're right back where we started. With no wall and a Democratic House.
Face it, guys - a National Emergency declaration is our only realistic leverage.
Renouncing it is akin to giving up.
But keep promoting crowdfunding, I'm sure that will totally work
FIN
FIN
