2020 Presidential Election

[CameronBornAndBred]

With Biden now behind in polling (according to aggregate by RCP), it will be fun to see how he comes out next week in the debate.
How does he publicly respond to the impeachment inquiry which is all about him? How does he he respond to Warren who is not only gaining ground but now leading him?

Good stuff coming up.

[cato]

With Biden now behind in polling (according to aggregate by RCP), it will be fun to see how he comes out next week in the debate.
How does he publicly respond to the impeachment inquiry which is all about him? How does he he respond to Warren who is not only gaining ground but now leading him?

Good stuff coming up.

Indeed. And to think that we are still months away from actual voting/caucusing.

Will more people pay attention to this debate with impeachment getting so much attention?

[bedeviled]

I wonder how long it will be until Pelosi feels that she needs to bring that vote to the floor. I get why they haven't; they want dissenting members protected from stamping an opinion on this for as long as they can. However, that seems goofy to me, since those same members are going to be needed to vote for or against actual impeachment

the longer she waits the more chance that the tide will drag in more folks and give more cover to swing district Dems

Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but I think y'all greatly underestimate the amount of cover that Pelosi's tactics offer. The swing members will be well covered even during the actual House vote.

As I understand it,
1. Refraining from calling for an official inquiry bypasses the rights of the minority party to call witnesses or issue subpoenas, which they would have in a formal inquiry. Consequently, all witnesses and documents are determined by the majority party.

2. The White House is arguing that the "subpoenas" issued in the inquiry do not qualify as subpoenas as the letters lack power to compel testimony (Personally, I haven't looked into this enough to offer any evidence for or against either position). The 'subpoenas vs demand letters' intimate that the penalty for not abiding by the request is that it will be seen as obstruction and suggestive of wrongdoing for the purposes of the inquiry. To be more explicit, not abiding by the inquiry requests will be grounds for impeachment in and of itself (As Vox posits it: The Dems either get evidence for impeachment or evidence for impeachment...that was not a typing error, lol). By building their case using "adverse inference," the Dems accomplish their goal without needing the Dept of Justice to rule on the subpoena objection.

3. Under the rules for the present Congress, the committees can choose to have depositions performed by appointed counsel rather than committee members. This can even happen in private without needing committee members present. Consequently, testimony is garnered through majority-appointed counsel without the ability of the minority to examine witnesses.

4. The Dems are likely to compose and pass Articles of Impeachment in committee, to then be presented to the full House for a vote. Essentially, these will be based solely on the case of the "prosecution" as the "defendant" is unable to call witnesses/evidence or question witnesses/evidence. This should make for an extremely compelling case, and the swing members, consequently, will be at little risk for voting in favor of impeachment. Impeachment/indictment will occur before judicial challenge is possible.

As I said, please correct me if any of this is wrong or askew. These thoughts do seem supported by the White House letter to Pelosi and Schiff today (It's an interesting letter, of which I offer but a snippet):

To comply with the Constitution's demands, appropriate procedures would include-at a minimum-the right to see all evidence, to present evidence, to call witnesses, to have counsel present at all hearings, to cross-examine all witnesses, to make objections relating to the examination of witnesses or the admissibility of testimony and evidence, and to respond to evidence and testimony. Likewise, the Committees must provide for the disclosure of all evidence favorable to the President and all evidence bearing on the credibility of witnesses called to testify in the inquiry. The Committees' current procedures provide none of these basic constitutional rights.

To sum up,
**if events stand as they are now, as the WH will surely come up with tricks of their own to continue the gamesmanship,**
Pelosi's tactics ensure that the Articles of Impeachment will be entirely damning without rebuttal. On the face of the evidence, the swing members of the House should suffer little harm in voting in favor of impeachment. Whether or not impeachment would be logical in a due process scenario, that evidence from this scenario should be compelling enough to justify the 'aye' vote even in the face of constituent dissatisfaction.

[bedeviled]

Obvious election development of the week: Republicans and Democrats have mutually decided to spar over Syria in an effort to get Aleppo back on the table, thus ensuring the US is trapped in a 2-party system.

[cspan37421]

#4063 is an interesting post and I'd like to learn more about the issues raised.

As a layperson with no expertise in constitutional law, some of the concerns brought up appear to reflect some of the differences we see in grand jury indictments vs. criminal trials. As I understand it, the Senate, not the House, conducts the trial. By analogy, a defendant doesn't get to cross examine or call witnesses when evidence is put before a grand jury, only during a trial. So IF the analogy holds (and again, I really don't know if it does), I would not expect those things to occur while the ball is in the House's court.

[OldPhiKap]

Obvious election development of the week: Republicans and Democrats have mutually decided to spar over Syria in an effort to get Aleppo back on the table, thus ensuring the US is trapped in a 2-party system.

Gary Johnson still isn’t sure where (or what) Aleppo is. Bless his heart.

[dudog84]

Please do...

Whether you like her or not, underestimate Pelosi at your own peril. She's a sharp and seasoned pol.

So basically, the House is the prosecutor, the Senate is the court, and the Executive is the defendant. Good luck to the defendant telling the prosecutor how to run her case.

I read where some of these rules were put into place under a R House. Just like some of the judicial confirmation rules the Ds are complaining about were put into place under a D Senate. Both sides are short-sighted. Similarly, the White House will one day be back in D hands and the Rs won't like some of the precedents that have been established.

[OldPhiKap]

New NBC/WSJ poll:

Should Congress let Trump complete his term without an inquiry? 39% say yes, down from 50% in July.

Back impeachment inquiry: 55%.

52% of suburbanites favor impeachment; 52% of rural residents oppose.

73% of African Americans favor impeachment and removal. 58% of Hispanics support impeachment and removal. 55% of white women with college degrees favor removal.

White men without college degrees oppose it 28%-68%.

Lots of stuff here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/majorit...ds-11570568421 . And I can't see how the President's rage tweeting* and stonewalling* is gonna help his numbers.


* These seem like objectively true descriptors for me, but sorry if there is a better way to say these things that eludes me.

[PackMan97]

Gary Johnson still isn’t sure where (or what) Aleppo is. Bless his heart.

I can't tell you how disappointed I was at Gov. Johnson that he spent the four years between 2012 and 2016 smoking weed instead of making a serious attempt to be prepared and ready for the 2016 race.

Just thinking out loud...if a Ross Perot like character were to run today as an Independent would they be able to have success? Are we too divided and locked in with the R vs D to consider an independent? Or is the fact things are so dysfunctional something that might allow a well known, well funded independent to see success?

[dudog84]

I can't tell you how disappointed I was at Gov. Johnson that he spent the four years between 2012 and 2016 smoking weed instead of making a serious attempt to be prepared and ready for the 2016 race.

Just thinking out loud...if a Ross Perot like character were to run today as an Independent would they be able to have success? Are we too divided and locked in with the R vs D to consider an independent? Or is the fact things are so dysfunctional something that might allow a well known, well self-funded independent to see success?

FIFY. At least, that's the only way I see someone doing it. But no, even then, I think we're stuck here. That person would only be a spoiler (e.g. both Perot and Nader, but interestingly the score is D 1, R 1).

[Acymetric]

I can't tell you how disappointed I was at Gov. Johnson that he spent the four years between 2012 and 2016 smoking weed instead of making a serious attempt to be prepared and ready for the 2016 race.

Just thinking out loud...if a Ross Perot like character were to run today as an Independent would they be able to have success? Are we too divided and locked in with the R vs D to consider an independent? Or is the fact things are so dysfunctional something that might allow a well known, well funded independent to see success?

It depends on what you would count as success, but if you mean "legitimate chance to win" then probably not.

[PackMan97]

It depends on what you would count as success, but if you mean "legitimate chance to win" then probably not.

Yes, that's a good definition of success. I recall at one point in 1992 that Perot was actually leading the polls with 39%. His in/out/in/out madness lost him a lot of support and Stockdale didn't do him any favors as a VP pick. I would say Perot had a good shot to win (he just blew it).

[dudog84]

Oddly, unfortunately, (can't find the right word) if this turns into a bloodbath, especially of civilians, it will damage Trump's support more than anything happening domestically on the impeachment front.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...VqO?li=BBnb7Kz

I can't imagine what it is like to live in these regions of the world. I am a grateful winner of the birth lottery.

[sagegrouse]

Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but I think y'all greatly underestimate the amount of cover that Pelosi's tactics offer. The swing members will be well covered even during the actual House vote.

As I understand it,
1. Refraining from calling for an official inquiry bypasses the rights of the minority party to call witnesses or issue subpoenas, which they would have in a formal inquiry. Consequently, all witnesses and documents are determined by the majority party.

2. The White House is arguing that the "subpoenas" issued in the inquiry do not qualify as subpoenas as the letters lack power to compel testimony (Personally, I haven't looked into this enough to offer any evidence for or against either position). The 'subpoenas vs demand letters' intimate that the penalty for not abiding by the request is that it will be seen as obstruction and suggestive of wrongdoing for the purposes of the inquiry. To be more explicit, not abiding by the inquiry requests will be grounds for impeachment in and of itself (As Vox posits it: The Dems either get evidence for impeachment or evidence for impeachment...that was not a typing error, lol). By building their case using "adverse inference," the Dems accomplish their goal without needing the Dept of Justice to rule on the subpoena objection.

3. Under the rules for the present Congress, the committees can choose to have depositions performed by appointed counsel rather than committee members. This can even happen in private without needing committee members present. Consequently, testimony is garnered through majority-appointed counsel without the ability of the minority to examine witnesses.

4. The Dems are likely to compose and pass Articles of Impeachment in committee, to then be presented to the full House for a vote. Essentially, these will be based solely on the case of the "prosecution" as the "defendant" is unable to call witnesses/evidence or question witnesses/evidence. This should make for an extremely compelling case, and the swing members, consequently, will be at little risk for voting in favor of impeachment. Impeachment/indictment will occur before judicial challenge is possible.

As I said, please correct me if any of this is wrong or askew. These thoughts do seem supported by the White House letter to Pelosi and Schiff today (It's an interesting letter, of which I offer but a snippet):


To sum up,
**if events stand as they are now, as the WH will surely come up with tricks of their own to continue the gamesmanship,**
Pelosi's tactics ensure that the Articles of Impeachment will be entirely damning without rebuttal. On the face of the evidence, the swing members of the House should suffer little harm in voting in favor of impeachment. Whether or not impeachment would be logical in a due process scenario, that evidence from this scenario should be compelling enough to justify the 'aye' vote even in the face of constituent dissatisfaction.

A few words: I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV. Well, not really, I just channel luminaries like Lawrence Tribe.

The points you make come, I believe, from the White House response. It is a political document and laughable as a serious legal brief. It is designed to portray the system as unfair and to justify not turning over information to the House. One can expect that such information would NOT exonerate the President. Here's why it is wrong:

The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole and exclusive right to impeach: as in, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House impeaches; the Senate tries and convicts.

There are no specific rules specified in the Constitution -- appropriately; therefore, the House is using what some call "regular order." The majority is in control, both at the committee level and on the floor. If the President has exculpatory evidence, he can offer it to the House, which would consider it. He could and should make it public, which would indirectly affect votes for impeachment. The President would have a defense team for the Senate trial and can present whatever evidence it wants, subject to the rules of the Senate.

Furthermore, the House, both in the conduct of impeachment and in oversight over executive branch operations, has the power to request and, if necessary, subpoena documents. This power and right has been upheld in court since the early days of the republic (George Washington administration, I believe, not to mention Judge Sirica's rulings on Nixon). Failure to provide US government information to Congress could, I suppose, and perhaps should be considered an impeachable offense if it is an extreme case, such as hiding "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Kindly,
Sage Grouse

[dudog84]

Another thing PackMan, re dysfunctionality, if an independent won the presidency then he/she would have both parties against him/her instead of just one.

[howardlander]

Furthermore, the House, both in the conduct of impeachment and in oversight over executive branch operations, has the power to request and, if necessary, subpoena documents. This power and right has been upheld in court since the early days of the republic (George Washington administration, I believe, not to mention Judge Sirica's rulings on Nixon). Failure to provide US government information to Congress could, I suppose, and perhaps should be considered an impeachable offense if it is an extreme case, such as hiding "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Kindly,
Sage Grouse

In fact, this very thing was one of the articles of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee against Richard Nixon. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac..._Richard_Nixon

"Following a subpoena from the Judiciary Committee, in April 1974 edited transcripts of many Watergate-related conversations from the Nixon White House tapes were made public by Nixon, but the committee pressed for full tapes and additional conversations. Nixon refused, but on July 24, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered him to comply. On July 27, 29, and 30, 1974, the Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon, for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress, and reported those articles to the House of Representatives."

[dudog84]

This power and right has been upheld in court since the early days of the republic (George Washington administration, I believe, not to mention Judge Sirica's rulings on Nixon).

I believe the Supreme Court was unanimous in the Sirica case, correct? I believe such a ruling would still be unanimous today in spite of our partisanship. I think we're going to find out.

[throatybeard]

Perot would gain almost no traction among conservatives, nowadays, because they'd brand him as too liberal. First, the R party has moved drastically right since 1992, and the American "center" continually gets redefined as some sort of midpoint between the Democrats and however far right the Republicans have moved the goalposts. The Democrats basically spent the 90s chasing that midpoint to the right, the 2000s staying put, and finally moved left a little for the 2018 cycle, having taken around thirty years to realize these swing voters are fewer than (mostly younger) nonvoters who agree with the Ds on most policy issues.

Second, Perot's only serious appeal to people who have stayed with the R party through Trump would be economic protectionism, and he probably wouldn't have pursued it to the degree Trump has with China, at the expense of many of the very people who installed him in office. Too, Perot, while not winning any civil rights awards, largely presented his anti-NAFTA platform devoid of ethnic nativism, Trump's #1, #2 and #3 most vocal appeals to his voters through the campaign and the first term. Anyone motivated by that would be severely disappointed in a candidate Perot or President Perot.

Perot might could pick off enough swing voters to sink the D candidate rather than the R candidate; R party discipline would stay in near lock-step with their nominee (low 90%s). (Political Scientists have reported that the "Perot sunk Bush" narrative isn't really supported by the facts).

[dudog84]

Trump has tweeted:

The Whistleblower has ties to one of my DEMOCRAT OPPONENTS.

I can't seem to find where the whistleblower's identity is known yet. Any help?

[throatybeard]

I can't seem to find where the whistleblower's identity is known yet. Any help?

I think they're in that elusive set of people who appear frequently in center and center-left journalism of late, Even Some Republicans.

(I've come to cherish this phrase for its memeic potential).