Profile picture
, 5 tweets, 2 min read
My Authors
Read all threads
I spent years negotiating cases daily and I really can't figure out yet what the House is getting from the Senate in exchange for handing over the articles of impeachment, assigning managers, and participating in a sham trial without witnesses, nor what they lose by not doing so
And honestly, based on what Mitch McConnell said tonight about being in "no rush," maybe this is a nice win-win situation in which the Democrats keep investigating and accruing evidence, Mitch sits on his thumbs, Trump rages, and everyone is happy and gets something besides Trump
I mean does anyone really think that America cares about having a sham trial without witnesses in the Senate that's totally uninteresting to watch, when we already have polling saying that even 64% of Republicans want a real trial? I'm not seeing *any* leverage McConnell has here
I respect @PreetBharara, but on some level he really does look at negotiations like a federal prosecutor who has a handful of cases a year, not a state-level public defender with 15+ daily, because I'll tell you kids those are two different things and the latter is a street fight
@PreetBharara The general rule in negotiations is offer nothing get nothing and McConnell is offering the House *less* than nothing
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with Seth Abramson

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @SethAbramson see all

Profile picture
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
When *any* Democrat suggests doing what this article is discussing, i.e. the House "indefinitely refusing" to hand over the articles, this may be a useful article. But all that's happening is a negotiation of the Senate trial rules at a time the articles are still with the House.
(Because we come at the law from different experiences and values, Renato and I have basically never agreed on any legal, ethical, or strategic question. Sometimes I think that @POLITICOMag should have us do a point-counterpoint column in which Renato always loses, but narrowly.)
@POLITICOMag (What we see, in Renato's piece/elsewhere, is an expectation McConnell will act in bad faith in negotiations over the Senate trial rules by refusing to negotiate and secretly coordinating with the defendant. Renato's view is if that happens Dems should unconditionally surrender.)
Read 4 tweets
Profile picture
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
Something media MUST make clearer: if, as major media reports, Putin set Trump on the path of hunting down imaginary Ukrainian "election interference," it means (a) Putin engineered Trump getting himself impeached, (b) Trump believed Putin was secretly helping him get re-elected.
1/ What this means is that the President of the United States had secret conversations with the President of Russia in which the President of Russia gave the President of the United States information that the President of the United States believed would help him get re-elected.
2/ Boiling down that complicated sentence from my last tweet to its essentials: TRUMP *directly* and *secretly* colluded with PUTIN during his presidency to *secure his re-election*, and then he *lied* to us about that collusion.

America really needs that information to sink in.
Read 3 tweets
Profile picture
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
(SUMMARY) The status of the articles of impeachment is this: Pelsoi and McConnell are fine with the status quo, and Trump is livid. If you understand negotiations, you understand this means Pelosi is winning. In the next tweet I'll tell you the one thing that could defeat Pelosi.
1/ The fact that media has waded into the negotiations because a) they want a Senate trial for ratings and b) the sort of analysts they favor are those whose inherent conservatism of logic favors tradition means that media *is one of the negotiators*.

And they're hurting Pelosi.
2/ It is hard to watch media play a role in history they won't acknowledge. But every cable news segment I've seen has either featured an analyst who wrongly implies the focus has "already moved to the Senate" (hurting Pelosi) or an anchor who assumes McConnell will get his way.
Read 27 tweets

Related threads

Profile picture
JD
@JDiviv
Read 45 tweets
Profile picture
Ben Riley-Smith
@benrileysmith
Clear blue sky in Washington today for the impeachment vote. Moon still just about visible.
Shots from inside Congress. House begins to debate the two articles of impeachment in 30 mins. Vote expected at 3pm at the earliest (8pm UK)
It’s one day short of exactly 21 years since this happened - Bill Clinton’s impeachment. A strange echo with the man whose wife Trump beat to win power in the first place.

(That too occurred when the president’s political opponents held the House)

📷AP Photo/APTN
Read 12 tweets
Profile picture
Chris Winters
@TheChrisWinters
(Thread 1/15) Some thoughts on today’s #impeachment news, which I wrote about @yesmagazine here: yesmagazine.org/opinion/2019/1…
Start with the basics: the House will likely vote to impeach Trump and the Senate will vote to acquit. Is there a point to this process? I argue yes, for two reasons. (2/15)
One: moral. The impeachment clause in the Constitution was created by the framers to avoid an entirely foreseeable consequence: a ruler who is corrupt, criminal, and/or subject to foreign influence. (3/15)
Read 15 tweets
Profile picture
JMHendersonSr❌
@JMHendersonSr
@SenateRules: Anticipating the House adopting Articles of Impeachment, why shouldn't the Senate, by amendment of its Rules if necessary, entertain a motion to dismiss the Articles?

After all, Rule 12 of the Fed.R.Crim.P. permits a motion to dismiss an indictment.
Much ballyhooing has been made of the unseemly nature of the conduct of the House's proceedings: the bias of the Intel Cmte Chair, his obvious need to testify as to material facts, abandonment of established practices, etc.
Why should the time of the Senate be occupied in the conduct of the trial of so suspect origins and purposes?

True enough, grand jury proceedings are secret. That character of them, of course, is why @DNC apologists are analogizing the present proceedings to such.
Read 15 tweets
Profile picture
Adam A. Fernandez
@AdamaEsq
A short thread on #impeachment.

I have pre-existing conditions—I fear my life & that of my friends being taken away.
I have close friends with DACA—I fear their right to be here being taken away.
I'm a Latino parent—I fear my child will be discriminated against worse than I was
I'm the survivor of an in-person death threat against me & my family, from a MAGA extremist who hated me just for who I am—I fear him or another carrying out those threats.

I'm an attorney—I fear the erosion of the rule of law.
I'm a patriot—I fear Russian interference in the 2020 election.

I'm a voting rights advocate—I fear a system is currently being created that will lead to permanent minority rule, & that that minority will use political power to permanently restricts the rights of the majority.
Read 20 tweets
Profile picture
Oeishik M.G. C. JD
@TributeProjects
A note on #impeachment -

In a court of law, under non-presidential circumstances, impeachment is a tool litigation attorneys use to discredit the opposing side's witnesses at trial. When said witness takes the stand under oath attys. present evidence contrary to what the witness
claims. This weakens the other side's case by discrediting impeached witnesses's testimony. Once a witness has been impeached - by presentment of inconsistent testimony - the judge/jury can no longer use the impeached witnesses's testimony in reaching a verdict.
Simply put, they aren't trustworthy. In the case of Presidential impeachment that broad definition of impeachment applies, but the impeachment tool is used for a very different purpose. Under the Constitution, a sitting President cannot be tried in a court of law for anything.
Read 25 tweets

Trending hashtags

#DonTheCon #MuellerHearing #Impeachment #Whistleblower #ImpeachAndRemove #UkraineScandal #impeachment #ImpeachmentSham #TeamPatriot #FireThePresident #LWCF #PAMFAM #France #ImpeachmentInquiry #AbuseOfPower #Republicans #FoxNews #GOPTaxScam #GOPTraitors #MAGA #FionaHill #ImpeachmentInquiryNow #FundLWCF #MuellerReport #Mueller
Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!