BTRTN: Pelosi Reveals Her Trump Card. Now Will She Play It?

[reggieandlee]

Born To Run The Numbers examines the implications of Nancy Pelosi's announcement that she is withholding the Articles of Impeachment pending the announcement of the Senate rules:

http://www.borntorunthenumbers.com/2019/12/btrtn-pelosi-reveals-her-trump-card-now.html

"Until last week, it seemed the Dems were bungling impeachment...Then Nancy Pelosi showed her trump card, announcing that she simply was not going to forward the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate until Mitch McConnell clarifies the rules. That one elegant move on her part could solve many of the issues that seemed problematic about the Democrats' approach to impeachment.
"...when (Pelosi) finally turned in favor of impeachment... she insisted on the narrowest possible articles of impeachment, and seemed to want to race through the process, hoping that the Senate would finish the inevitable acquittal as quickly as possible. Democrats would have been better served to follow a slower and more deliberate path, one in which a full array of articles of impeachment might have been explored and considered. As long as there continued to be new revelations and the possibility of new witnesses, there seemed to be no reason to arbitrarily call the process to an end.
"Pelosi knows that Trump cannot wait for the trial to be complete so that he can go on Fox News and hundreds of rallies and scream to the rafters that he has been “exonerated” and “vindicated,” and that he was right all along that the “Deep State” was pursuing a “coup” to undo the 2016 election. How ironic. Nancy Pelosi is holding the Trump card. If she never forwards the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, there is no trial. No acquittal. No exoneration. No celebration... Pelosi gains many of the advantages of a 'slow impeachment,' without having to wait for the Supreme Court to rule on Congressional subpoenas. If she holds her ground, we either get a trial with witnesses, or Trump will never get his exoneration. Heads Nancy wins, tails Trumps loses."

[redstateblues]

1. Brilliant! As usual

[lame54]

23. Dems bungled impeachment?...

WTF?

[Eliot Rosewater]

27. That is what JUMPED off the screen for me...sigh

[Mickju]

54. Me too

[reggieandlee]

58. What was meant by the term "bungling..."

I don't know if you only read the excerpts of this blog post that were on the DU site or if you had a chance to read the original piece posted at "Born To Run The Numbers," but a great deal of the original post explains what is meant by the use of the term "bungling." The author took the position that a "fast and narrow" impeachment (what the Dems have done) would enable the Senate to rapidly acquit Trump, which would enable him to claim "exoneration" and "vindication." The author contrasted the "fast and narrow" impeachment with a "slow and thorough" type would inflict far more damage on Trump and last well into the election cycle. Obviously the full piece has the far more detailed argument, but the reference to "bungling" was simply that the "fast and narrow" impeachment seemed calibrated to help Trump, and that the "slow and thorough" approach was far more like to damage him.

[lame54]

59. They're still wrong

[getagrip_already]

2. "Until last week, it seemed the Dems were bungling impeachment.." on the contrary...

That was a fox news tagline that didn't hold true any more than obama was born in kenya.

The Dems handled the impeachment hearings nearly flawlessly. They bungled nothing. Sure the gop house was a bunch of screaming dim-wits, but that is what they are and always will be.

This is and has always been a game of power and leverage. We don't have any in the senate, so we need to do everything we can outside of that venue. Which, the dems are doing.

So stop the claptrap already. Nothing was bungled.

[malaise]

3. THIS

That was a fox news tagline that didn't hold true any more than obama was born in kenya.

[mopinko]

6. i think they are dead wrong on the "strategy" of narrow articles.

i suspect pelosi knew all along that there could be/might need to be a second impeachment. maybe even would be.
she is smart enough to have known from jump street that she could take as many bites of that apple as she needed, and she saw that it was a mighty big apple.

[jmbar2]

18. Immediately caught my eye too

Framing impeachment as a Democratic Party political tactic is hogwash.

It's about protecting our democracy, adhering to our Constitution and enforcing the rule of law at the very top. No one is above the law.

[Eliot Rosewater]

28. This is rightwing talking points and they do NOT belong here...lets hope this garbage

is removed.

I am talking about the OP...

[llmart]

21. Also, this...

"many of the issues that seemed problematic"

I'm sick of how the media always frames what Democrats does as if we're bungling idiots. The media is very much to blame for where this country is right now.

[StarfishSaver]

24. Exactly what you said

Why is it that people can't seem to acknowledge the Democrats did something right without "balancing" with a criticism?

[2naSalit]

37. Because it's the party that

favors women and their freedom, has more women than the other party so... how could we possibly get anything right?


Just a thought that came to mind.

[StarfishSaver]

38. Well,, Pelosi DIDN'T know what to do until Laurence Tribe told her

At least, according to some people here.

[2naSalit]

39. +1

[Eyeball_Kid]

42. Tribe was not the first person to mention this.

The idea was being kicked around before Tribe published his op-Ed. But it doesn’t matter anyway. Pelosi saw a good idea and adopted it. That’s a sign of good leadership.

[soldierant]

47. Even John Dean was pushing it.

But what I saw was pushing holding the Articles, period. Making delivery conditional on acceptable rules was an addition, and I suspect it was Pelosi's addition to the plan. And a brilliant one. Besides everythig else she is good at, getting the ball into their court is right up there.

[2naSalit]

36. +1

[backscatter712]

43. Looks to me like Pelosi pretended to bungle impeachment...

...right until the moment she sprung the trap.

Now she's got Moscow Mitch's scrotum stapled to a cactus!

[yonder]

52. heh, heh. colorful.

[uponit7771]

44. +1

[kentuck]

4. I suspect the Intel Committee will issue new subpoenas in a few days.

And if they are ignored, the Congress will ask the Courts to get involved.

Just a hunch.

[NoMoreRepugs]

5. Comparing the Democratic Party and how they

handled the Impeachment hearings to what the rethuglican party would like to do in McTurtles Senate is like comparing Harvard Law School to tRUMP university.

[bdamomma]

7. Smart woman

Speaker Pelosi, is out for blood.

[rainin]

8. I heard additional articles of impeachment are being considered.

I'd like to see the dems repeat this to highlight all his crimes since we only scratched the surface with Ukraine. Why not impeach individual 1 for directing his personal lawyer to commit a felony?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

10. Omg..hope you are right. It just killed me to hear them

Zero in on Ukraine, like that was the only thing he's done wrong. But by saying Ukraine was the straw, it inadvertently diminished the magnitude of everything else. I understand keeping things simple, but like you say, asking someone to break the law is very simple to understand.

[rainin]

11. I'm pretty sure it was from someone on one of the committees,

definitely not a chair and obviously not Pelosi. So, I'm not holding my breath, but I do have hope.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

14. Never understood the rationale. If Senate wasn't going

to convict anyway, if the general public wouldn't be watching in record numbers anyway, why not pile every crime on and get on record? Harder to defend a "no" vote when there are more crimes. What's ironic is that there is actually more murk to be thrown back on Ukraine by them than they could with other malfeasance.

Have said this a zillion times but I think we should add something on endangering to public welfare. If you read back in history this was a big deal with the founders. Like his removal of Obama's regulation to stop coal companies from dumping sludge into our waters. Sludge that has known cancer causing materials. How could they justify that? What would they do? Find scientists who don't believe in cancer research findings? It would really make him look like a monster. Everyone, even trumpers, care about the water their kids may play in.

[napi21]

48. I understand Nancy wanted to kep the articles narrow because she wants the Public support. Barr

cleverly downplayed the Mueller Report long enough before he released it that he convinced a lot of the Public that Mueller found nothing wrong. That's not true of course, but most of the Public didn't read the report. The Ukraine problem was straight forward and easily understood so she said let's do it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

49. True about Barr. Yet the entire world was watching..

even Deplorables who said, "if the Dems aren't acting and they hate him, then there must not be anything to this Mueller thing."

That single moment in time, when the world was ripe to follow "stand up", for the good guys to unequivocally declare that his conduct, as stated in the findings, was impeachable, being met with silence, was the critical flaw.

[StarfishSaver]

25. Several other committee's have been conducting impeachment investigations

And they haven't been just sitting on their hands.

[calimary]

9. The Asset and all his little GOP friends think they're playing Tic Tac Toe.

They’re really facing a Grand Master of Three-Dimensional Chess.

[bucolic_frolic]

12. Already impeached, ready to be impeached again, and btw if you voters want to finish the process

This is a good game!

She can even refer the Articles to be amended with new witnesses while Donnie twists in the wind, all the way until November? Until or unless public opinion turns, which it may not at all. The public is engaged now, wanting to know. Hard for Republicans to intercept that ball.

Simply she is teaching Democrats how to think outside the box, outside a strict reading of the Constitution, the way Republicans create whatever suits their agenda as they tell you they are strict constructionists.

Oh! A SLOW impeachment. Put it on simmer, and turn up the heat.

And if the Senate won't agree to examine the evidence, is there any part of the Constitution that says what the contents of Articles of Impeachment are allowed to be? Suppose the House included subpoenas as part of the Articles sent to the Senate? After all, impeachment is a special trial, not Senate committees. Sort of like impeachment reconciliation, here's the Articles and the evidence and you should also look at and talk to such and such.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

15. Amend articles? Thought people were saying you

Had to start all over, square one.

[bucolic_frolic]

16. "people were saying"

don't believe them. if you see an opening, a loophole, a thread-the-needle hole, make your best shot and go for it. it's what Trump and McConnell are doing. don't be self-limiting.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

20. Here it is. Guess it doesn't really matter tho

If we amend, House would have to vote again anyway.

FBaggins
88. Each impeachment is it's own thing
It's a remarkable commentary on Trump that we're even talking about multiple impeachments.

But the answer doesn't change. This isn't an "ongoing" impeachment. There are now two articles and the book is closed on them. Additional articles coming in a few months would be an entirely different trial. If the House started a process that looked like more articles would appear next week? The Senate could choose to wait and try both at the same time OR deal with them independently.

I can envision a perpetual impeachment process tying up both houses for months.to come, into and past the 2020 election.

Sure. But let's not forget that the goal is to influence public opinion for the 2020 election. Pelosi probably scores some points with the public by insisting that the Senate trial be fair... but perpetual impeachments for months would very likely backfire (absent explosive new evidence). Our presidential candidates want coverage of their own... they don't want impeachment to run all of 2020.

[getagrip_already]

22. There is no process except what the house and senate set for themselves.....

The constitution is brief. It doesn't spell out much in the way of process. It's up to the house and senate to establish their own policies and procedures.

If the house decides to add new evidence to the articles, they can do that with a simple vote. If they want to write new articles, they can do that as, and when, they see fit.

Likewise, if the senate votes to dismiss the articles out of hand, they can do that as well.

This is a political process, albeit with legal trappings, but it just politics at its core. The framers realized that if the house or senate abdicated their responsibility, the republic would fail. But, it was the best they could come up with.

Hey, it worked for almost 250 years. Until hate, greed, and power-fever put it's ugly hands around the throat of freedom.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

50. What is your best guess as to what will happen?

[George II]

13. I don't know who the writer is, but in the eyes of most Democrats it NEVER "seemed....

...the Dems were bungling the impeachment". That's just sour grapes from some who incorrectly wanted to jump the gun and prematurely vote to impeach.

I'll take Pelosi's judgement over that of any political "pundit".

[Laura PourMeADrink]

17. Incorrectly? We will never know because we didn't do

It. And all those previous crimes were left on the table.

I think we should agree that the answer is an unknown. Pelosi chose an option, to wait until a huge crime was committed and she knew the votes were there. That may indeed been the best course. But we will never know. Hell, repukes thought the game was over when Comey got fired.

BTW, the "some" sour grape Dems equaled 80% in December 2018.

[stillcool]

31. changed my mind...

i have nothing to say.

[Me.]

29. Quite

and some people fail to listen...the Dems have clearly said this is not over by any stretch, they have said they are keeping investigations open. Honestly aside from not pleasing everyone, it sometimes seems the Dems cannot please anyone of the critics who are always ready to jump on them. Nevermind spilling as much ink on the thing in the WH, MOscow Mitch and the Cons.

[StarfishSaver]

30. That's all they've got at this point

Last edited Tue Dec 31, 2019, 02:47 PM - Edit history (1)

"Yes, Pelosi has handled this near flawlessly. But if she had listened to us and pulled the trigger months ago, it would have been completely flawless. So we were right and she was wrong."

[Laura PourMeADrink]

40. Not everyone shares your opinions. We all see things

from a different angle.

[StarfishSaver]

41. Everyone doesn't share my opinion?

Well, knock me over with a feather!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

45. Humility? Yikes...must be NY!!

[ooky]

35. The "bungling impeachment talk" was mostly Republican and M$M talking points.

Especially for M$M, loading up on hours of bs pundit speak, followed by Liberty Mutual commercials.

Democrats did a great job of impeachment throughout the process, and they still are.

[reggieandlee]

57. What was meant by "Bungling"

Not sure if you simply read the excerpts on the DU site or if you had a chance to read the entire original blog post at "Born To Run The Numbers," but much of the original essay is devoted to the author's explanation of what is meant by "bungling." In short, the author took the position that a "fast and narrow" impeachment -- which is what Nancy Pelosi had been advocating -- was destined to simply allow the Senate a rapid acquittal of Trump, which would embolden him to claim "exoneration," "vindication," and that the entire impeachment was simply one more example of a "deep state witch hunt." In contrast, the author felt that a "slow and thorough" impeachment would inflict far more damage on Trump and last well into the election cycle. Obviously the full piece has the far more detailed argument, but the reference to "bungling" was simply that the "fast and narrow" impeachment seemed calibrated to help Trump, and that the "slow and thorough" approach was far more like to damage him.

[PatrickforO]

19. What Pelosi is doing is probably the best bet since the Republican party has

pretty much gone down the path of treason en masse.

[empedocles]

33. Also, traitortrump is 'the decider' for the 'cons, which gives Dems an inherent

advantage in almost every contested issue with 'the decider'.

[Lexee]

26. How were the Dems Bungling impeachment? When did the Dems ever bungle the impeachment?

They handled it like professions at every step.

[Takket]

32. I would love to know what the author thinks was being "bungled"

The Dems have followed the letter of the law at every step.

[The Blue Flower]

34. The longer he withholds witnesses and documents, the guiltier he appears

The country at large can't help but wonder what he's hiding. He's undermining whatever slim thread of trust he has had with his supporters.

[Always Randy]

46. her father was the Mayor of Baltimore--

she grew up with this-------no first rodeos for her-----and she is way too smart---she knew how to play this way back and she knew she had the votes on a few articles---thus an earlier vote-----and now the House can dangle all sorts of hearings ----impeachment of Trump on many of the co conspirator charges from Mueller(glaring --paying Stormy Daniels) ---impeachment of Pence on the same charges on Trump ---THAT -would cause a delightful distraction---

and on Mueller----there is a load to come out during this coming year

happy New Year everyone

[Capt. America]

51. I'm convinced the real impeachment would come only when it is shown he laundered money...

...the Rethugs can't dispute accounting. Also, it will be shown he's laundered money for the RUSSIANS.

[aikoaiko]

53. That's a little optimistic.

I think they are missing the likely Trump tactic of saying the Democrats know they can't win so they are scared to transfer the articles.

And then he'll claim exoneration.

I think Nancy was brilliant for not sending the articles before winter recess, but there could be a compelling Trump narrative if she continues to balk.

[ancianita]

56. Even more brilliant, she set up Senate leaders to crow about how they'd break their oaths of

impartiality! THAT'S what reveals her stateswomanship.

McConnell, Graham and any other public avower of acquittal should THEMSELVES be impeached for abuse of their office, even as over 200 House bills sit in mocking Mitch's "graveyard."