I am still of the mind that the Dems/Congress made a series of strategic errors on 1/6 regarding impeachment. I'm not really blaming them---these were very weighty decisions that would have had to have been made on short notice---but they seem wrong in retrospect.
Schumer should not have agreed to the UC that setup the pro forma sessions running through 1/19. While it's true the Senate leaders (probably) now have the authority to break into adjournments, they lost the opportunity to press the importance of immediacy.
More importantly, Pelosi should not have adjourned the House on 1/7 until 1/10. I would have preferred an immediate impeachment vote, but at the very least she should have only adjourned until 1/8, and kept everyone in town.
Short of that, she should have broken the adjournment (yes, she had the authority) and brought everyone back over the weekend when it became even more clear that Trump's actions were obviously impeachable offenses.

The consequence of all this is that the partisan focus of the impeachment trial is a procedural fight over whether this is even constitutional (IMO it is, but YMMV), backed by a (somewhat bipartisan) sense it no longer matters and/or we should all just move on and look forward.
Now, maybe all that's true anyway if the House votes on impeachment on 1/7 and immediately delivers the articles to an in-session Senate. But maybe it's not. And regardless of ultimate vote, Congress would have been better of as an institution putting its foot down immediately.
Also agree with this. Trump's behavior before, during, and after the insurrection included lots of impeachable behavior.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Matt Glassman

Matt Glassman 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!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MattGlassman312

11 Feb
One congressional truism is this: if you ran the Senate on the House procedures, you would lose some things but it would ultimately work fine. But if you ran the House on the Senate procedures, it would turn into some combo of Lord of the Flies and Mad Max within hours.
Just imagine Gohmert Hour, except you can’t stop it, and it’s happening in the middle of trying to conduct business.

That’s problem one of about six dozen.
Meanwhile, Matt Gaetz is moving to table the motion to proceed. Not a specific motion to proceed. Every one of them.

Unfortunately, Andy Biggs won’t give unanimous consent to *anything,* so there’s nothing to do but try to move motions to proceed.
Read 15 tweets
11 Feb
I've watched the procedural clusterfuck 3 times now, and my favorite part, I think, is Schumer trying to break into a roll call vote (!) to get a quorum call started, and then it not being clear if the next name call by the clerk is the roll call or quorum call? @mollyereynolds
For the record, it appear to me to be plainly out of order to suggest the absence of a quorum after the roll call has commenced and someone has responded to the call. (But I can't tell if anyone actually responds to the call).

Senate, I love you and hate you so much.
I *think* if no one has responded to the roll call, then it's possible the quorum call was in order, and thus when the clerk says "Baldwin" we're actually in a quorum call, not the roll call (i.e. the roll call that we don't know what we are voting on).

Senate, you are the best.
Read 5 tweets
2 Feb
Note that this does not lock Manchin in to supporting the final reconciliation bill that is brought to the Senate floor under the budget resolution, just that he's supporting the resolution itself that contains the reconciliation instructions to the various committees.
The budget res only instructs to committees to return legislation within (wide) parameters (example in screenshot). The actual size of the package and its details are TBD, and can/will include negotiations and, of course, require a maj vote in Senate.

budget.house.gov/sites/democrat…
Every indication is that Manchin wants to get to yes, which means (1) he'll almost certainly vote for the final package; (2) he'll have a lot of negotiating leverage over its size and components. All still TBD.
Read 5 tweets
1 Feb
I was at the game when Clemens hit Piazza in the head.
It was wild. Maybe 3/4 Yankees fans there and 1/4 Mets fans. Huge collective gasp, then about a 2 second pause, and then dozens of screaming matches started all around me. At one point, some guy gave me the move where you put your hand under your chin and flick it at someone.
I remember driving back home to Upstate, me and a buddy, listening to WFAN, Tony on the overnight, and he opened the show with I DON’T WANT ANY CALLS ABOUT ANYTHING BUT THIS CLEMENS PIZZA DEAL SO DON’T EVEN BOTHER WE’RE GOING STRAIGHT THROUGH ON THIS ALL NIGHT.
Read 4 tweets
27 Jan
With many norms crumbling in the face of ever-increasing partisanship on Capitol Hill, it's worth pointing out ones that are not: POTUS cabinet nominees aren't barely skating by on party-line votes, they're sailing through with massive supermajorities.
That's not particularly surprising (at least it isn't to me); a sense that POTUS should have the ideological team he wants, so long as they are neutrally competent, still pervades executive nomination politics. A massive number or executive noms go by voice, or with 80+ votes.
But I think it probably surprises a lot of people, who have (not unreasonably) taken to thinking that partisanship is an overwhelming driver of vote position in Congress across all areas of legislative life.

That's not quite yet true on the executive nominations front.
Read 5 tweets
20 Jan
A bunch of different people have brought up family Bibles today, so here are some pics I just had my mom take of ours, including birth records back to the 1860s, and a temperance pledge page!

CC:@jonmladd @FatherTim
These pics don’t really capture the heft of that beast. It’s probably 9x12 inches, and it easily weighs 10 pounds.
Not sure what year it was produced, it’s clearly from my mom’s maternal grandmother’s family (Dum), my great-grandmother is Mary Elizabeth Dum, born 1883 as listed on the births page.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


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

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/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!

Follow Us on Twitter!