What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

What witnesses should have been called and what would they have added?

[alfred russel]

What witnesses should have been called and what would they have added?

There is going to be a criminal trial, right? Do you think they will have witnesses there? Do you think it will be wrapped up in one week?

Is the additional congressional inquiry going to have witnesses?

Give me a break...you know the trial was cut way short because there are too many political pressures on the Senate (covid relief, confirmations) to make tolerable a long trial right now.

[Berkut]

It was cut short because the GOP made it clear, again, that no matter what witnesses were called and no matter what they said, or what documents were produced, the result would be them voting to acquit.

This isn't a criminal trial, it is a Senate "debate" and vote where a big chunk of those voting stated ahead of time they don't care what evidence is presented. Comparing it to a criminal trial with an impartial jury that needs to be convinced is rather laughable - indeed, the only reason I could imagine doing so is so you could then smugly declare how it is all fake news.

[alfred russel]

It was cut short because the GOP made it clear, again, that no matter what witnesses were called and no matter what they said, or what documents were produced, the result would be them voting to acquit.

This isn't a criminal trial, it is a Senate "debate" and vote where a big chunk of those voting stated ahead of time they don't care what evidence is presented. Comparing it to a criminal trial with an impartial jury that needs to be convinced is rather laughable - indeed, the only reason I could imagine doing so is so you could then smugly declare how it is all fake news.

Seriously, there have been 4 senate trials of presidents in history, and only in the case of Andrew Johnson was the outcome in doubt before the trial began. Before this trial started, enough republicans voted that the trial was unconstitutional that it was impossible to get a conviction.

The trial was to determine if Trump was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Under the constitution it is actually considered a trial and not a debate.

I don't get your need to have the trial--and was absolutely a trial--on a super expedited basis at a time there is a lot of pressing business for the senate, only to then hold a more extensive inquiry later. It was one of the worst options of those available.

[The Brain]

With democracy in the US failing holding the trial before the next coup happens made sense.

[Oexmelin]

In show trials the verdict is pre-determined and the trial makes no impact. It's for communicating outside of the court. That feels like what happened here and it was important that it did happen. But it was never going to produce another result.

I strongly disagree, and find myself agreeing a lot with AR here. (though not because I had placed bets on the outcome) If the only possible result is the verdict, then yes. Justice requires indeterminacy. But that's such a narrow view when it comes to corruption and political matters. If this was a show trial, it was a very poor show.

Corruption is one of the hardest thing to investigate and judge through the ordinary means of justice. If the appropriate judgement of corruption is political, it requires a whole lot of pedagogy to be effective. By expediting the trial, the Democrats just botched the whole thing, and deprived themselves of the resources of explaining why exactly the Trump administration was corrupt and dangerous. Yes, it was one of the things that is "self-evident" to many non-Trumpist, but there is immense value for democracy in rehashing these reasons, and indexing the principles to the mundane matters of how a government is run. So much of Trump's power stemmed from just how opaque, and divorced from principle is can be. Rushing through the whole thing will not have disturbed this impression.

It's only a waste of time if politics is only defined by outcome. Cleaning the rot at the heart of the republic will require more than outcome driven process; something easy to miss if anything else is seen as posturing. I think there is a need for pedagogy - which I think people like Katie Porter, or AOC have only begun to understand.

[Eddie Teach]

Even if Mitch & Republicans bear moral responsibility for obstruction, one can still criticize Democratic leadership for being "outplayed" based on results. AR's belief that holding the trial was a tactical mistake doesn't absolve the GOP of anything.

[Valmy]

There was no compelling reason to hold the trial now except Valmy's argument "to rip the bandaid" and get this behind us asap. Well guess what? That didn't happen because the trial was not thorough and now there is going to a deeper congressional inquiry. That didn't need to be the case if the trial was held a few months from now.

Well there is the political advantages to have it while it is still fresh in the news.

But generally I am getting very anxious the Democrats are blowing their chance here. I would be much more comfortable with us getting our confirmations and legislative agenda done as soon as humanly possible, preferably while ignoring the Republicans entirely. Quickly get done everything we can and then double back and work on the hard things, including a big trial for the former President.

Instead we are month in and still no stimulus checks despite promising to deliver these one week 1. I am getting nervous about 2022, we seem on the way of handing power back to Trump's supporters. That needs to be priority #1, showing good results with big successes to point to. Pointing to where the Republicans foiled our plans doesn't do anything for us.

[Valmy]

Just to re-state we just barely won Georgia on the back of a promise of stimulus checks in the first week. We have broken our promise and thus are the biggest friend Donald Trump and his Republican allies have. If you want to hurt Donald Trump and our political enemies you do that by delivering on your promises to the people, not fucking around doing lost causes.

And let me remind you this was no implied promise, Joe Biden went down to Georgia in person and made this promise. His failure either means he is a liar or a failure. Not a great look.

But hey still a few months to go, so still time to get done what we need to get done before the summer but I am very nervous so far.

[Berkut]

Even if Mitch & Republicans bear moral responsibility for obstruction, one can still criticize Democratic leadership for being "outplayed" based on results. AR's belief that holding the trial was a tactical mistake doesn't absolve the GOP of anything.

Only if you assume the being "outplayed" means "Not going along with GOP demands to back burner the impeachment trial".

AR's belief that this was a mistake is based on his desire to find a reason to blame the Dems for what the GOP is doing. Had they not held the trial, and the nominations would have gone through, but the POTUS would basically have been exonerated politically for insurrection, then he would be sitting here telling us how Schumer, if he is smart, will go along with the next thing that McConnell demands.

Schumer is a fool if he ever agrees to anything McConnell demands, because there is no compromise with him. He will only take whatever you offer on your end of the "compromise", then immediately ignore whatever he promised the instant it becomes expedient to do so. The only way to beat McConnell at McConnell games is to refuse any accommodation other than what can be immediately enforced in the particular moment. His word is garbage.

And telling the American people that the President's attempt to murder members of Congress can wait a few months to be acted upon is fucking stupid. It absolutely drains the "trial" of any political weight it could have, and since the outcome was already stated by the GOP to be acquittal no matter what, getting them to have to pay whatever political cost there was to pay was worth the price.

[alfred russel]

(though not because I had placed bets on the outcome)

What I find absolutely fascinating is the fierce partisanship of Berkut on this, just assuming any criticism of the democratic leadership is endorsement of McConnell, to the extent his is saying I deserve a brown star for my shirt, which I guess is a Nazi allusion?

It was very early in the Biden administration and I wanted to participate in a betting market on cabinet approvals--so I researched the rules and scenarios rather obsessively. I have bet ~$26k on the cabinet outcomes--most of the bets were relatively low risk: like Vilsack would be the sworn in Secretary of Agriculture on 3/1 at the end of the day. On most bets I risked the max amount of $850 to make $75 or so.

The risk seemed to be that if Schumer through some combination held a trial in February, took a one week recess, and had covid relief come up a couple times, there would be no time left for confirmations. My calculation at the time was the obvious priorities of the country would be 1) covid relief, 2) confirmations, 3) the trial (which was not pressing) and the trial would be pushed off. When they announced going with a one week trial in February, that didn't make sense to me, and I posted that here. I obviously bet money, but my issue was that I don't think Schumer is acting as an effective leader.

I think I'm being even handed about this - I'm getting bailed out massively by the nominations getting approved today - but I would not criticize Schumer for putting them off had covid relief come back to the Senate (as it was originally scheduled to this week) - obviously that is a higher priority than the UN Ambassador and Secretary of Agriculture.

The intensity of the partisanship to just assume that any criticism of someone on team democrat is an endorsement of team republican must be corrosive.

[Zoupa]

Dude, piece of advice: nobody gives a shit about your bets. Kindly shut the fuck up about it.

Thanks.

[Grey Fox]

I care. It is quite entertaining.

[Zoupa]

Il est épuisant avec ses histoires. On s'en calisse!

[DGuller]

Dude, piece of advice: nobody gives a shit about your bets. Kindly shut the fuck up about it.

Thanks.

I imagine if no one truly cared about AR's bets, then no one here would be endlessly blabbing on about "you're just saying that because you made a bad bet".  To Berkut's credit, though, he didn't blab on about AR's bets, he just invented a differently reality altogether to justify his abusive behavior.