People are asking me if Pelosi is playing Constitutional Hardball.
I don't think so.
How about this: I'll post an update on my thread on how to Save Democracy through Anti-Hardball methods, and you decide.
(Think of it as a practice essay question for the Twitter Bar Exam)
1/
I don't think so.
How about this: I'll post an update on my thread on how to Save Democracy through Anti-Hardball methods, and you decide.
(Think of it as a practice essay question for the Twitter Bar Exam)
1/
Here is what Pelosi actually said: pelosi.house.gov/news/press-rel…
When we’re talking about Pelosi, it’s important to listen to her exact words.
What she actually says is so often twisted and changed.
When we’re talking about Pelosi, it’s important to listen to her exact words.
What she actually says is so often twisted and changed.
Yes! I will put the link in the next tweet.
The thread starts here:
My observation is that people often read into her words things that are not there.
If you take her literally, she's saying this: She doesn't want the impeachment instantly behind people . . .
My observation is that people often read into her words things that are not there.
If you take her literally, she's saying this: She doesn't want the impeachment instantly behind people . . .
. . . and before selecting the manager (and number of managers) she wants a sense of what the trial will look like.
She "hopes" that the Senate will come to a bi-partisan plan of how to move forward, but, either way, "we're ready. When we see what they have . . ."
She "hopes" that the Senate will come to a bi-partisan plan of how to move forward, but, either way, "we're ready. When we see what they have . . ."
As far as Hardball, the House voted on Wednesday. Friday was the last day before a 2 week recess.
To me it's ridiculous to suggest that not completing the next task in a mere two days is Constitutional Hardball.
2 weeks gives time for people to mull it over . . .
To me it's ridiculous to suggest that not completing the next task in a mere two days is Constitutional Hardball.
2 weeks gives time for people to mull it over . . .
. . . contact their senators.
Senators will be at home, answering difficult questions from family, friends, neighbors, and constituents.
There is time for public opinion to adjust. There's time for people to read and write Op Eds.
Not sending the articles immediately. . .
Senators will be at home, answering difficult questions from family, friends, neighbors, and constituents.
There is time for public opinion to adjust. There's time for people to read and write Op Eds.
Not sending the articles immediately. . .
. . . gives her some negotiating muscle.
It forces McConnell to sit on a hot seat a little longer.
I just don't see forcing everyone to chill for a few weeks as Constitutional Hardball.
(I used "hot" and "chill" as metaphors in the same tweet!)
It forces McConnell to sit on a hot seat a little longer.
I just don't see forcing everyone to chill for a few weeks as Constitutional Hardball.
(I used "hot" and "chill" as metaphors in the same tweet!)
When I read her exact words, I don't see her saying any of that.
People are reading into her words that she's forcing McConnell to do something on threat of not getting the articles, but she's not actually saying that.
I've learned to take her literally.
People are reading into her words that she's forcing McConnell to do something on threat of not getting the articles, but she's not actually saying that.
I've learned to take her literally.
Yup. I was on an impeachment panel in Sept.
A co-panelist (a prosecutor and fan of Barr) said, "Pelosi won't impeach Trump."
I said, "Yes, she will."
Now he thinks I had a crystal ball.
Nope. I listened closely to her words and took her literally.
A co-panelist (a prosecutor and fan of Barr) said, "Pelosi won't impeach Trump."
I said, "Yes, she will."
Now he thinks I had a crystal ball.
Nope. I listened closely to her words and took her literally.
It depends.
My guess is that if it goes beyond mid-January, it crosses the line.
But it depends on what else is happening.
(In law and politics, "it depends" is always a correct answer😉)
If you start with the assumption that Trump will not be removed (expecting 17 Republican Senators to remove when Trump remains popular in many areas isn't realistic) you can see that McConnell is nonetheless in a lose-lose situation.
If he refuses to call witnesses . . .
If he refuses to call witnesses . . .
. . . and if it's obvious that the trial is a sham, only Trump's hardcore supporters will think he was exonerated.
Remember, Trump is underwater right now with approval. The GOP lost big time in 2018.
If the trial is an obvious sham, and then, when the House gets. . .
Remember, Trump is underwater right now with approval. The GOP lost big time in 2018.
If the trial is an obvious sham, and then, when the House gets. . .
. . . the taxes, they vote to censure him, it will become clear to even more people that McConnell and the GOP shielded a law-breaking president.
2020 turns into a bloodbath for the GOP. (See the numbers in my "Charting the Way Out" thread.
McConnell can't win this . . .
2020 turns into a bloodbath for the GOP. (See the numbers in my "Charting the Way Out" thread.
McConnell can't win this . . .
A sham trial will cause the GOP to lose support and credibility, thereby damaging them in 2020.
A fair trial will decimate the GOP by showcasing Trump's crimes.
He can pick between two bad choices.
A fair trial will decimate the GOP by showcasing Trump's crimes.
He can pick between two bad choices.
As House Speaker, Pelosi doesn't control the Senate trial.
She wins if she makes it clear to the nation that McConnell is shielding a lawbreaking president.
It's annoying because people want him out now.
Removing Trump won't save democracy.
A 2020 GOP landslide loss will.
She wins if she makes it clear to the nation that McConnell is shielding a lawbreaking president.
It's annoying because people want him out now.
Removing Trump won't save democracy.
A 2020 GOP landslide loss will.
Pelosi is not the only Democrat being misquoted on this issue. The problem with misquotes is they sets false expectations. When false expectations are not met, Democrats think they're losing.
Read the headline:
newsweek.com/democratic-sen…
Now read what Jones said:
Read the headline:
newsweek.com/democratic-sen…
Now read what Jones said:
The headline says this
and the article summarizes Jones' position this way: Jones argued in favor of Pelosi holding on to the articles of impeachment in exchange for promises from the Senate that the case will be heard in a fair fashion.
But Jones didn't actually say that . . .
and the article summarizes Jones' position this way: Jones argued in favor of Pelosi holding on to the articles of impeachment in exchange for promises from the Senate that the case will be heard in a fair fashion.
But Jones didn't actually say that . . .
Jones mentioned that it took 3 weeks for the House in Clinton's trial to send over the articles, and used the word "soon" to describe when Pelosi would send the articles.
I don't expect perfect precision from anyone writing under deadlines, so I don't fault publication. . .
I don't expect perfect precision from anyone writing under deadlines, so I don't fault publication. . .
People simply reading headlines will think Pelosi announced that she'll hold the articles until the Senate agrees to a fair trial. What she said is that she wants to know what kind of trial it will be.
She's not trying to dictate terms.
She's trying to shine light on the truth.
She's not trying to dictate terms.
She's trying to shine light on the truth.
It's possible I'm reading all of this wrong.
I don't have a crystal ball, and I have no inside information on what Pelosi is planning.
It seems to me though, that she'll probably do what she says.
And that this is enough to sink the GOP.
I don't have a crystal ball, and I have no inside information on what Pelosi is planning.
It seems to me though, that she'll probably do what she says.
And that this is enough to sink the GOP.
I'm with you.
Demanding a "fair" trial sounds great, bit who decides what is fair?
As an appellate lawyer I have spent much time arguing that a particular trial wasn't fair, while others argued that it was.
"Fair" is a bit imprecise.
Demanding a "fair" trial sounds great, bit who decides what is fair?
As an appellate lawyer I have spent much time arguing that a particular trial wasn't fair, while others argued that it was.
"Fair" is a bit imprecise.
I turned this thread (and some of the questions) into a blog post, here: terikanefield-blog.com/is-nancy-pelos…
