Thread by @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.

3/ The reality: the passing of articles of impeachment initiated a *negotiation process* in which Schumer and McConnell *would* have been the only players had McConnell not (a) admitted he's just a proxy for Trump (the defendant), and (b) wrongly presumed he had all the leverage.

4/ Once McConnell overplayed his hand by not being willing to give an inch to Schumer and being slave to the president's desires, he *opened up the negotiation* to a third party:

Pelosi. From that moment on, this was a joint, House-Senate negotiations process with 3 key players.

5/ The *only* legitimate analysis regarding "where the articles are at now" is to say that they're sitting in the center of a table at which four people are sitting: Pelosi, Schumer, McConnell, and Trump. And if you understand that, you understand who is winning the negotiations.

6/ Here's the situation of each party at the table:

PELOSI: She's already won—inasmuch as she passed the articles. There's nothing more for her to gain except a) more time for investigation, b) more time for litigation, c) potentially a "real" Senate trial of the articles.

7/

PELOSI (cont.): Pelosi is running the table because she's the one with nothing to lose and the one who therefore wins in almost any scenario. The trial doesn't take place until 2021? She wins. A *real* trial in 2020? She wins. A long delay so more articles can come? She wins.

8/

PELOSI (cont.): A delay that pushes the issue closer to the election? She wins. A delay allowing for more investigation? She wins. A delay allowing for more litigation? She wins. America gets bored and temporarily forgets the articles? They'll eventually remember—so she wins.

9/

MCCONNELL: McConnell wants this over—which means he's losing, because that's out of his control and likely won't happen soon. He also needs to please the president—which he's not, so he's losing there too. He thinks he has a rhetorical advantage, but he doesn't: another loss.

10/

MCCONNELL: The Senate Majority Leader doesn't have a rhetorical advantage because America has already spoken via polling *and it wants a real trial*—which he doesn't (and which his master, Trump, actually doesn't either, unless he's forced into it to get *any* trial at all).

11/

SCHUMER: Schumer wants a real trial—and to a lesser extent, doesn't want to look diminished relative to the House generally and Speaker Pelosi specifically. But he more than anyone at the table is a bit player who's central and a bystander at once, and may want it that way.

12/

TRUMP: Trump knows he'll win *either* a real trial *or* a fake one—though the former could be a much closer vote, as witnesses could *really* hurt him—but has been laboring for so long under the delusion he and McConnell are in control he's now flummoxed to find it's untrue.

13/ So with the four chief negotiators situated in this way, Pelosi is winning because Trump is volatile and a child and compulsive and brash and over-confident and most importantly controls McConnell. So in time, McConnell will have to bend to the weakest "player" at the table.

14/ Only one thing can change the dynamic, and right now it's the biggest threat to this playing out in a way that's consistent with how a negotiator would assess the situation: the media. The media could interfere in the process—while saying it's not—to save Trump and McConnell.

15/ So, the fifth player:

MEDIA: Media wants a trial for ratings. If it can't get it when it wants it, it'll throw a tantrum and identify a villain so it can run a process story with bite. The clearest villain to identify here—because she's making things unpredictable—is Pelosi.

16/

MEDIA: Media gets its way by misreporting stories and bringing in analysts who'll give an assist to misreporting. It doesn't necessarily do so maliciously; it does it because it has an institutional bias—at all levels—for moving a story toward where the media needs it to be.

17/ So what you'll see in media are erroneous statements about how this is "supposed" to play out, erroneous statements about who has the power here, erroneous statements about what Trump "wants" (which he consistently lies about) and conservative judgments about who's "winning."

18/ Sans media pressure, Pelosi *will* win this. Trump will force McConnell to give a little to Pelosi and Schumer on witnesses, and there'll be a trial with one or two live witnesses that Pelosi and Schumer will rightly deem a "win" and that will make the conviction vote closer.

19/ *Or* Pelosi will win because Trump/McConnell give up on a trial for now—which leads to four scenarios that all benefit Pelosi: a real *or* fake trial closer to the election; a delay that permits more investigation and litigation; more articles from new evidence; a 2021 trial.

20/ The *worst* that happens for Pelosi is that America forgets all about the trial and the media moves on, but that's actually fine—because *if* new damaging evidence emerges, Pelosi can always jump-start this issue in a thousand ways because the ball will still be in her court.

21/ The only way Pelosi loses is if media intercedes to make her to deal away her power before Trump blows a gasket and forces McConnell to cut a deal (to get him his fake exoneration). Trump won't last long, so you'd think Pelosi's in good shape—but media won't last long either.

22/ Media is so accustomed to getting its way *and* not recognizing how *it shaped the situation* to get its way—it always *feels* noble and aloof and objective even when its institutional biases shifted a story one way or another—that it doesn't appreciate what a behemoth it is.

23/ Already a narrative is forming: "liberal lawyers pushed Pelosi to this"; "the focus has now shifted to the Senate"; "there will, of course, eventually be a trial and Trump will be acquitted"; "McConnell is very happy with what's happening"—all false narratives that aid Trump.

24/ So my assessment as someone who negotiated cases daily for years and years is that with four players at the table, Pelosi would definitely have won and her strategy would have been airtight. With five players—media included—at the table, it's a contest of wills and who knows.

25/ I think that one day a much, much larger percentage of Americans will see how media interjects itself into stories in ways that shift the news rather than report it—but for now the media will put its fingerprints all over this while (per usual) saying that it has not done so.

CONCLUSION/ With things as they are now—i.e. 5 players—Pelosi's odds of winning go down from 90% to 50%, meaning that there's a 50% chance Trump and McConnell get the articles in the Senate in (a) a timely fashion, and (b) with no concessions. And there's a 50% chance they don't.

PS/ A simple trick in handicapping negotiations: the first party to resort to a statement of their emotional state is often the party that's losing.

PELOSI: I'm waiting on McConnell.
SCHUMER: We're waiting on McConnell.
MCCONNELL: "I'm happy to not have a trial."
TRUMP: Unhappy.

PS2/ The reason that even an expression of being "happy" can be telling is that the happiest person in a negotiation is the person who doesn't need to be there—who doesn't need to negotiate at all. Usually, such folks actually *don't* feel it necessary to declare their happiness.