Patterico's Pontifications

2/3/2020

GOP Senator Warns Biden: If You’re Elected, We Might Immediately Push To Impeach You

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:48 am



[guest post by Dana]

Filed under: You have got to be kidding.

Bloomberg has the report:

Iowa Senator Joni Ernst warned Sunday that Republicans would immediately push to impeach Joe Biden over his work in Ukraine as vice president if he win the White House.

“I think this door of impeachable whatever has been opened,” Ernst said in an interview with Bloomberg News. “Joe Biden should be very careful what he’s asking for because, you know, we can have a situation where if it should ever be President Biden, that immediately, people, right the day after he would be elected would be saying, ‘Well, we’re going to impeach him.’”

The grounds for impeachment, the first-term Republican said, would be “for being assigned to take on Ukrainian corruption yet turning a blind eye to Burisma because his son was on the board making over a million dollars a year.”

Ernst discussed Trump’s impeachement Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union:

I think ferreting out corruption is absolutely the right thing to do”…[I]f Trump was “tying it to other things,” referring to the allegations that the president connected U.S. military aid to investigations into this political rival, that’s something she “wouldn’t have done.”

“The president has a lot of latitude to do what he wants to do…I think, generally speaking, going after corruption would be the right thing to do. He did it maybe in the wrong manner.”

Ernst said she will be voting to acquit Trump in the Senate impeachment trial on Wednesday, adding that “whether you like what the president has done or not,” she does not think it rises to the point of removing a president from office.

Ernst, who is an at-risk Repuplican in a battleground state, was recently pushing for a quick end to the impeachment:

We’ve had 17 witnesses, from the House…We do hear from people back home, but they’re like, ‘get this over with.’ That’s what I’m hearing, is that we really need to wrap this up and get the American people’s business done.

On the question of Republicans possibly pushing to impeach a President Biden, consider a sampling of the Republican response to the impeachement of Trump:

Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, was also “sad,” he told “Fox & Friends” on Wednesday morning, because Democrats wanted only to impeach Trump and prevent him from doing his “amazing” work—an observation that the President liked so much that he promptly tweeted it.

[I]mpeaching the President was, in the words of the Ohio Republican Jim Jordan “unfair,” “dangerous,” and “harmful to our country.”

And this from Kellyanne Conway:

“People will not forget about it,” Conway said Tuesday morning. “People will remember how those Democrats spent their time and the taxpayers’ money, which was a big waste. And if you waste my time, you risk my trust is what these voters will say to them. And can we stop calling them moderate Democrats? I think they’ve proven that they’re not. They are not representing the will of their people.”

“If you’re called a representative, if that’s your day job, you ought to represent the will of your people. And these folks saying, ‘Oh, it’s a vote of conscience. I’ve been struggling. I had to read all the documents all weekend.’ They would sound more legitimate and more credible if they just said, ‘I need to follow the leadership of my party, which has gone so far to the left, we can’t even see the middle from where we are anymore. And frankly, which probably dangles committee assignments and campaign money in front of me for me to make this vote,'” she said.

Even viewing the the hearing was considered a waste of time, let alone the impeachment itself:

“They’re kind of on a fishing expedition,” said Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).

[…]

“It’s a political sideshow and I’ve got more important things to do,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). “The House has its job to do. And then when it comes to us, that’s when our job kicks in.”

[…]

“It’s a sham. It’s a show trial. Not even that,” said Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.). “Nothing rises to the level of impeachment. So, this is just a big waste of time.”

And let’s not forget these GOP responses when the impeachment inquiry was launched:

“So much for being prayerful and thoughtful, I think it’s a bad day for the country, I think this whole thing is a joke,” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham…

“I guess if you’re going to come up with an inadequate case, you might as well go for the impeachment and have the circus,” Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., told reporters, adding that he’s glad they’re getting to it “sooner rather than later.”

Additionally, Lamar Alexander held fast that it was voters who should decide Trump’s fate, not Congress:

“If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist…It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party… Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.”

Ernst’s warning provided Biden this nugget to use on the campaign trail:

They very much don’t want to face me obviously,” Biden told the Des Moines Register. “I’ve never seen a sitting president and his allies this frightened about who may be the nominee.”

Claiming that the impeachment of Trump has opened a “door of impeachable whatever” diminishes the impeachment process, as well as conveniently relieves a president of accountability for his actions. There is something hypocritical about a party that has cried foul from the Trump impeachment get-go and blamed it on everything from a witch hunt, to partisan politics and an attempt to undue an election, and yet these same people are now warning a contender from the other side of the aisle that there could be an immediate push for impeachment if he is elected. Let’s call it weaponizing impeachment. Whatever happened to letting the voters decide? Whatever happened to doing the will of the people? What about accusations that the impeachment effort was nothing more than an effort to overturn an election? Does all of that go out the window when the president is a Democrat? Shouldn’t consistency and an equal-application of laws and processes be the goal rather than straight partisanship? Because if Biden becomes our next persident, then clearly the people will have spoken and made their will known.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

143 Responses to “GOP Senator Warns Biden: If You’re Elected, We Might Immediately Push To Impeach You”

  1. Good morning.

    Dana (aaddb1)

  2. By all means investigate Biden.

    the only problem I have is that the GOP is describing this as impeachment for whatever. Impeach him for something specific. I grant that the kid having a cushy job is the swamp we want drained. The fact that Trump’s family is far worse doesn’t really mitigate this in my opinion. All this Hillary Foundation stuff should be scrutinized and should be a liability politically.

    Biden has a point that they are really acting scared of him. I guess the crooks want Bernie v Trump for some reason.

    Dustin (764e61)

  3. Ms. Ernst is now no different from that small gaggle of House Dems who pushed for Trump’s impeachment on Day One.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  4. Biden is claiming they are scared of him because he would be the strongest candidate, but he never says why. He, or his people, cites polls but he never says why he polls better.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  5. I don’t disagree that Biden should be investigated. But this broad warning of impeachment that Ernst makes further pushes open that alleged “door of impeachable whatever”.

    Dana (aaddb1)

  6. Trump defense arguing. Big point: The Ukrainians did not know about the hold until the Politico article appeared on Aug 28 and Andriy Yarmak sent a text message almost immediately, and it was rought up (the hold was) at the next meeting which was in Warsaw on Sept 1 so it couldn’t ave been used to pressure the Ulrainians.

    Actually it’s a little bit more complicated than that. They did know, but they didn’t want to let the U.S. know that they knew because the way they found out was irregular, and they didn’t conceive of this as being connected to investigations (not even after the Aug 28 Politico article – that caused them to worry that U.S. was re-evaluating its overall policy)

    And it was connected to investigations by Sondland on Sept 7 and Zelensky caved.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  7. Now arguing that a presidential meeting was not conditioned on investigations. Tis is true, on;y Sondland connected that, maybe on the advice of Mulvaney.

    Also how Trump improved relations with Ukraine.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  8. I don’t disagree that Biden should be investigated. But this broad warning of impeachment that Ernst makes further pushes open that alleged “door of impeachable whatever”.

    Dana (aaddb1) — 2/3/2020 @ 10:10 am

    Yes. They want to pretend the impeachment that proved the GOP’s degree of corruption wasn’t important. They want to act like children. It’s sad but they also want to imply everyone who supported Trump’s removal is somehow crushed and heartbroken by any trouble for Biden. Just as they are pretending the bribery was in our nation’s interest, they want to suggest everyone supporting impeachment was somehow part of the same vague evil deep state whatever.

    But no. Most of Trump’s ‘nevertrumper’ critics are simply the good guys, plain and simple.

    Dustin (764e61)

  9. Now argument against Article II. Partly a bad argument.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  10. There was a blanket defiance by the president, but his lawyers came up with specific ones. He says in a ordinary court of law you don’t accuse opposing counsel of making bad faith arguments.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  11. “Ms. Ernst is now no different from that small gaggle of House Dems who pushed for Trump’s impeachment on Day One.”
    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 2/3/2020 @ 10:07 am

    That alone would place her in good company with easily half the commenters on this blog.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  12. Ms. Ernst is now no different from that small gaggle of House Dems who pushed for Trump’s impeachment on Day One.

    Yep. I donated to her campaign when she was running for election.

    Sad to see what she’s become.

    Dave (1bb933)

  13. That alone would place her in good company with easily half the commenters on this blog.

    Nah.

    Trump deserved to take the 25’th from day one, but he didn’t merit impeachment for another 109 days (until he fired Comey in an attempt to cover up Russia’s intervention in the election on his behalf).

    Dave (1bb933)

  14. I like how you’re my wingman, Dave.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  15. I once hoped that Ernst was a least half bright.

    Now…not so much.

    https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2020/02/joni-ernst-trumps-learned-lesson-foreign-interference/

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  16. That alone would place her in good company with easily half the commenters on this blog.

    I’ve been reading this blog for many years. I can’t think of any commenters here who called for Trump’s impeachment in January of 2107, much less half of the commenters.

    Why don’t you refresh my memory and compile a list of everyone here who called for his impeachment back then? If you can’t back up your words, then you’ll just prove yourself a fool.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  17. Republicans picking up and running w the Democrats’ election nullification project (denouncing Electoral College/Collusion/Obstruction/Impeachment/whatever’s next) is even more foolish than thinking Republicans are afraid of Biden.

    harkin (d6cfee)

  18. Sorry, Chuck. I succumbed to #NeverTrump style hyperbole. My apologies.

    The impeachment drive actually started before day one, culminating as Dave outlines. I don’t really care whether it was less than half, or more, that were fans of that effort. Let’s count those who pooh poohed the Nunes memo. Don’t care enough to find out. Ernst is driving that logic to its logical conclusion. Good for her.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  19. Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/3/2020 @ 10:43 am

    By the time the Senate tried Clinton, he was at least feigning contrition and admitting that what he did was wrong (the defense was that it didn’t warrant impeachment).

    Trump, on the other hand, won’t even get a “go, and sin no more” from his fellow wh*res.

    Dave (1bb933)

  20. Dave (1bb933) — 2/3/2020 @ 10:59 am

    Well, and he’s said the Constitution doesn’t limit him.

    Way to go, Trump-suckers!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  21. Trump, asking on national TV to be impeached for obstruction of justice, in May 2017:

    But regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it.

    And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.

    Dave (1bb933)

  22. See what I mean about the damage to the norms the House Democrats obliterated on future administrations?

    This is nothing more than raw exercises of political power. And the pendulum will swing the other way… and it’s naive to believe that the other side won’t use the same tactics.

    We see this time and time again in the past… most notably the Harry Reid Rule.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  23. Oh yeah, see how bad the democrats are for the thing the GOP is doing?

    Dustin (764e61)

  24. 23

    Oh yeah, see how bad the democrats are for the thing the GOP is doing?

    Dustin (764e61) — 2/3/2020 @ 11:17 am

    Absolutely. The House hasn’t met the burden.

    The House butchered the whole process on their end and it’s laughable to place the burden on the Senate controlled by the opposition party.

    Democrats F’ed up bigly here.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  25. Sorry, Chuck. I succumbed to #NeverTrump style hyperbole. My apologies.

    Ah, yes. When you do wrong, blame the other guy for making you do it. A time-honored cop-out.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  26. Claiming that the impeachment of Trump has opened a “door of impeachable whatever” diminishes the impeachment process, as well as conveniently relieves a president of accountability for his actions. There is something hypocritical about a party that has cried foul from the Trump impeachment get-go and blamed it on everything from a witch hunt, to partisan politics and an attempt to undue an election, and yet these same people are now warning a contender from the other side of the aisle that there could be an immediate push for impeachment if he is elected. Let’s call it weaponizing impeachment. Whatever happened to letting the voters decide? Whatever happened to doing the will of the people? What about accusations that the impeachment effort was nothing more than an effort to overturn an election? Does all of that go out the window when the president is a Democrat? Shouldn’t consistency and an equal-application of laws and processes be the goal rather than straight partisanship? Because if Biden becomes our next persident, then clearly the people will have spoken and made their will known.

    Dana, the current GOP has shown itself to be completely lacking in principle. They rarely pretend to operate from some consistent set of values that are greater than tribal victory. When they do it’s a circus mirror version of they accuse the democrats of doing.

    I wasn’t going to vote for Trump. Now I’m not planning to vote for anyone in the GOP, which will be a first for me.

    Time123 (235fc4)

  27. Time123,

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: There is *almost zero daylight between the Democratic and Republican party today, in spite of what they claim. Actions speak louder than words. (*The only exception being abortion).

    Dana (aaddb1)

  28. The House butchered the whole process on their end and it’s laughable to place the burden on the Senate controlled by the opposition party.

    As if there is any doubt at all about what Trump did, and why.

    As if Trump didn’t openly obstruct the collection of evidence and testimony from Bolton and many others.

    And as if any of it would change the GOP senators’ votes to acquit.

    Dave (1bb933)

  29. @27, I think Guns, Climate change, and race are in there also. But other than those I agree with you.

    Time123 (a7a01b)

  30. #28

    The House butchered the whole process on their end and it’s laughable to place the burden on the Senate controlled by the opposition party.

    As if there is any doubt at all about what Trump did, and why.

    As if Trump didn’t openly obstruct the collection of evidence and testimony from Bolton and many others.

    And as if any of it would change the GOP senators’ votes to acquit.

    Dave (1bb933) — 2/3/2020 @ 11:30 am

    If that’s the case, why didn’t the House build a stronger case?

    I mean, to those complaining about the GOP’s actions in the Senate… where were you during the House proceeding?

    Does the end justifies the means? Do you care about the process and the ramifications on how this may set a new precedents?

    First of all these “impeachment subpoenas” were not properly authorized. The *HOUSE* has the sole power of impeachment… NOT the *SPEAKER*. The Speaker announced the impeachment inquiry in a press conference stating that the existing committees can issue the subpoenas, bypassing a vote by the full House.

    THAT was one of the reasons why the Whitehouse counsels rejected it.

    THAT was one of the reason why the House Managers chose NOT to litigate in the courts for fear of adverse rulings.

    The Speaker does NOT have the sole power of impeachment. It takes the full HOUSE to pass the authority for impeachment. The impeachment vote occurred after those subpoena issuance.

    Furthermore, where were ya’ll when the House Intel committee conducted secret one-side impeachment proceedings (unauthorized by the House mind you) without the Whitehouse counsel, as was afforded by his predecessors? The President was not afforded any due process in the House (ie, unable to call their own witnesses, or be able to cross-examine witnesses, or during Nadler’s Judiciary hearing where he prohibited agency counsel’s for subpoenaed witnesses).

    Complaining that the GOP Senate are abdicating their responsibilities is extremely weak when it’s not the Senate’s job to cure faulty due process mess in the House.

    I’d direct your ire towards House Democrats for dangerously lowering the impeachment precedents and compiling a very weak impeachment case while expecting the GOP-lead Senate to bolster their case.

    I don’t think history will be kind to this ordeal…and Joni Ernst is only hypothesizing the repercussion of the House Democrat’s precedents. Because as much as we may hate it, we cannot have two different rules here.

    You either don’t do these sort of things… or… don’t be surprised when it happens to your own party when the party control changes.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  31. As I said on the 31st of Jan…

    All sides have covered themselves in infamy in this debacle.

    It is unutterably sad to behold.</strong

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  32. One of several things that make Ernst’s statement so gobsmakingly stupid is that impeachment is ONLY a remedy for removing a POTUS from office for conduct committed IN office, not prior to taking office. There are ample remedies for bad conduct committed beforehand, including the election.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  33. @32

    One of several things that make Ernst’s statement so gobsmakingly stupid is that impeachment is ONLY a remedy for removing a POTUS from office for conduct committed IN office, not prior to taking office. There are ample remedies for bad conduct committed beforehand, including the election.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/3/2020 @ 12:37 pm

    Actually, there’s nothing stopping the House of drafting impeachment articles for acts prior to the presidency and for the Senate to remove.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  34. Actually, there is. It’s called the Constitution.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  35. First of all these “impeachment subpoenas” were not properly authorized. The *HOUSE* has the sole power of impeachment… NOT the *SPEAKER*. The Speaker announced the impeachment inquiry in a press conference stating that the existing committees can issue the subpoenas, bypassing a vote by the full House.

    False. Under rules put in place when Republicans controlled the chamber, no vote by the full House was necessary.

    It’s all explained here, including chapter and verse of the relevant rules.

    It was important for the House to enhance the judiciary committee’s subpoena powers in 1974 and 1998 because of the state of the chamber’s rules at the time. In 1974, only a few House committees had subpoena power under the rules of the House—though other committees, including the judiciary committee, were granted subpoena authority through separate investigative authorizing resolutions reported from the House Committee on Rules in each Congress. As part of broader reforms to the committee system that took effect in 1975, the House provided all committees with subpoena power as part of the rules. In 1977, the House adopted a rule change that allowed individual committees to, if they wished, delegate the power to issue subpoenas to the chairman alone, without the need to consult the full committee. But in 1998, when the House commenced impeachment proceedings against Clinton, the judiciary committee had no such provision granting that authority to its chair.

    Indeed, until recent years, unilateral subpoena power was relatively rare for House committee chairs. But between the 113th and 114th Congresses, the number of chairs given this power by their committees doubled—and the judiciary committee was among them. The judiciary committee chair retains this authority in the current Congress; its rules stipulate that “a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman … following consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.” And while Chairman Jerrold Nadler indicated in January 2019 that he would hold votes on any subpoenas to which Ranking Member Doug Collins objected, the rules do not specifically require that he do so. The need to seek full House authorization for expanded subpoena powers as part of an impeachment inquiry, then, is not as pressing as it was in 1974 or 1998.

    Concerning depositions in a private setting:

    There has been a similar evolution in the rules surrounding depositions taken by committee staff, which allow committees to pursue additional information without imposing on members’ time and in a private setting that may be more likely to produce candor from witnesses. Under practices in place in 1974 and 1998, deposition power for committee staff was periodically authorized by the full House for the purpose of specific investigations. The resolutions authorizing both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment proceedings granted the judiciary committee this authority.

    Since 1998, however, the rules of the House governing staff depositions have evolved to give committees access to the tool more regularly. In 2007, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was given the ability to set its own rules “authorizing and regulating the taking of depositions by a member or counsel of the committee.” In 2015, the House gave four committees (Energy and Commerce; Financial Services; Science, Space, and Technology; and Ways and Means) the ability to conduct staff depositions; this power was initially granted for the first session of the Congress only but was later extended to the second session. Under subsequent rules issued by the House Committee on Rules for the conduct of such depositions, “at least one member of the committee shall be present … unless the witness to be deposed agrees in writing to waive this requirement.” In 2017, the rule permitting staff depositions was extended to cover almost all standing committees, and the member attendance requirement was modified such that it did not apply if the committee authorized the staff deposition to take place when the House was not in session.

    In January 2019, the opening day rules package for the 116th Congress again provided committee chairs with the authority to order the taking of a deposition; under the current rules, either a member or committee counsel is permitted to do so. Members may participate, but their presence is not required. So the judiciary committee already has the power to conduct staff depositions and does not need a special grant of authority to do so.

    Dave (1bb933)

  36. There is something hypocritical about a party that has cried foul from the Trump impeachment get-go and blamed it on everything from a witch hunt, to partisan politics and an attempt to undue an election, and yet these same people are now warning a contender from the other side of the aisle that there could be an immediate push for impeachment if he is elected. Let’s call it weaponizing impeachment.

    These kinds of arguments always remind me of a Scalia opinion:

    [The City] has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules.

    RAV v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).

    It is not hypocrisy to say, the other side should fight fair, but if it fights dirty, I will too. That is one lesson that Trump has taught us, and that a lot of Republicans still need to learn.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  37. It is not hypocrisy to say, the other side should fight fair, but if it fights dirty, I will too. That is one lesson that Trump has taught us, and that a lot of Republicans still need to learn.

    Has the possibility that the Democrats were taught that same lesson in 1998 ever crossed your mind?

    But in any case, bravo on finding a yet another way to rephrase “when the other side does it, it’s reprehensible, but when our side does it, it’s righteous!

    Dave (1bb933)

  38. It is not hypocrisy to say, the other side should fight fair, but if it fights dirty, I will too.

    That is EXACTLY what it is!

    To have integrity means you hold to YOUR standards, regardless of other circumstances.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  39. It lasted around two hours. The speeches were short and succint and mostly did not argue the facts. Sciff spoke longest, at the end. He seems to be aiming to get at least one Republican vote.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  40. 32. Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/3/2020 @ 12:37 pm

    One of several things that make Ernst’s statement so gobsmakingly stupid is that impeachment is ONLY a remedy for removing a POTUS from office for conduct committed IN office, not prior to taking office.

    That’s not necessarily true, and besides which the crimes for which she would impeach Joe Biden for, were (supposing that what Donald Trump suspected him of doing happened) committed while he was office (Vice President)

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  41. Wrong, Sammy. Irrational, too!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  42. 19. Dave (1bb933) — 2/3/2020 @ 10:59 am

    By the time the Senate tried Clinton, he was at least feigning contrition and admitting that what he did was wrong (the defense was that it didn’t warrant impeachment).

    He was half admitting the sex, and ignoring the perjury, and refusing, in thw wordsof Londsey Graham, to get right with the law.

    Trump, on the other hand,

    Won’t admit even a mistake in judgment.

    So now Schiff pretends he could ask other countries to do things. (these were very special circumstances)

    He warns of future presidential candidates (presumably of both major parties) competing for the support of other countries.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  43. a high crime is an abuse of public trust, and Biden can be accused of that even after he left office.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  44. @35

    First of all these “impeachment subpoenas” were not properly authorized. The *HOUSE* has the sole power of impeachment… NOT the *SPEAKER*. The Speaker announced the impeachment inquiry in a press conference stating that the existing committees can issue the subpoenas, bypassing a vote by the full House.

    False. Under rules put in place when Republicans controlled the chamber, no vote by the full House was necessary.

    (cut out stuff about committee subpoena power, as we’re talking about two different things)
    Dave (1bb933) — 2/3/2020 @ 12:52 pm

    Dave, you are fundamentally incorrect.

    A regular order subpoena under standing committees are NOT the same as an Impeachment subpoena.

    The former puts the Executive branch on an easier path in objecting the subpoena under well-understood executive immunities and privilege.

    The latter is like a “super charged” subpoena that does give Congress a strong foundation to challenge executive privilege claims as well as puts them stronger when litigating in the courts.

    Think about Dave. The House need to grant Impeachment authority on simple vote whereas the House can vote for the subpoena house-wide (unlikely) or the House can vote delegate it to a new or existing committees (as was done in the past). That did NOT happen.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  45. 1) Tit for Tat is not good –
    2) This whole impeachment thing just shows how corrupt both sides of the aisle are
    3) Hillary’s corruption is egregous – Probably massively more so than any president. But would she have been impeached – of course not, she is a sacred goddess to the democrats.

    Joe-Dallas (debac0)

  46. Lots of unpatriotic people here abusing a military Veteran. Ernst is a Lt Colonel with foreign theater tours. She is immune from criticism as per the Vindman protocol.

    iowan2 (1c4a14)

  47. Whembly, the House voted two articles of impeachment. It doesn’t matter who issued the subpoenas or under what rule they were issued. If the House approved articles of impeachment without any previous investigation, it would be a legitimate impeachment. The subpoenas were issued by a House committee, and Trump’s refusal to comply with them should, all by itself, earned a vote of 435 yeas and zero nays in approval of the second article, because the President doesn’t get to decide what subpoenas he obeys. It’s like saying the President gets to decide what laws he obeys. Even contesting them in court is a refusal to do his duty.

    Kishnevi (2f1397)

  48. Bread-bag Girl has always been a phony-baloney-only-out-for-Joni. It’s definitely not sure that she will be in the next Congress, she is not in a safe seat, so let’s not even bother to tell her that the Senate does not impeach, the House does, and that there’s no reason to believe that the Democrats will not have the House in the next Congress too.

    nk (1d9030)

  49. No, Iowan, the Vindmann protocol was “you don’t accuse someone of dual loyalty because they testify against Trump’s interests”.

    Kishnevi (2f1397)

  50. No, iowan2 and Kishnevi, you don’t accuse a naturalized citizen of dual loyalty when you married two of them. Before they were naturalized!

    nk (1d9030)

  51. Both of them from the Soviet bloc!

    nk (1d9030)

  52. @47

    Whembly, the House voted two articles of impeachment.

    Correct, Trump was impeached on December 18th.

    It doesn’t matter who issued the subpoenas or under what rule they were issued.

    It absolutely matters.

    If the House
    approved articles of impeachment without any previous investigation, it would be a legitimate impeachment.

    True. I don’t dispute that.

    The subpoenas were issued by a House committee, and Trump’s refusal to comply with them should, all by itself, earned a vote of 435 yeas and zero nays in approval of the second article, because the President doesn’t get to decide what subpoenas he obeys.

    Incorrect. Congress is not superior to the Executive Branch.

    House Democrats refused to engage any accommodations for the subpoenas AND refused to litigate the subpoena in courts.

    It’s like saying the President gets to decide what laws he obeys. Even contesting them in court is a refusal to do his duty.

    Kishnevi (2f1397) — 2/3/2020 @ 2:24 pm

    Every President invoked executive privilege in one form or another. That’s a normal tug-o-war between the two branches. If there’s a dispute between Article I branch vs Article II, then the Article III branch can decide.

    I agree with Jonathan Turley, it’s literally a Congressional abuse of power to impeach the president for wanting to litigate executive privilege in the courts.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  53. Admittedly, Trump has a valid excuse for Ivana and Melania. They’re his KGB/FSB handlers.

    nk (1d9030)

  54. @35 your explanation (well, who every you’re quoting) is lengthy. But wrong. As already pointed out up thead the speaker is not “the House”. Also, no one has ever attempted to explain how an article III Judge would know if a subpoena was a Art. II sec 1, or Art. II sec.2 subpoena. I’ve asked 3 times that I remember, and no one has attempted to explain the law.

    A larger tell, that the subpoenas were not enforcable, Schiff worked very hard keeping a Judge from issuing an opinion. Schiff needs the illusion.A judge would pull the curtian away from the trick being foisted on the nation.

    iowan2 (1c4a14)

  55. a high crime is an abuse of public trust, and Biden can be accused of that even after he left office.

    OK, Sammy, think hard…

    What is the Constitutional remedy of impeachment for? Can it be applied after someone leaves office? Can it be applied to any old constitutional officer any old time, regardless of their current office? To what purpose?

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  56. 55. It is perfectly fine to impeach and bar from future office. Not OK to Impeach for offenses before
    the current office. So we can’t impeach after an official leaves office. Statue of Limitations is Zero. I don’t see these restriction you speak of.

    iowan2 (1c4a14)

  57. Conn Carroll
    @conncarroll
    House Impeachment Managers now quoting Harry Potter on the floor of the Senate.

    _

    harkin (d6cfee)

  58. I don’t see where people find any restrictions in the Impeachment Clause.

    Suppose a federal judge was found to have molested children a few years before he/she was nominated and confirmed.

    Suppose a newly elected President (rather than his son, son-in-law and campaign manager) were found to have engaged in election tampering, but only after being sworn in.

    Suppose Donald Trump had shot someone on Fifth Avenue between Election Day and inauguration.

    (OK, I guess maybe that last one isn’t impeachable because it’s Donald Trump. Pretend it’s Joe Biden instead then.)

    Dave (1bb933)

  59. SF: A high crime is an abuse of public trust, and Biden can be accused of that even after he left office.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/3/2020 @ 2:40 pm

    OK, Sammy, think hard…

    What is the Constitutional remedy of impeachment for? Can it be applied after someone leaves office? Can it be applied to any old constitutional officer any old time, regardless of their current office? To what purpose?

    Yes it can be applied to any old constitutional officer any old time, regardless of their current office. It won’t be because the main thing it does is remove him from office. But it can also disqualify him. They could, theoretically, impeach Joe Biden right now.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  60. iowan2 (1c4a14) — 2/3/2020 @ 2:46 pm

    Statue of Limitations is Zero. I don’t see these restriction you speak of.

    Not only is there no statute of limitations, there isn’t any protection against double jeopardy.

    So they could bring this up again – the very same charges – if Donald Trump is re-elected but the Democrats regain control of the Senate. Still wouldn’t remove him from office – you need 2/3 for that – but they could get their trial with witnesses. If they wanted to.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  61. House Impeachment Managers now quoting Harry Potter on the floor of the Senate

    Actually, Professor Dumbledore. Or whatever his name is.

    And Adam Schiff came up with ay=ypothetical that he said was impeachble but not a crime. I didn’t qquioite understand it but I can improve the scenario.

    Suppose Donald Trump went to Mar a Lago, and didn’t leave and tried to turn over the power and duties of his office by making Jared Kushner Chief of Staff and authorizing him to sign his signature. And he stays there. Vice President Mike Pence, not wanting to look disloyal, or grasping for power, refuses to invoke the 25th amendment.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  62. Off-topic, but Rush Limbaugh announced on his shoe today that he has advanced lung cancer.

    h/t: Captain Ed at HotAir

    Dave (1bb933)

  63. How is it possible that Limbaugh only discovers the cancer in its late stage? With his money, I’d have doctors pouring over me on a regular basis.

    norcal (a5428a)

  64. Adam Schiff:

    “Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election, or decide to move to Mar-A-Lago permanently and leave Jared Kushner to run the country, delegating to him the decision whether they go to war.”

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/03/schiff-trump-will-sell-alaska-to-russia-if-we-dont-impeach-him/
    _

    Well, at least they aren’t deranged.
    _

    harkin (d6cfee)

  65. Every President invoked executive privilege in one form or another. That’s a normal tug-o-war between the two branches. If there’s a dispute between Article I branch vs Article II, then the Article III branch can decide.

    My view is that executive privilege is bogus. POTUS us our employee, and we, his employers have every right to know anything we want that relates to his performance of the job.

    Remember, POTUS executes the laws Congress enacts. His only real independence is in foreign affairs and national defense. And even there Congress has rights to inquire and interfere.

    Kishnevi (5acb5b)

  66. My mom was diagnosed w advanced lung cancer and 10 months later she passed.

    It’s not a pleasant way to go.

    Hope Rush has better fortune.

    harkin (d6cfee)

  67. Given his previous case involving getting 4 physicians to over prescribe painkillers back in the mid-00s, he might be red-flagged… legit doctors might be afraid he starts pestering them for “scripts” or grabs some blank ones.

    urbanleftbehind (9179dd)

  68. How is it possible that Limbaugh only discovers the cancer in its late stage? With his money, I’d have doctors pouring over me on a regular basis.

    If he has any chronic lung disease, the symptoms would be assumed to be more of the same. [To be clear, I have no idea if he has any chronic diseases.]

    I have Crohn’s Colitis. I have to get colonoscopied every two years because the signs of colon cancer are exactly the same as the normal symptoms of Crohn’s.

    Kishnevi (5acb5b)

  69. Suppose a federal judge was found to have molested children a few years before he/she was nominated and confirmed.

    Impeachable, as they are in office.

    Suppose a newly elected President (rather than his son, son-in-law and campaign manager) were found to have engaged in election tampering, but only after being sworn in.

    See above.

    Suppose Donald Trump had shot someone on Fifth Avenue between Election Day and inauguration.

    There are criminal law remedies, BUT he’s still liable under impeachment IF he takes office.

    Sammy, agree as to double jeopardy, but the rest is bollocks.

    Associate Justice Baracula Obama could NOT be impeached for conduct as POTUS.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  70. Also, Rush is an ex-smoker. All the more reason to be vigilant.

    norcal (a5428a)

  71. Kishnevi,

    Good point. He may have had a chronic lung condition. Still, I would have had an army of doctors prodding and probing me frequently.

    norcal (a5428a)

  72. Remember, POTUS executes the laws Congress enacts. His only real independence is in foreign affairs and national defense. And even there Congress has rights to inquire and interfere.

    KIND of true. But since Washington’s terms, there has been a very well set-out provision allowing the POTUS to maintain a LIMITED privilege to conduct foreign affairs and national defense free of intrusions by either the legislative or judiciary, subject to review.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  73. That said, I wish that on nobody, my dad died 18 months after such a diagnosis. Had it been a brain cancer, he might be another victim in the Royals cluster (worked in ticket sales and events for the team from the then-Royals Stadium from 1979 to 1983).

    urbanleftbehind (9179dd)

  74. I’m afraid you’ve lost me, Rags.

    I said: Suppose a federal judge was found to have molested children a few years before he/she was nominated and confirmed.

    You said: Impeachable, as they are in office.

    But then you said:

    Associate Justice Baracula Obama could NOT be impeached for conduct as POTUS.

    Suppose Associate Justice Obama was the judge who molested children before he was nominated and confirmed. And suppose he happened to be POTUS while doing it.

    Your answers appear to be contradictory.

    Dave (1bb933)

  75. “How is it possible that Limbaugh only discovers the cancer in its late stage? With his money, I’d have doctors pouring over me on a regular basis.”

    Symptom was “shortness of Breath” – that lead him to the Doctor. Other symptoms are coughing up blood, persistent cough, back pain, pain in side. Except for blood, stuff people might write off as something else. Usually, Cancer is not discovered till Stage III.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  76. COPD can be due to Asthma. Same symptoms as Lung Cancer.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  77. Montana GOP legislator: The Constitution Says Socialists Can Be Shot

    “So actually in the Constitution of the United States (if) they are found guilty of being a socialist member you either go to prison or are shot,” Garcia said.

    Garcia could not to point to where in the Constitution it says socialists could be shot or jailed.

    Asked to clarify if he thought it was fair to shoot or jail a socialist, including those who live in Montana, Garcia said yes.

    “They’re enemies of the free state,” Garcia said. “What do we do with our enemies in war? In Vietnam, (Afghanistan), all those. What did we do?”

    Asked if that was an appropriate response to his opponent from the last election cycle, Garcia said “according to the Constitution, I’m telling you.”

    The Montana Republican Party put out a statement disassociating themselves from his remarks.

    Good for them. But they’d better hope Adolf Twitler doesn’t hear about what the guy said, or he’ll be seated next to Melania and the three pardoned war criminals during the SotU…

    Dave (1bb933)

  78. I remember Christopher Hitchens being diagnosed w throat (I think) cancer months after doing a pictorial in VF where they sent him to a luxury spa where they pampered him big time but apparently the treatment was all about relaxation and skin care. IIRC they even had a photo of him wearing face cream while smoking a heater.

    At the time I heard he was sick it really hit home that if he’d just gone and gotten a complete physical they might have caught it in time.

    harkin (d6cfee)

  79. Early results from Iowa:

    Trump 2,060
    Walsh 35
    Weld 22

    Dave (1bb933)

  80. If Biden has committed any crimes, shouldn’t he be indicted now rather than have him assume a powerful office first?

    Fred (cfe4c2)

  81. 64. norcal (a5428a) — 2/3/2020 @ 4:15 pm

    How is it possible that Limbaugh only discovers the cancer in its late stage? With his money, I’d have doctors pouring over me on a regular basis.

    I don’t think Rush Limbaugh believes in that. He doesn’t believe in belonging to any health care plan, and believes in hiring the best doctors, without restriction, when he has a problem.

    And he wasn’t too keen on ideas about how you should do this to live longer, or you should do that to live longer – like lose weight. His philosophy was: We’re all going to die of something anyway. Why bother? Why try this?

    It may have taken his doctors some time to diagnose his problem as lung cancer. He was absent from his radio show one day or two and then it was said he would be back the next day, and he wasn’t = he was put the whole week. He will now take it a day or a week at a time. The disease, or his treatment, could sideline him and then not sideline him for awhile. (that might mean he’s consdering chemotherapy. He might try other things.)

    He expects to be off and on the air.

    One thing about Rush Limbaugh: I think he didn’t want a substitute host who was as good as him. Jay Diamond was doing some of the same things, with quotes from other people, but he stpped using him. Rush wants to be the only person using sound bytes.

    Maybe now he will groom a successor – or better, several possible successors.

    I see he’s begun to grow a beard.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  82. If Biden has committed any crimes, shouldn’t he be indicted now rather than have him assume a powerful office first?

    Be patient.

    Rudy is negotiating aid packages with a number of malleable second- and third-world countries, but these things take time.

    Dave (1bb933)

  83. Re #78 -… dont think so, Dave. Stephen Miller will nix the idea.

    urbanleftbehind (9179dd)

  84. “If Biden has committed any crimes, shouldn’t he be indicted now rather than have him assume a powerful office first?”
    Fred (cfe4c2) — 2/3/2020 @ 5:40 pm

    You have to wait for him to win an election. That was Trump’s crime.

    Munroe (dd4ac5)

  85. 8:58 PM, 28% precincts reporting

    Votes
    Candidate
    Delegates
    Percent
    Count

    Donald Trump
    20 97.1% 9,176

    Bill Weld
    0 1.3% 127

    Joe Walsh
    0 1% 99
    Other candidates
    0 0.5% 49

    Democrats have 0 precincts reporting. But they have an actual race…

    Kishnevi (5acb5b)

  86. That alone would place her in good company with easily half the commenters on this blog.

    Which commenters? For me, it was around the same time as when Amash came to his conclusion on the Mueller report. You know, when there was actual evidence.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  87. “Chris Murphy
    @ChrisMurphyCT
    My 11 year just nearly had a heart attack when he saw the exit polls in Iowa saying health care was the number one issue.

    “Not climate change?” he moans. “It’s like the the house is on fire and all people care about is doing renovations.”
    __ _

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 🎁🎄 🇺🇸
    @shaneriderMA
    ·
    Do you ever get sick of making up stupid viral-kid tweets for attention? You’re a Senator, not an e-pundit. Get it together.
    __ _

    Nick Searcy, REVERED LEADER & FILM & TV STAR
    @yesnicksearcy
    ·
    My 9-year-old starts foaming at the mouth & tries to kick everyone in the n*ts every time a stupid Democrat like @ChrisMurphy comes on television and tells the world that we are all going to die unless we vote for Democrats and do whatever they say after we give them our guns.
    __ _

    🌴🕊 Stefan BC 🌹🏴
    @Stefan_BC
    ·
    My four year old just said your kid is beyond myopic and is wondering if this has more to do with your donations from private insurance companies

    _

    harkin (d6cfee)

  88. BTW, may as well ask you folks for advice.
    At the moment I am registered as NPA. Florida is a closed primary state, and the voting rolls for the primary close on Feb 18. So I have three choices
    1) keep my status as NPA, say a curse on both your houses, and vote only in the city election being held that day
    2) register as GOP so I can vote for Weld, as a way of saying there are conservatives who don’t want Trump.
    3) register as Democrat, and vote for one of the moderates, as a way of saying there are people who like neither Trump nor socialism. The question of course then becomes which moderate. At the moment I am tempted to vote for Buttigieg or Yang. The most recent poll I have seen shows Biden at 41 percent here, so he does not need my help.
    Primary day is March 17, but I usually do early voting during the previous week.
    You all know my opinions fairly well. What would you do?

    Kishnevi (5acb5b)

  89. Dave @80.

    Trump 2,060
    Walsh 35
    Weld 22

    That’s the GOP straw poll. The Democratic Party has adifferent system for the most part.

    Though they will take a ind od straw poll (rather than people just relying assembling) that won’t be the main thing announced. Rsults will be reported by nearly everyone in delegate equivalents – a calculation how, if the relative strengths were maintained at higher level causes, how many delegates each candidate would get.

    The procedure is something like this:

    Doors open no laer than 6:30 pm Central time (7:30 Eastern, 4:30 Pacific People have till 7:00 to sign on or be in line to sign in. Caucus go-ers must be registered Democrats but can register on the spot. Some people could pre-regiister to participate by video.

    Speeches get made by supporters of each candidate. Votes are tabulated by 10 pm. Anyone in aviable group cannot change and any person in such a group can safely leave without affecting the results. Viable groups are any group with 15% or more of the vote…if the precinct sends at least 7 people. With 7 delegates it may be relatively simple to calculate the minimum needed for viability, but the math can get quite complicated if they have fewer. Apportionment could still be complicated. And there can be ties where both get the same number of people in their group but both cannot get the same number of delegates to the next level convention or maybe even one gets one and one gets none. In that case they may have to decide between them randomly.

    Unlike previous years, there will be only one round of switching. The only people who can switch are those in non-viable groups or in Uncommitted. There will be a minimum of 15 minutes (which could turn out to be close to a maximum) to switch. So the Elizabeth Warren and the Joe Biden people will be trying to attract the Amy Klobuchar people, and if the EW group does not have a minimum, other candidates will be trying to poach from them, while the EW group also tries to gain enough to be viable. Joe Biden and Bernie sanders should probably not be frozen out anywhere – both Biden than Sanders, since his support is not so evenly spread. He could win the popular vote but lose in the vote that counts.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  90. Kishnevi @ 89. I can tell you what I plan to do in the primary: Vote Democratic, and vote for Biden.

    nk (1d9030)

  91. Errata:

    * Though they will indeed take a kind of straw poll

    * doors open no later than 6:30 pm

    * Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders should probably not be frozen out anywhere – more Biden than Sanders, since his support is not so evenly spread. Bernie Sanders could win the popular vote but lose in the vote that counts,(which is kind of like the electoral vote of a state. I think each precinct is assigned a certain number of delegates in advance regardless of the number of people who show up to caucus.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  92. The corruption is now complete. Trump has transformed the GOP into the Gratuitously Obsequious Pantry of butt gerbils. These people have all lost their collective minds. It’s like they’re suffering from Twitterphobia, an irrational fear of a Trump Tweet.

    Do they want to be re-elected? They’ve already lost the House, and probably will lose more seats come November. They could very easily lose the Senate as well, because they have more seats up for election.

    Impeach Biden on day one, for what? And how? Under what scenario is it possible for a minority party to impeach a duly elected president? They wouldn’t have the votes. This is the madness of butt gerbils.

    And what is it with this paranoia about Biden? He’s run for president twice before, and he didn’t win a single primary. He hasn’t won a primary yet this year. His nomination is far from certain.

    So what will it be, impeach Sanders, Warren, whatever Democrat wins? Again, how? If a Democrat wins the White House, Democrats will probably win the House and the Senate. The butt gerbils would then be impotent and irrelevant.

    Let’s imagine that Trump wins re-election, by soliciting foreign interference yet again, but the Democrats gain seats in the House and take control of the Senate. What’s to stop them from impeaching him on day one? They’d have the majority in both chambers, and his removal would be all but assured. Then what, impeach the Vice-President and elevate the Speaker of the House?

    Hyper-partisanship has made politics so sordid. Washington warned against that in his Farewell Address, by the way. He also cautioned the American people about excessive debt and interference in foreign conflicts. Yet, look at us now. We have lost our way.

    I blame the Baby Boomers. They were given the world on a silver platter after WW II, and promptly turned it into a cold turd on a paper plate. The Greatest Generation didn’t do a very good job of raising them. They allowed the ruination of the education system and the corruption of the political system; hey, it happened under their watch.

    Trump is just the product of their ineptitude. He is the symptom, not the disease. We have to look at ourselves. We, the American people, who were born to form a more perfect union, need to take a serious look at what we’ve become. A nation divided cannot stand.

    I’ll never vote for any of these Democrats; they’re all insane. But I can’t vote for any of these Republicans; they’re all surrender monkey butt gerbils. So, I’ll be voting straight Libertarian. That party may be full of kooks, but they’re not hypocrites or corrupt politicians.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  93. FLA and IL share the drunken primary this year.

    urbanleftbehind (9179dd)

  94. “Not climate change?” he moans. “It’s like the the house is on fire and all people care about is doing renovations.”

    It’s like you say the ship is slowly sinking and you propose to bail it out with a teaspoon. The aircraft carrier is heading on the wrong direction and you propose to alter its course by moving to one side.

    If it’s an emergency, then you’ve got to spread sulfur dioxide over the Arctic, and fertilize the Pacific Ocean with iron. Something that could actually have an effect. On the climate. As opposed to merely our standard of living.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  95. Gawain’s Ghost (b25cd1) — 2/3/2020 @ 6:32 pm

    Impeach Biden on day one, for what? And how? Under what scenario is it possible for a minority party to impeach a duly elected president? They wouldn’t have the votes.

    She;s talking about let;s say Biden gets elected, but the Republicans take control of the House.

    Actually she’s not talking anything realistic at all. She’a not even thinking about whether it is or not.

    More likely is Trump getting re-elected but the Democrats retain control of the House and gain control of the Senate.

    And what is it with this paranoia about Biden? He’s run for president twice before, and he didn’t win a single primary.

    That’s what Trump said when this first came up. That he didn’t think Biden would be the candidate. But everyone assumed Trump was just lying – just saying something.

    I think Biden has better chances than he did in 2008 because he was the Vice President. But e cold drop out before the Florida primary. He may run out of money.

    So what will it be, impeach Sanders, Warren, whatever Democrat wins?

    Joni Ernst is really just talking about Biden.

    Again, how? If a Democrat wins the White House, Democrats will probably win the House and the Senate. The butt gerbils would then be impotent and irrelevant.

    It’s somewhat possible maybe after the 2022 election, but to lose the House, the Democrat maybe would have to propose a very unpopular health care reform and threaten to or actually steamroller it through. We’ve seen this movie before.

    Let’s imagine that Trump wins re-election, by soliciting foreign interference yet again, but the Democrats gain seats in the House and take control of the Senate. What’s to stop them from impeaching him on day one? They’d have the majority in both chambers, and his removal would be all but assured.

    No it wouldn’t because you still need 67 Senators to do that. And the Republicans would probably still have 34 or more.

    But you only need 51 to make the rules for a trial.

    Then what, impeach the Vice-President and elevate the Speaker of the House?

    Jennifer Williams gave some still classified testimony about a phone call between Mike Pence and Volodomyr Zelensky – classified because it was a diplomatic communication and Trump isn’t declassifying things about this any more.

    I blame the Baby Boomers….The Greatest Generation didn’t do a very good job of raising them.

    So they weren’t so great. You just noticed this?

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  96. I said: Suppose a federal judge was found to have molested children a few years before he/she was nominated and confirmed.

    You said: Impeachable, as they are in office.

    They are in that office, from which they could be impeached.

    But then you said:

    Associate Justice Baracula Obama could NOT be impeached for conduct as POTUS.

    Suppose Associate Justice Obama was the judge who molested children before he was nominated and confirmed. And suppose he happened to be POTUS while doing it.

    Your answers appear to be contradictory.

    He’d be charged under criminal law.

    (Fact is, this is one for the Supremes.)

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  97. You all know my opinions fairly well. What would you do?

    Given that your vote might (at least conceivably) make some difference in the Dem primary, I would kind of lean toward that in your case.

    A NPA voter here in Cali, where the Dem primary is open to unaffiliated voters, I’ve started getting text messages from the Dem candidates, but so far only Bernie and Liz. :-(

    I’ve added Bloomberg to my list of possible choices (the others being Biden and Klobuchar). All of them, of course, are going to have positions I don’t like. Bloomberg is no exception, but he’s among the more moderate of the Dems, he’s a legit capitalist and businessman who didn’t inherit his wealth, and he might be better able than Biden or Klobuchar to take the fight to Agent Orange.

    Dave (1bb933)

  98. Lots of unpatriotic people here abusing a military Veteran.

    Hooey. She’s being criticized for her politics, not her military service.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  99. House Democrats refused to engage any accommodations for the subpoenas AND refused to litigate the subpoena in courts.

    Cippilone declared the impeachment inquiry invalid, falsely, then proceeded on a wall-to-wall stonewall.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  100. Kishnev, I’d pick option 3#, where your vote would be the most meaningful, picking either the least qualified (in your opinion) or most qualified, depending if you want a competitive race in the general or someone that Trump would roll over.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  101. What I want is a Democrat who is not enamored of socialism and who can beat Trump soundly in November. What I really want is a libertarian Republican, but we are forbidden to rely on miracles, so I will assume a libertarian Republican is not going to happen anytime soon.

    Kishnevi (5acb5b)

  102. Breaking just before the hour: The Iowa Democratic Party is not reporting any results so far, due to unspecified “quality control” problems. At this point 4 years ago, CBS’ Maojr Garrett says, they had about 2.e of the results in.

    Note: For the first time the Iowa Democratic Party is reporting three sets of results: the raw vote, delegate equivalents, and the vote after realignment. For the first time also, any person that is in a group considered viable cannot switch after the first round. If viability was not calculated correctly in some precincts, and people remained frozen after the first round who should not have been they could have a big problem. Even if they catch it after only about half an hour, at the conclusion of the realignment and calculations made, some people might have left who wouldn’t have otherwise, and their votes could be lost.

    Another note: In 2012 the Iowa Republican party announced the wrong winner. They said Romney, it was Santorum.

    In a entrance poll, four candidates, Biden, Buttigieg Sanders and Warren were rather closely matched.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  103. Amy sounded good. Joe sounded like he’s up past his bedtime.

    Nic (896fdf)

  104. The Iowa Democratic Party has issued another statement.

    It seems to be a reporting issue and there is no hack. hey have reslts that can be found out 3 ways. There are sme inconsistencies between te different results reported in somee precincts.

    The Iowa Dem Party provided two ways for a precinct to report its results: An app, and a “backup” telephone line. The app did not go down, says party HQ, but it seems like far fewer people used it than they anticipated. One place where NPR had someone working with the, reported its results by telephone. They first got put on hold with a recorded message but a live voice came on the phone after 35 minutes to take the results.

    They had seven delegate. The results were 3 for Amy Klobuchar, 2 for Joe Biden and 2 for Bernie Sanders. I guess in that place the Amy Klobuchar people managed to attract support from others who were actually higher in the polls.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  105. I see Bernie is doing a lot of demographic specific politics this evening. One wonders if his campaign noticed he was having some trouble with certain demographic groups.

    Nic (896fdf)

  106. Just unreal: Iowa implodes; the rubes in flyover country can’t count. Tuesday, prime time SOTU; Wednesday, acquittal and beating the rap[s].

    “Trump Luck” is in the air, kids. Buy that lottery ticket.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  107. Lizzie Warren, bit of a barn-burner this evening.

    Nic (896fdf)

  108. Pete always seems smug. Go get some accomplishments to be smug about Mayor Pete.

    Nic (896fdf)

  109. One of Trump’s paid liars took to Twitter to insult the Democrats:

    “Democrats are stewing in a caucus mess of their own creation with the sloppiest train wreck in history. It would be natural for people to doubt the fairness of the process. And these are the people who want to run our entire health care system? Tonight President Trump posted a record performance in the well-run GOP Iowa caucuses with record turnout for an incumbent.”

    Hey buddy, at least they’re in the right state…

    :)

    Dave (1bb933)

  110. Hard to mess it up when there’s really only one candidate. (or when that Candidate got crowned ahead of time because there’s no primary, only a coronation.)

    Nic (896fdf)

  111. In 1996 there was no democrat Iowa caucus. Zilch. In 2012, Obama got 98% of the vote. So yeah… Trump.

    I can only imagine the Seth Rich caliber conspiracy theories floated here with total seriousness if the 2016 republican caucus was botched this bad.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  112. And in 2004 there was no Republican caucus at all. Nada. King Bush Jr. LOL

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  113. I can only imagine the Seth Rich caliber conspiracy theories floated here with total seriousness if the 2016 republican caucus was botched this bad.

    Actually it was 2012 when the GOP announced the wrong winner in Iowa and had to correct it afterward…

    Dave (1bb933)

  114. Your meme for the evening

    (I made it myself!)

    :)

    Dave (1bb933)

  115. I’ll care how the Democrats run their elections if they produce a candidate that will beat Trump.

    nk (1d9030)

  116. This hyper-partisanship can’t go on. The people are being actively HERDED into two opposing camps, with the threat that the other camp might win being worse than death. And both sides are bugfukk crazy.

    We thought the dial was pegged at 11, but it’s now somewhere around 23. The good thing about stuff that can’t go on is they won’t, but the crash and burn is going to be awesome.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  117. @117 if you don’t want it to go on, you have to call it out, even on your own side. You can’t let the message be that it’s the Baby Killer Open Border Communists against the Forced Birther Racist Fascists. And you have to be willing to vote for a moderate person in the other party and not the crazy partisan in your own. (I say “you” in the general terms, not you in particular. I also say “you”, because I’ve already put my money where my mouth is.) If everyone is always “At least I got the judges I want so I’ll keep voting for the crazy.” there is no motivation for the party to run anyone who isn’t crazy.

    Nic (896fdf)


  118. Scott Stedman
    @ScottMStedman
    ·
    There are now reports that the app that caucus leaders are using to report Iowa results isn’t working. Nobody knows who owns the app and there were major security concerns: https://wsj.com/articles/dems-iowa-caucus-voting-app-stirs-security-concerns-11580063221…
    __ _

    Walker Bragman
    @WalkerBragman
    ·
    Not great optics here, folks:

    – Dems paid company literally called Shadow to create caucus app
    – Buttigieg campaign also paid Shadow, FEC records show
    – Caucus app fails
    – Buttigieg declares himself Iowa winner with no results
    __ _

    Orange Muppet Energy (Sunny)
    @sunnyright
    So the firm was paid $60,000.

    Founded by a former CBS journalist who covered Obama in 2008 only to work for his campaign in 2012.

    “The group has raised tens of millions of dollars with a buzzy message about how Democrats have fallen behind in digital advertising.”
    __ _

    Emily Zanotti
    @emzanotti
    ·
    How did you idiots manage to make Trump look like the smart one the same day he tweeted wrong information about a state he’s technically president of??

    _

    coulda sworn someone here was talking about this just recently…….
    _

    harkin (d6cfee)

  119. Not great optics here, folks:
    – Dems paid company literally called Shadow to create caucus app
    – Buttigieg campaign also paid Shadow, FEC records show
    – Caucus app fails
    – Buttigieg declares himself Iowa winner with no results

    I think you may have left out a step or two.

    Since the app failed, and they aren’t going to be using it for the results, how does what Buttigieg paid the software company, or his declaring himself the winner (which they all did…), make any difference?

    Also, if you were going to pay a software company to tamper with the vote-counting app, would you really report the expense to the FEC?

    You guys can do better than this, I know you can…

    Dave (1bb933)

  120. And you wonder why media pundits laugh at flyover country; the rubes can’t add. Safe bet most Iowans still can’t figure out how to stop their clocks from blinking– on their VCRs.

    Another banner day for “democracy” on display.

    …and Putin smiled.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  121. Democratic Party
    @DNC
    For three years, we’ve been preparing for the process that officially kicks off tonight in Iowa: the Democratic presidential primary. Today our chair, @TomPerez, reflects on the reforms we’ve made to make this the most transparent primary in our history:

    _

    By tomorrow they’ll be blaming Putin and shaming conservatives for ‘pouncing’.

    harkin (d6cfee)

  122. Make that tonight.

    harkin (d6cfee)

  123. I’m afraid we’ll have to wait for Kim Dotcom to tell us what really happened, on a special edition of Hannity

    Dave (1bb933)

  124. NBC News reported concerns about the caucus reporting app almost two weeks ago:

    Iowa caucus app sparks election security concerns

    An obvious red flag are the multiple occasions where the people in charge refuse to disclose who developed the app, and how or even whether it had been tested, “for security reasons”.

    “Security through obscurity” – working as well as it always does…

    Dave (1bb933)

  125. There are supposed to be paper results as well, they just have to get it together and put some people in place to receive them. Honest to goodness, you’d think they would have tested the thing.

    Nic (896fdf)

  126. Here’s an example of the paper results, as unofficially released on Twitter by Buttigieg’s campaign.

    See how many errors of consistency and/or arithmetic you can find on this one sheet.

    Bonus points for locating the sooper-seekret login PIN# for the precinct, printed openly on the worksheet (and now, thanks to Mayor Pete, published on Twitter)!

    Dave (1bb933)

  127. Dave @127

    See how many errors of consistency and/or arithmetic you can find on this one sheet.

    How does the total go up from 65? Are they not counting people not in a group?

    The second total seeems to be 69 corrected to 70 but the correction is not made everywhere. I can;t figure out now how the number 2.3188 is arrived at, but none of this seems to affect the bottom line: 2 delegates each for Biden and Warren and 4 for Buttigieg. Although I’m not sure that’s right.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  128. @ Dave, #127 and Sammy Finkelman, #128:

    2.3188 is what you get when you multiply 20 (final alignment voters) by 8 (delegates to be awarded), and then divide that result by 69 (total number of caucus attendees). That I understand. Although the number for Buttigieg should actually be 3.4783, because the person who filled out the sheet doesn’t know how to round.

    What I don’t understand is how the first-alignment numbers total 69, and the final alignment numbers for awarding of delegates total 70. The obvious answer is that one of the caucusers was either not counted in the first-alignment tally, or double-counted in the final-alignment tally. (Whether it was an accident, or deliberate on the organizers’ part, or deliberate on the part of the attendee, is a question on which I don’t have enough evidence to speculate.)

    The most glaring error is that by dividing 70 final-alignment caucusers by 69 first-alignment caucusers, the precinct ended up allocating a total of 8.1158 (and again, that should really be 8.1159) delegates out of a possible 8. That actually is a problem, because of what might happen to that eighth delegate — since none of the candidates actually rounds up.

    Since I don’t know the allocation rules in the event that no one rounds up, I’m just speculating here. But given the math as done by the precinct, the most obvious solution is to give it to Buttigieg, who is closest to rounding up at 3.4782 — leaving the count at Biden 2, Buttigieg 4, Warren 2. If one of the Biden or Warren supporters were double-counted, that math wouldn’t change for Buttigieg. But it might if one of his supporters were double-counted. That would leave him with 3.3623 delegates, which would still mean he was closest to rounding up, but would leave the others sitting on 2.3188 delegates each. So basically, everyone would have almost-equal claim to that third of a delegate. Maybe then that one goes through uncommitted?

    They could have saved themselves so much trouble by just not changing the rules this year. Now, in the parlance of your average Bostonian, they look wicked stupid.

    Demosthenes (7fae81)

  129. Adding to my above comment:

    This is actually kind of a shame, because the Iowa Democratic caucus snafu is now being used to attack the whole caucus system as a relic. Jeffrey Toobin on CNN is saying things like “Maybe the fiasco of the late reporting results from the Iowa caucus this year will have a positive legacy — the end of the caucus process and the invitation to another state to start the delegate selection process.” The problem is not the caucus system itself, or Iowa. The problem is that they adjusted the rules, and some people weren’t ready for the greater complication. This broken math would not have been (as) possible under 2016 rules.

    I love these local traditions, in all their outdatedness and outmodedness. They are a vital part of the American republic and our democratic tradition, partly because they make it less democratic in the nose-counting sense, and more republican in the community-history sense. And I don’t have a problem with the fact that not everyone can participate. Maybe the choice of our president is better left to those who are willing and able to carve a couple hours out of their evening, rather than those who can barely be bothered to spare five minutes for a voting booth.

    But probably what will happen is that by 2020, the Iowa caucus will be dead, replaced with a primary (after New Hampshire’s of course, because New Hampshire will pitch a fit if Iowa’s primary tries to jump them in the calendar). Some of the control will be taken out of the hands of ordinary citizens who care enough to shepherd the process, and turned over to the apparatus as ordained by state government. Everything will be more systematized and less colorful. And the streamliners will have erased an important local tradition from our national culture. Yay?

    Demosthenes (7fae81)

  130. Knowing the kind of people who have infiltrated IT, like they infiltrated the entertainment industry, it’s reasonable to suspect that the fix was put in for Buttigieg. ($60,000 or no $60,000.)

    nk (1d9030)

  131. And you wonder why media pundits laugh at flyover country; the rubes can’t add. Safe bet most Iowans still can’t figure out how to stop their clocks from blinking– on their VCRs.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

    Thank you for that bit of bigotry. I posit another theory: it’s the Democrats who are technically incompetent. They already have a history of incompetence in cybersecurity issues. https://www.govtech.com/security/DNC-Ignored-Cybersecurity-Advice-that-May-Have-Prevented-Recent-Breach.html Which of course happened in D.C., not flyover country last time I checked.

    And the DNC surely knows that Iowa is a big deal in national politics, and yet allowed this incompetence to happen.

    So the “rubes” are not those who live in Iowa, but Democrats.

    And we want them running the economy why exactly?

    Bored Lawyer (56c962)

  132. And remember the Obamacare kickoff SNAFU?

    nk (1d9030)

  133. So the “rubes” are not those who live in Iowa, but Democrats.

    Remind me which party was in charge of Florida in 2000.

    In this case, it’s a huge PR black eye to be sure, but to their credit, they had redundancies to ensure the integrity (if not the timeliness) of the final result.

    And we want them running the economy why exactly?

    I don’t really want anyone “running the economy”, but while we’re on the subject, why would we want someone “running the economy” who thought eliminating the $20T national debt in eight years without raising taxes or cutting entitlements was a perfectly reasonable goal?

    Dave (1bb933)

  134. Remind me which party was in charge of Florida in 2000.

    Kishnevi, please tell Dave which county, of all the Florida counties, had the hanging chads?

    nk (1d9030)

  135. Dave, we have “4,5,6%” growth to make that happen!

    Except it was all a giant bundle of boob-bait.

    I don’t want anyone from or near DC touching the economy.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  136. uttigieg declares himself Iowa winner with no results What he said on the CBS This Morning was that he results from 1200 precincts, where he had people. Of course, his percentage would be higher I such places, because his volunteers or paid staff would have brought/recruited some people to the caucus specifically to caucus for him, (as did other candidates where they made the effort) and also they would work hard when the time for re-alignment came to try to have the group not break apart and dissipate but stick together, and try to make sure when they fell below the minimum that their group became viable. But this would not be repeated throughout the state, so it doesn’t work as a survey of sample precincts. Those precincts are, by definition, not average or random.

    I don’t know what he said last night (probably it was not exactly a claim of victory, because that would not be plausible) but what he said on CBS This Morning is that they did very well. That’s how he put it.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  137. Knowing the kind of people who have infiltrated IT, like they infiltrated the entertainment industry, it’s reasonable to suspect that the fix was put in for Buttigieg. ($60,000 or no $60,000.)

    So that’s why they’ve been installing CPUs on the floor rather than on the desk at my office?

    urbanleftbehind (a3817b)

  138. @117 if you don’t want it to go on, you have to call it out, even on your own side. You can’t let the message be that it’s the Baby Killer Open Border Communists against the Forced Birther Racist Fascists. And you have to be willing to vote for a moderate person in the other party and not the crazy partisan in your own. (I say “you” in the general terms, not you in particular. I also say “you”, because I’ve already put my money where my mouth is.) If everyone is always “At least I got the judges I want so I’ll keep voting for the crazy.” there is no motivation for the party to run anyone who isn’t crazy.

    Nic (896fdf) — 2/3/2020 @ 10:31 pm

    Exactly. The GOP is actually responding to their fear of losing the support they need. But that fear is completely directed towards protecting the crazies.

    Dustin (d1c60a)

  139. What is a “Forced” Birther Racist Fascists? I understand the last 3 words but what is “Forced” about?

    frosty (f27e97)

  140. Demosthenes @12 and 130:

    2.3188 is what you get when you multiply 20 (final alignment voters) by 8 (delegates to be awarded), and then divide that result by 69 (total number of caucus attendees).

    Now that you’ve explained it, I would do it by taking the fraction 20/69, which is .2899 and then multiplying by the number of people who caucuses for that candidate, in this case 20, which gives you 2.318

    That I understand. Although the number for Buttigieg should actually be 3.4783, because the person who filled out the sheet doesn’t know how to round.

    Didn’t actually realize the number should be rounded, but truncated it instead.

    Of course, at four decimal places it is very unlikely to make a difference.

    What I don’t understand is how the first-alignment numbers total 69, and the final alignment numbers for awarding of delegates total 70.

    The number for Biden was corrected from 19 to 18. The first alignment totaled 69 (22 for Buttigieg, 18 for Biden, 13 for Warren, 6 for Sanders, 5 for Steyer, 3 for Klobuchar and 2 for Yang) because one person in the Biden group left it because he or she didn’t want to be frozen in and maybe wanted to have the option of helping some other candidate over the threshold or perhaps was hoping to be selected as a delegate to the next level. It could also be that the person giving the totals for the Biden group made a mistake, or someone was excused but remained in the count. (I think though that’s not supposed to happen until the conclusion of the first alignment. Maybe they thought he or she had left the caucus, but they didn’t.)

    Any person outside of a group (and Uncommitted can be a group) was not counted, and there was one.

    Of the 6 for Sanders, 5 for Steyer, 3 for Klobuchar, 2 for Yang and 1 undecided, 8 went to Buttigieg, 7 went to Warren, and 2 went to Biden, probably including the one who had earlier left.

    The 10.35 is the result of multiplying 69 by 15%.

    The form should not have been filled out so quickly, although they did need to calculate a preliminary number. 10.35 was rounded up to 11. It really should be 70 x 15% or 10.5. It’s always rounded up because a caucus group comprising less than 15% cannot elect any delegates even if falls just below 15%

    Whoever filled that form out was filling in and crossing out a number for the total number of caucus attendees. He or she should have used scrap paper and only filled that number in at the end. (or better yet had spare copies of the form, perhaps you could mark them void in advance)

    It looks like the number for total number of caucus attendees was corrected repeatedly and then at the end of the first round, 15% was calculated and filled in, but that was too soon. The person who filled it out also started to write down the last names of the candidates in the wrong column. Wrote Bennett and then Bi on the next line and then caught himself or herself. Probably thought at first that the first blank was for the first name and the second blank for the second name. So wrote Michael Bennett and Joe Bi– Then realized it was a mistake, probably at the point when he or she was going to check the total for Biden and realized there was no place left to put it in, and crossed out the Bennett and the Bi and squeezed in Bennett in the first blank after Michael. There was room enough for Biden after Joe.

    The remaining candidates, starting with Bloomberg, just had their last name filled in in the first blank space. They must have had an official list of candidates.

    Those who got nobody for them got a 0 in the second column, except for Bennett whom the organizer forgot to fill in because he’d already filled in and crossed out Bennett in that place, so to a casual eye, the form looked filled out completely. He probably entered the 0’s after he had filled in the number for those who had numbers.

    The obvious answer is that one of the caucusers was either not counted in the first-alignment tally,

    The Biden total went down from 19 to 18. It was 20 in the second alignment.

    The most glaring error is that by dividing 70 final-alignment caucusers by 69 first-alignment caucusers, the precinct ended up allocating a total of 8.1158 (and again, that should really be 8.1159) delegates out of a possible 8. That actually is a problem, because of what might happen to that eighth delegate — since none of the candidates actually rounds up.

    You can only assign whole numbers.

    Using 70 instead of the incorrect total of 69 makes it 2.2857 delegates for Biden and Warren, instead of 2.3188; and 3.4286 for Buttigieg instead of 3.4783. If Biden and Warren were one candidate, it probably would split 5 for that person to 3 for Buttigieg.

    But maybe the rules state that you stick with the total number in the first alignment. (but then is the missing person, who is there but doesn’t make a choice, included in the total for the first alignment?)

    So basically, everyone would have almost-equal claim to that third of a delegate. Maybe then that one goes through uncommitted?

    I would think somebody always gets the fractional delegate, and besides that “Uncommitted” is a group.

    They could have saved themselves so much trouble by just not changing the rules this year. Now, in the parlance of your average Bostonian, they look wicked stupid.

    The biggest change is that before they never had to calculate anything before the final alignment, and persons could leave a viable group, and they would go on until nobody wanted to switch any more, but now there is only one second alignment.

    But probably what will happen is that by 2020, the Iowa caucus will be dead, replaced with a primary

    I don’t think so, because they’d lose their first place in the nation status, which helps the local economy, and especially the people who would make the decision. Some people in Iowa don’t like this – they get television advertising and direct mail for a whole year before.

    I think the people running the system would like it to be more of a primary, (therefor the Republican Party straw poll, and the Democratic Party report of the first alignment, ability to leave if your candidate becomes viable, and limitation to a one-time second choice) but there’s only so lose they can get to a primary without losing their first in the nation status, given what the party rules (in both parties) have become.

    . Some of the control will be taken out of the hands of ordinary citizens

    If you can’t draft a candidate, it’s out of the control of ordinary citizens. At least we can be thankful for the ability of billionaires to jump in.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  141. @132. =yawn= The rubes can’t add.

    Deal with it.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  142. @140 “Forced Birther” = forcing women to carry a pregnancy to birth whether they want to or not.

    Nic (896fdf)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5545 secs.