Nobody elected them anything; their former President nearly wrecked the country; they don’t wish us well; and they likely won’t deliver — can we move on?
politico.com/news/2021/05/2…
Until now, it seemed pretty clear that the infrastructure negotiations were about what would be bipartisan, with no cap on what else we might do via reconciliation. This seems to change that and offer a cap on infrastructure investment. If so, that’s new.
It also seems to kick climate to the curb, with only specific climate-related investments mentioned, not the overall urgency to get on a 1.5 degrees trajectory. This suggests a separate climate bill must come later. If so, that’s new.
The undecided matters are so many that it seems challenging to get this done by August recess, and implausible that reconciliation would also get done by then. So it implies slippage of the August deadline. If so, that’s new.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Sheldon Whitehouse

Sheldon Whitehouse 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 @SenWhitehouse

14 May
Leonard Leo operated the dark-money court capture operation from his @FedSoc perch. It was a $250 million dark-money operation.
Down the hall (literally) was the Judicial Crisis Network, which took anonymous $15-17 million donations to fund campaign ads for the Supreme Court nominees the FedSoc-hosted operation selected.
When the @washingtonpost outed Leo and Trump polling tanked, Leo jumped ship to “Honest Elections Project” to move from court capture (which needs a Republican president) to voter suppression (to make good use of those judges).
Read 8 tweets
13 Feb
More on untruthful Senate trial statements by Trump lawyers here.
cnn.com/2021/02/12/pol…
Yet more on the claims by Trump’s lawyers.
washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/…
And still more on Trump lawyers: “they misstated legal precedents. They invented facts. They rewrote history.”
washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
Read 4 tweets
13 Feb
Looks like Trump’s BS-artist attorneys may have crossed the line from BS to something much more serious.
cnn.com/2021/02/12/pol…
A review of Trump’s abominable lawyers in which the authors did not yet know about evident lies. Pretty damning stuff, even without that.
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
Trump’s lawyers are likely under ethics obligation to clean this up: duty of candor to a tribunal. You don’t get as counsel to make misrepresentations; if you do, you have an affirmative duty to clean it up. Tomorrow just got a lot more interesting.
Read 4 tweets
9 Feb
Excellent job, House Managers — lawyer to lawyer, well done.
.@RepRaskin on Founders’ fear of demagogues seeking to become tyrants: “Trump may not know a lot about the Founders; but they knew a lot about him.”
.@RepJoeNeguse on creating impeachment exception for former officials: “it would put wrongdoers in charge of whether the Senate can try them.”
Read 5 tweets
3 Feb
Just reading the Trump pleading on impeachment,& it’s a headspinner. Calling the impeachment a Bill of Attainder is weird because that’s guilt of crime without trial & impeachment is (a) not criminal & (b) has a trial (coming right up).
Saying that the removal penalty is a “condition precedent” to the disqualification penalty is weird because (a) it’s a contract law term, (b) that “condition” isn’t in the Constitution & (c) it ignores Senate precedent on point (Belknap), usually something lawyers try to address.
Misstating the act in question (that Trump said “the election results were suspect”) so as to call it “unpopular” “protected” speech is weird because it ignores (a) everything we know Trump actually said, & (b) that criminal/fraudulent speech (like incitement) isn’t protected.
Read 4 tweets
11 Jan
The Senate needs to oversee federal investigation of the attack and ransacking of our national Capitol, through Judiciary and perhaps Homeland Security. We may also be the client in federal civil suits for damages and for restraining orders, likely also under Judiciary purview.
The Senate will need to conduct security review of what happened and what went wrong, likely through Rules, Homeland and Judiciary. The Senate Ethics Committee also must consider the expulsion, or censure and punishment, of Sens. Cruz, Hawley, and perhaps others.
Because Congress has protections from DOJ under separation of powers, specifically Speech and Debate Clause, significant investigation will need to be done in Senate.
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!

:(