Languish.org

I was almost alone in arguing that the trial should not have been held in February 2021 before the covid relief bill passed or before key members of the Biden cabinet were confirmed because in part the trial would have to be rushed - during the length of the trial other senate business would be delayed. I was assured that wouldn't happen but then house managers wanted to present witnesses and democratic senators got them to back down, and then the Jan. 6 commission has come up with a bunch of compelling stuff so I dunno.

Seems like we are spending a lot of time investigating a crime after the primary suspect was acquitted which seems like either a waste of time or that the trial was held before all the relevant facts were brought to light.

Null vote.

There was sufficient evidence before the Senate.  The fact that the Senate did not, would never, vote to remove Trump was a known fact.

While there was sufficient evidence known immediately after Jan 6, the Jan 6 commission has done nteresting work to fill out a lot more details.  They have increased all of the details about Jan 6 which has made it worthwhile (and may result in criminal charges against Trump or his associates).

That's a pretty poorly worded poll. Null vote.

You forgot to include an option which is correct

This seems only tangentially related to 9/11.

Neither option is accurate in any meaningful sense. I don't know a single person who thought the Senate trial would result in a conviction--nor could it ever result in a conviction. The decision to hold the trial or not has nothing to do with the decision to further investigate Trump, no amount of investigation would ever have resulted in a conviction--even if the trial uncovered a video of Trump on the phone ordering January 6th rioters to kill congress people.

There is an argument that the Senate trial was meaningless and pointless, but that is entirely unrelated to the January 6th committee. The Senate trial's meaningfulness would not be altered at all by waiting. If the Senate trial can be said to have served any purpose, it was that it forced Republicans to reveal they do not care about the rule of law, and never will care about the rule of law. It is debatable if that justified holding the trial, I personally don't think the Senate trial made much of a meaningful difference in society either way.

The committee format was the only meaningful way to actually investigate January 6th to begin with, and that needed to happen regardless of whether or not the Senate put Trump on trial for 1/6.

Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2022, 12:36:56 PMThe fact that the Senate did not, would never, vote to remove Trump was a known fact.

That is revisionist history. Yes it was always unlikely, but I looked up the wagering markets and on January 19 the odds of conviction were at 28%.

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7054/How-many-Senators-will-vote-to-convict-Donald-Trump-on-incitement-by-Apr-29

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 19, 2022, 01:14:38 PMNeither option is accurate in any meaningful sense. I don't know a single person who thought the Senate trial would result in a conviction--nor could it ever result in a conviction. The decision to hold the trial or not has nothing to do with the decision to further investigate Trump, no amount of investigation would ever have resulted in a conviction--even if the trial uncovered a video of Trump on the phone ordering January 6th rioters to kill congress people.

There is an argument that the Senate trial was meaningless and pointless, but that is entirely unrelated to the January 6th committee. The Senate trial's meaningfulness would not be altered at all by waiting. If the Senate trial can be said to have served any purpose, it was that it forced Republicans to reveal they do not care about the rule of law, and never will care about the rule of law. It is debatable if that justified holding the trial, I personally don't think the Senate trial made much of a meaningful difference in society either way.

The committee format was the only meaningful way to actually investigate January 6th to begin with, and that needed to happen regardless of whether or not the Senate put Trump on trial for 1/6.

The main reason for not holding the trial in February was that whatever the purpose of the trial, it would not be served in holding a trial in an extremely rushed manner and it certainly was bad optics to do so before covid relief or getting key cabinet officials in place.

If you wanted to hold republican senators accountable for voting not to convict someone obviously guilty, you could have done that a lot better with the witnesses the house managers were planning to call up vs. cutting the trial short so the new administration could be put in place.

Quote from: alfred russel on October 19, 2022, 01:22:04 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2022, 12:36:56 PMThe fact that the Senate did not, would never, vote to remove Trump was a known fact.

That is revisionist history. Yes it was always unlikely, but I looked up the wagering markets and on January 19 the odds of conviction were at 28%.

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7054/How-many-Senators-will-vote-to-convict-Donald-Trump-on-incitement-by-Apr-29

The wagering markets are not evidence of anything, particularly ones like PI where you can resale your position, they just mean some people thought they could make money flipping one side of the question.

Quote from: alfred russel on October 19, 2022, 01:26:30 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 19, 2022, 01:14:38 PMNeither option is accurate in any meaningful sense. I don't know a single person who thought the Senate trial would result in a conviction--nor could it ever result in a conviction. The decision to hold the trial or not has nothing to do with the decision to further investigate Trump, no amount of investigation would ever have resulted in a conviction--even if the trial uncovered a video of Trump on the phone ordering January 6th rioters to kill congress people.

There is an argument that the Senate trial was meaningless and pointless, but that is entirely unrelated to the January 6th committee. The Senate trial's meaningfulness would not be altered at all by waiting. If the Senate trial can be said to have served any purpose, it was that it forced Republicans to reveal they do not care about the rule of law, and never will care about the rule of law. It is debatable if that justified holding the trial, I personally don't think the Senate trial made much of a meaningful difference in society either way.

The committee format was the only meaningful way to actually investigate January 6th to begin with, and that needed to happen regardless of whether or not the Senate put Trump on trial for 1/6.

The main reason for not holding the trial in February was that whatever the purpose of the trial, it would not be served in holding a trial in an extremely rushed manner and it certainly was bad optics to do so before covid relief or getting key cabinet officials in place.

If you wanted to hold republican senators accountable for voting not to convict someone obviously guilty, you could have done that a lot better with the witnesses the house managers were planning to call up vs. cutting the trial short so the new administration could be put in place.

I disagree that "not rushing it" or "building a better case" (two things which were irrelevant to the trial) would have changed anything whatsoever, and thus the idea that it matters that it was held when it does is not accurate in my mind. There is an argument to be made holding an impeachment trial at all was pointless for an ex-President, there is no real argument that holding it in February of 2021 was bad and holding it in October of 2022 would be better.

No, you don't get no credit for the only instance, in this pandemic era, where you showed patience. No.

Quote from: alfred russel on October 19, 2022, 01:26:30 PMThe main reason for not holding the trial in February was that whatever the purpose of the trial, it would not be served in holding a trial in an extremely rushed manner and it certainly was bad optics to do so before covid relief or getting key cabinet officials in place.

If you wanted to hold republican senators accountable for voting not to convict someone obviously guilty, you could have done that a lot better with the witnesses the house managers were planning to call up vs. cutting the trial short so the new administration could be put in place.

I'm sorry I think history has born out the importance of a quick trial.

In February 2021 you had Republicans vote against removal, but they were at least sheepish and still denounced Jan 6 itself.

If you were to hold a vote on barring Trump from office Summer 2022 half the Republican senators would be lauding the rioters as freedom fighters.

What Biscuit said.

Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2022, 01:29:51 PMI'm sorry I think history has born out the importance of a quick trial.

In February 2021 you had Republicans vote against removal, but they were at least sheepish and still denounced Jan 6 itself.

If you were to hold a vote on barring Trump from office Summer 2022 half the Republican senators would be lauding the rioters as freedom fighters.

Yeah I agree 100%. If there was any shot at convicting Donald it needed to be done ASAP while the terror of the Jan 6 attack was still fresh. The longer time passed it would be less likely. Hell when the Republicans get back into power again they might build a commemorative statue celebrating Jan 6th.

Now granted maybe that wasn't as obvious in February 2021 as it is now, but I do think doing it ASAP makes sense in retrospect.

Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2022, 01:29:51 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on October 19, 2022, 01:26:30 PMThe main reason for not holding the trial in February was that whatever the purpose of the trial, it would not be served in holding a trial in an extremely rushed manner and it certainly was bad optics to do so before covid relief or getting key cabinet officials in place.

If you wanted to hold republican senators accountable for voting not to convict someone obviously guilty, you could have done that a lot better with the witnesses the house managers were planning to call up vs. cutting the trial short so the new administration could be put in place.

I'm sorry I think history has born out the importance of a quick trial.

In February 2021 you had Republicans vote against removal, but they were at least sheepish and still denounced Jan 6 itself.

If you were to hold a vote on barring Trump from office Summer 2022 half the Republican senators would be lauding the rioters as freedom fighters.

This is an angle I did not consider and I think Beeb is right--if anything if you were going to hold a trial, it actually was probably best to hold it when they did. It was fairly predictable that just like the right wing infosphere coalesced to defend things like Trump's praise of white supremacists after the Charlottesville murder, the Access Hollywood tape etc, that given a few months time they would successfully recast the 1/6 riot as either a positive thing or "exaggerated, and not a big deal compared to the Black lives matter people burning shops down." If there was any time to strike it was likely back when they did.

My personal belief is the idea of an impeachment trial of an already out of office President probably didn't make a ton of sense, and whatever good it could do could (and is) being done by the committee process. But if you hold that a trial should have happened, earlier was probably better.

Wait is this still AR grinding the axe because the impeachment trial lost him some bet back in early 2021?

Give it up already.

Basically with OvB - I don't think there was ever a realistic chance of winning the vote. The best chance and I think the most politically advantageous moment was when feeling were high, which was immediately after the attempted storming.

I think people are forgetting the critical downside of holding the trial - it let McConnell delay confirming the Second Assistant to the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture (Acting).

Imagine how much better off we would all be if only they had been confirmed!

We should have just done as Mitch demanded, obviously.

Yeah, Mitch McConnell obviously has a pretty good idea of what the Democratic Party should do.

Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2022, 01:52:29 PMI think people are forgetting the critical downside of holding the trial - it let McConnell delay confirming the Second Assistant to the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture (Acting).

Imagine how much better off we would all be if only they had been confirmed!

We should have just done as Mitch demanded, obviously.

The trial was held before positions like Attorney General were filled. I don't think hearings on Attorney General were even held before the trial. The actual Secretary of Agriculture was not confirmed until after the trial.

It is also worth remembering that you are a liar in this argument. For years you have been maintaining that I was somehow putting forward Mitch McConnell's position. I am not, nor have i been. His position was that the senate trial was illegitimate under the constitution and should not have been held at any point. My perspective was it was more important to get through covid relief, and confirm key cabinet members. Holding the trial in February meant it would be impossibly rushed, which it was.

Faulty poll, so null vote from me.

Quote from: alfred russel on October 19, 2022, 02:32:19 PM

Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2022, 01:52:29 PMI think people are forgetting the critical downside of holding the trial - it let McConnell delay confirming the Second Assistant to the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture (Acting).

Imagine how much better off we would all be if only they had been confirmed!

We should have just done as Mitch demanded, obviously.

The trial was held before positions like Attorney General were filled. I don't think hearings on Attorney General were even held before the trial. The actual Secretary of Agriculture was not confirmed until after the trial.

It is also worth remembering that you are a liar in this argument. For years you have been maintaining that I was somehow putting forward Mitch McConnell's position. I am not, nor have i been. His position was that the senate trial was illegitimate under the constitution and should not have been held at any point. My perspective was it was more important to get through covid relief, and confirm key cabinet members. Holding the trial in February meant it would be impossibly rushed, which it was.

I am just pointing out what a disaster it was that those positions were not filled, and how terrible the country became as a result of us not all listening to you and Mitch and delaying the trial until it could be safely delayed forever.

And I am not a liar, I am pointing out that you were carrying water for Moscow Mitch, which you were. You both agreed that the trial should not happen, and that if the Dems pushed it, then it was fine for McConnell to delay other business in retaliation.

I am quite confident we all know exactly what your position was, and that I have completely and entirely accurately reflected it - even you know that, all your faux protestations to the contrary.

Quote from: Jacob on October 19, 2022, 02:15:52 PMYeah, Mitch McConnell obviously has a pretty good idea of what the Democratic Party should do.

Indeed. If only we had listened to Moscow Mitch and AR, imagine how much better things would be now!

Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2022, 02:39:12 PMAnd I am not a liar, I am pointing out that you were carrying water for Moscow Mitch, which you were. You both agreed that the trial should not happen, and that if the Dems pushed it, then it was fine for McConnell to delay other business in retaliation.

I did not argue that the trial should not happen. That was McConnell's position.

The Senate wasn't going to be concurrently working on covid relief or cabinet confirmations during the impeachment trial. Maybe it should have been but the fact it wasn't was abundantly clear Democratic leadership well in advance.

QuoteI am quite confident we all know exactly what your position was, and that I have completely and entirely accurately reflected it - even you know that, all your faux protestations to the contrary.

What exactly was my position? You really think that I really have the position like mcconnell that the trial was unconstitutional but in some ploy to convince others of that argued that the trial should be delayed on senate procedural grounds?

Quote from: alfred russel on October 19, 2022, 02:51:19 PM

Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2022, 02:39:12 PMAnd I am not a liar, I am pointing out that you were carrying water for Moscow Mitch, which you were. You both agreed that the trial should not happen, and that if the Dems pushed it, then it was fine for McConnell to delay other business in retaliation.

I did not argue that the trial should not happen. That was McConnell's position.

The Senate wasn't going to be concurrently working on covid relief or cabinet confirmations during the impeachment trial. Maybe it should have been but the fact it wasn't was abundantly clear Democratic leadership well in advance.

QuoteI am quite confident we all know exactly what your position was, and that I have completely and entirely accurately reflected it - even you know that, all your faux protestations to the contrary.

What exactly was my position? You really think that I really have the position like mcconnell that the trial was unconstitutional but in some ploy to convince others of that argued that the trial should be delayed on senate procedural grounds?

McConnells position was that the trial should not happen. That was your position as well.

The *reason* McConnell held that position was that it would damage the GOP. We know, and you know, it had nothing to do with anything other then that.

You held the position that the trial should not happen. The same position McConnell held.

The Senate can certainly walk and chew gum at the same time, but not if the minority leader is refusing to do so.

The Dems were certainly aware that you and McConnell were willing and capable of holding other business hostage to their demand that Trump not be held accountable. 

It would have been foolish for them to bow to the minority leaders blackmail.

You agree with McConnell that the trial should not happen - there is no "delay". If it did not happen then, it would not happen later, as was noted at the time.

That was your position then, and appears to be your position now. The amusing part is how surprised you are that even in hindsight it is obvious to everyone *else* how transparently bullshit that position was, and what a terrible idea letting Mitch McConnell tell the majority how to run the Senate would have been - you seem to genuinely believe that in hindsight people would agree that if only we had not had a second senate trial, why, things would have been ever so much better with Mitch calling the shots from the minority position.

My answer to the dishonest poll:

• QuoteThe rushed 2nd trump senate trial in Feb. 2021 should have been delayed to allow relevant evidence and testimony against Trump to be presented

The trial was not rushed, as there was more then enough evidence to convict Trump had anyone honestly and with good faith evaluated that evidence.

• Quote The Jan. 6 commission has failed to uncover any relevant evidence against Trump and his complicity in 1/6

The Jan 6th commission has uncovered lots of relevant evidence, but none of it changes what we already knew. Given that there are many legal measures that could be taken against Trump and his cronies, the investigation has value regardless of the failure of the GOP to hold Trump accountable. 

Further, give that there is also a potential political consequence to those additional details, the investigation is valuable in informing the public about those details.

We knew who flew the planes into the buildings on 9/11 rather quickly. We didn't need to wait for the investigation to be completed before taking action on what we did know, even while it was useful to learn more about the specifics of what happened.

Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2022, 03:16:08 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on October 19, 2022, 02:51:19 PM

Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2022, 02:39:12 PMAnd I am not a liar, I am pointing out that you were carrying water for Moscow Mitch, which you were. You both agreed that the trial should not happen, and that if the Dems pushed it, then it was fine for McConnell to delay other business in retaliation.

I did not argue that the trial should not happen. That was McConnell's position.

The Senate wasn't going to be concurrently working on covid relief or cabinet confirmations during the impeachment trial. Maybe it should have been but the fact it wasn't was abundantly clear Democratic leadership well in advance.

QuoteI am quite confident we all know exactly what your position was, and that I have completely and entirely accurately reflected it - even you know that, all your faux protestations to the contrary.

What exactly was my position? You really think that I really have the position like mcconnell that the trial was unconstitutional but in some ploy to convince others of that argued that the trial should be delayed on senate procedural grounds?

McConnells position was that the trial should not happen. That was your position as well.

The *reason* McConnell held that position was that it would damage the GOP. We know, and you know, it had nothing to do with anything other then that.

You held the position that the trial should not happen. The same position McConnell held.

The Senate can certainly walk and chew gum at the same time, but not if the minority leader is refusing to do so.

The Dems were certainly aware that you and McConnell were willing and capable of holding other business hostage to their demand that Trump not be held accountable.

It would have been foolish for them to bow to the minority leaders blackmail.

You agree with McConnell that the trial should not happen - there is no "delay". If it did not happen then, it would not happen later, as was noted at the time.

That was your position then, and appears to be your position now. The amusing part is how surprised you are that even in hindsight it is obvious to everyone *else* how transparently bullshit that position was, and what a terrible idea letting Mitch McConnell tell the majority how to run the Senate would have been - you seem to genuinely believe that in hindsight people would agree that if only we had not had a second senate trial, why, things would have been ever so much better with Mitch calling the shots from the minority position.

There is so much bullshit in this. I did not think the trial should happen in February, and I gave the date of May as a good timeframe. Trump was out of office; it simply didn't matter when the trial was held.

McConnell did not think it ever should happen.

Also, the Senate can not walk and chew gum at the same time if a significant portion of membership disagrees. It isn't just the minority leader but any block of senators. If there isn't unanimous consent for a senate action, it gets drawn out for a few hours of debate on the floor, which considering the volume of things that need to be done to progress a single nomination it is impossible to get any block of major work done quickly with serious obstructionism. And that was guaranteed while the Trump trial was ongoing considering the senate minority leader declared the entire proceeding to be unconstitutional.

Anyone with a basic understanding of how the senate works knew this which is why I thought that given competing priorities of 1) confirming the cabinet, 2) covid relief, 3) an impeachment trial that #3 would and should be delayed for a few months. Instead they tried to run the trial first and ultimately after a couple weeks democratic senators were pressuring the house impeachment managers to cut short their case and skip introducing any witnesses (which some Republican senators were gleefully saying would shut down biden's agenda through March).

We understand. You think the Dems should have rolled over to Mitch's blackmail. It's not complicated.

There was no way there was going to be a trial in May, or June, or September. Mitch knew that, you knew that, you know it now.

There is no practical difference between "Lets have the trial later!" and "Lets not have a trial".

Noting that the Senate could not walk and chew gum at the same time if a significant portion refuses to do so is admitting that in fact it can do so if that portion does not refuse to do so. Thanks for, again, conceding my point.

Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2022, 05:35:20 PMWe understand. You think the Dems should have rolled over to Mitch's blackmail. It's not complicated.

And they ultimately did. No witnesses, and an accelerated trial. Because the alternative was not having a cabinet in place or covid passed until April.

QuoteThere was no way there was going to be a trial in May, or June, or September. Mitch knew that, you knew that, you know it now.

There is no practical difference between "Lets have the trial later!" and "Lets not have a trial".

I do not know that. It doesn't make any sense to me why the trial of an out of office person needed to be held during the most important period of a new administration.

QuoteNoting that the Senate could not walk and chew gum at the same time if a significant portion refuses to do so is admitting that in fact it can do so if that portion does not refuse to do so. Thanks for, again, conceding my point.

If your point is that a portion of republicans would be uncooperative during the impeachment trial, I never contested that and it is self evident and obvious.

Point of order--cabinet officials being sworn is in largely unimportant in terms of anything real or meaningful.

Disagree with both options.

The 2nd impeachment should not have been delayed. There was more than enough for any reasonable person to convict. That GOP senators are simply not reasonable and would not convict no matter what.

The Jan. 6 commission has uncovered lots of relevant evidence against Trump and his complicity in 1/6

Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2022, 01:29:51 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on October 19, 2022, 01:26:30 PMThe main reason for not holding the trial in February was that whatever the purpose of the trial, it would not be served in holding a trial in an extremely rushed manner and it certainly was bad optics to do so before covid relief or getting key cabinet officials in place.

If you wanted to hold republican senators accountable for voting not to convict someone obviously guilty, you could have done that a lot better with the witnesses the house managers were planning to call up vs. cutting the trial short so the new administration could be put in place.

I'm sorry I think history has born out the importance of a quick trial.

In February 2021 you had Republicans vote against removal, but they were at least sheepish and still denounced Jan 6 itself.

If you were to hold a vote on barring Trump from office Summer 2022 half the Republican senators would be lauding the rioters as freedom fighters.

Agreed. Schummer should have literally held the trial the next day while the GOP senators were still shook up. If he had, they would have probably gotten a few more votes.

Well, so far the poll, as far as I can tell, is 100% rejecting of the Mitch/AR narrative.

Hardly surprising.

And hardly surprising that his response is to double down on how they definitely should have done as Moscow Mitch told them to....

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 20, 2022, 03:10:31 AMAgreed. Schummer should have literally held the trial the next day while the GOP senators were still shook up. If he had, they would have probably gotten a few more votes.

You are a dumbass. Schumer wasn't majority leader then, McConnell was, and regardless, the house hadn't put through impeachment.

I am sure McConnel would have just done whatever the minority leader told him. I've been told that is how it works.

Berkut, because you don't seem to understand how this works. This is just an example of what happened.

Gina Raimondo was nominated to be Commerce Secretary. Hearings were held by the commerce committee of the senate on February 3. The vote was 21-3..she had majority republican support. She was also governor of Rhode Island. An full senate confirmation vote was scheduled a few days later.

Just before the vote, Ted Cruz put a hold on her nomination because of some stupid China thing. So to break the hold, the Senate had to convene and vote to begin debate on her nomination. But before that there had to be a period of floor time to debate the hold. So to debate the hold, vote to break the hold, debate the nomination, and then vote to nominate would take almost a day of senate floor time. There were only 15 days of senate floor time for all of February and 10 of those were for impeachment trial. Covid relief took up several of the rest. Because a senator from Rhode Island was screaming about delays leaving Rhode Island with a lame duck governor, she got moved to the front of the list and was confirmed on March 1 by a vote of 84-15. The attorney general didn't get confirmed until March 11.

In the end she was approved 84-15 on March 1.

Does it matter that there wasn't a commerce secretary until March 1 or that Rhode Island had a lame duck governor? Not in the grand scheme of things, but it also doesn't matter that trump wasn't convicted in a short trial in February vs. not convicted in a more thorough trial in March.

The problem there is not the timely impeachment of criminal President.

The problem is:
(1) the asinine rule that permits a single Senator to place a hold and bring business on a matter to a screeching halt.
(2) some voters in Texas had the idiotic idea of making Ted Cruz a Senator

As I said it seemed like a good idea at the time. His opponent, David Dewhurst, was a notoriously corrupt politician. As it turns out we probably should have just elected the corrupt guy. Another example of selecting the unknown outsider blowing up in your face.

As for why he was selected a second time, well he has a R by his name. I don't know if he had any serious challenge in the 2018 Primary. I guess we will see if any Republicans want to challenge him in 2024, but if there are I suspect they will not be better than Cruz  :(

Quote from: alfred russel on October 20, 2022, 10:47:55 AMDoes it matter that there wasn't a commerce secretary until March 1 or that Rhode Island had a lame duck governor? Not in the grand scheme of things, but it also doesn't matter that trump wasn't convicted in a short trial in February vs. not convicted in a more thorough trial in March.

I think it very much mattered that the GOP be forced to support Trump and refuse to convict him versus Mitch and you allowing them to avoid having to do so, knowing perfectly well that there would be no trial in March if everyone agreed that Mitch McConnell should get to direct the Senate from is minority position and "delay" the trial in January.

You don't seem to get how this works. You don't let the opposition, minority party dictate the Senate schedule in order to protect their political party from themselves and their corrupt President.

The idea that there is fucking ANYTHING the Senate could be doing that is more important then addressing the fact that the President tried to enact a fucking coup is just hilarious. And the idea that the threat of not getting a cabinet position through should be enough to allow the President a pass on trying to overthrow the government should have convinced the Democrats to let Mitch tell them what they can and cannot do is not ignorant - it cannot possibly be the case that anyone could be that obtuse. So it has to be something else. 

You seem to think that just because the GOP can gum up the works, then the Dems should just bend over and let them dictate the schedule. You might as well say that since the GOP can make sure Trump is not convicted, they should not have a trial. Yes, we know that they won't convict. And yes, we know that Mitch and Ted will try to gum up the works. So what? That is part of the process. And the idea that any of the negatives you keep harping about actually mattered compared to the President trying overthrow and election is just preposterous. I don't fucking care if the Senate accomplished NOTHING during that month if that is what it took to hold the President and the GOP accountable.

But of course the reality is that absent Mitch and Ted throwing in bullshit to gum up the works, they could have had the trial AND still gotten things done that needed to get done. Of course, if the GOP were the kind of people to govern in good faith, it probably would have never gotten as fucked up as it did to begin with, but whatever.

You believe that the response to them not governing in good faith ought to be the Dems surrendering to their blackmail. I think that would be a very bad idea. 

I'm really fascinated by what you think my thought process is Berkut...

I think I've been fairly clear that I think Trump is the most corrupt and useless person to ever hold the office. Do you think I am saying that just to get an in with you guys who hate Trump, and I want to convince you to really love Trump? And to do that, I'm focused on arguing that Schumer should have delayed the Senate trial of Trump until after Biden's cabinet was more in place and covid relief was passed? Because if those arguments are accepted, I will have convinced you to agree with McConnell, who was actually arguing that the whole trial was unconstitutional, but that is close enough because in spirit being against the trial being held if February is similar.

And then if I've convinced you that McConnell was right about something, you will think, "he is probably right about everything", and by extension, "republicans are right about everything" and by extension "trump was a great president" and then you will join MAGA nation?

Honestly this smacks of something where AR found a position a lot of people disagrees with, and he just wants to argue about it. None of his arguments have had much merit. A valid position would be to argue for not doing the impeachment trial at all, but the argument that doing it in February was a disaster is just really dumb.

Even bringing up delayed cabinet appointments is also very dumb. They don't really matter. Outside of the big four (AG, SecTreas, SecDef, SecState), the rest of the cabinet are literally political sinecures designed to either be gifts for political supporters who are nearing an end to their time in government or gifts to a supporter who wants to try and run for higher office later. The big four are important, but luckily they have something in common with all cabinet seats--the political appointees aren't that important, during vacancies in the top spot typically extremely experienced civil servants essentially run the department--which is also what happens the entire rest of the year too.

The main reason there is some level of urgency to get the Big Four confirmed is having the cabinet secretary in place typically means whatever new agendas and priorities the new President wants pushed, can start being pushed by their person, but in terms of just keeping the government functioning, they really are not that important. And in terms of getting policy changes started--a Presidency is four years long, a few weeks delay just is not that big of a deal.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 20, 2022, 11:40:59 AMbut the argument that doing it in February was a disaster is just really dumb.

A disaster? No. A mistake? Yes.

I've not let it go because when i said so at the time i got accused of being a brown shirt, and it is so transparently obvious I was right. They actually did have to rush the trial, there actually was relevant evidence that was not presented and the confirmation of the Biden cabinet was delayed. It also set up terrible optics with the priority of prosecuting Trump being a higher priority than putting in place the government and passing covid relief (while I don't think they did hold up the covid relief bill because it was back to the House during the trial, the trial did happen before its signage into law).

Except you are not obviously right--this is a circumstance where you are clearly wrong as evidenced by literally everyone telling you that, and because you just like to stir up interminable arguments you are fighting the point--to the point that you literally resurrected a dead argument from over a year ago just to engage in more arguing with someone like Berkut who lacks the capacity to just ignore you when you act like this.

There was no messaging problem, and the idea that making Merrick Garland's term as AG a few weeks longer or a non-material delay to a covid package (that in fact never got delayed) is less important than addressing a President who may have tried to overthrow our democratic government is absurd.

Contrarians will be contrary. 

They will also claim things like "it is so transparently obvious I was right."  :rolleyes:

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 20, 2022, 11:40:59 AMHonestly this smacks of something where AR found a position a lot of people disagrees withlost a bet on the timing on appointments on a silly political wagering site, and he just wants to argue about itjust can't let it go.

FYP

Seriously if one is going to gamble you can't keep relitigating your losses.

I think he is doing it on purpose because he thinks this is an echo chamber that needs to be challenged. The problem is I don't buy the premise that delaying it would have made it more successful so I don't find the challenge very challenging.

Now maybe they shouldn't have done the second Senate Trial at all for whatever political reasons. That I could maybe concede with good arguments, but I don't buy delaying it would have done much good.

AR is hilarious. His passion for "being right" is genuinely one of the funnier things on Languish. That he is willing to actually ally himself with Mitch in order to be seen as "right" is truly fascinating.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 20, 2022, 11:52:48 AMis less important than addressing a President who may have tried to overthrow our democratic government is absurd.

He was out of office. I think something worth remembering in all of this:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html

Polling on Trump vs. Biden indicates that if the election was held today, Trump would roll Biden. Popular vote is a dead heat, but with the electoral college skew probably anything less than Biden +4% means Trump wins. If you want to really be doom and gloom, the polls also missed by 5% against Trump last time, so if that hasn't been fixed Biden is roughly 9% behind where he needs to be in the popular vote right now.

You can counter by saying polling on a hypothetical matchup 2 years out means little, and fair enough, but with the approach taken on Jan. 6, Trump is in a strong position - probably stronger than when he left office. The 2nd impeachment trial did not succeed breaking him or republicans politically. We are actually now into the midterms: how many competitive democrats are using Jan. 6 as a centerpiece in their argument? Is any republican in danger of paying for their support of Trump? I can only think of possibly Mike Lee in Utah.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 20, 2022, 11:52:48 AMExcept you are not obviously right--this is a circumstance where you are clearly wrong as evidenced by literally everyone telling you that, and because you just like to stir up interminable arguments you are fighting the point--to the point that you literally resurrected a dead argument from over a year ago just to engage in more arguing with someone like Berkut who lacks the capacity to just ignore you when you act like this.

Apparently I am not the only one... :P

Quote from: alfred russel on October 20, 2022, 12:11:59 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 20, 2022, 11:52:48 AMis less important than addressing a President who may have tried to overthrow our democratic government is absurd.

He was out of office. I think something worth remembering in all of this:

Which is not the argument you have made, nor do you get to shift to it now. You argue that somehow holding the trial in February '21 was disastrous and they should have waited. If him being out of office means the trial wasn't important, that is an argument for not holding it at all. That is an argument that I find a lot more persuasive than your claim about timing of the trial being of paramount importance, and specifically that doing it in February '21 was a big disaster and doing it now would be some great success.
'

Quotehttps://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html

Polling on Trump vs. Biden indicates that if the election was held today, Trump would roll Biden. Popular vote is a dead heat, but with the electoral college skew probably anything less than Biden +4% means Trump wins. If you want to really be doom and gloom, the polls also missed by 5% against Trump last time, so if that hasn't been fixed Biden is roughly 9% behind where he needs to be in the popular vote right now.

You can counter by saying polling on a hypothetical matchup 2 years out means little, and fair enough, but with the approach taken on Jan. 6, Trump is in a strong position - probably stronger than when he left office. The 2nd impeachment trial did not succeed breaking him or republicans politically. We are actually now into the midterms: how many competitive democrats are using Jan. 6 as a centerpiece in their argument? Is any republican in danger of paying for their support of Trump? I can only think of possibly Mike Lee in Utah.

Literally nothing in tihs quoted passage has anything to do with the discussion of Feb 2021 vs I guess October of 2022 timing for an impeachment trial. You're clearly doing your typical dance of moving goal posts around to extend the argument, particularly since you've been called out for arguing dishonestly for the sake of arguing.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 20, 2022, 12:25:33 PMWhich is not the argument you have made, nor do you get to shift to it now. You argue that somehow holding the trial in February '21 was disastrous and they should have waited. If him being out of office means the trial wasn't important, that is an argument for not holding it at all. That is an argument that I find a lot more persuasive than your claim about timing of the trial being of paramount importance, and specifically that doing it in February '21 was a big disaster and doing it now would be some great success.

I did not hold that it would be disastrous to hold the trial in February 2021. I held that it was a mistake for reasons including:

-democratic optics would be best served by first focusing on covid and the economy vs. litigating / prosecuting the trump administration
-a trial in Feb. would have to be rushed because of the senate calendar and rules,
-delaying the confirmation of the cabinet for the trial was not putting the biden administration on a path to success.


-I also suggested that, assuming the votes wouldn't be decisive, democrats from moderate states should consider voting to acquit because that would give them instant moderate cred without having to compromise on any issues down the road. That was not well received here, but guys like Warnock would probably be a lock right now had he voted differently. And that could easily be the difference between McConnell being majority leader vs. Schumer.

My take on this always was that democrats, being in charge of all three branches, will communicate to voters their top priorities by their actions. I'd say we go into midterms with these three priorities communicated (in no particular order):

-abortion rights
-preserving democratic norms
-responsible action on climate change

All three topics are important and on all three democrats are on the right side of the issues. However, I think the democrats lose badly with that messaging. Swing voters are disproportionately lower educated and many if not most of them will have voted for Trump in either 2016 or 2020 - they don't see Trump as a terrible threat to democracy. He also isn't on the ballot now and he may never be again. Priorities should have been raising the minimum wage, raising corporate taxes, expanding access to health care, etc.

That there hasn't been a vote on raising corporate taxes even a little after the massive Trump tax cuts or raising the minimum wage is a borderline malpractice by democrats.

That's a better argument.  Go with that one.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 21, 2022, 08:12:33 AMThat's a better argument.  Go with that one.

That was my original argument and I haven't shifted from that.

No--your original argument was not "Democrats suck at messaging", it was that holding the impeachment trial in February 2021 was very bad. The two are not remotely the same argument--although I understand given the weakness of the argument you actually made, a desire to change it to a completely different argument.

I also think your understanding of messaging is fairly off base. I think you get little to no real credit with low information swing voters from "holding votes" unless those votes produce clear and easily explainable policy wins.

The Democrats actually held a vote on raising the minimum wage--it lost because of Kyrsten Sinema (in the short term, I think it also would have had to clear the parliamentarian to even be considered part of the recon bill, which wasn't certain), they get no credit for having held that vote. Raising the corporate tax was not viable in early 2021 because both Sinema and Manchin were not willing to play ball--Biden's most recent Build Back Better law does contain a corporate tax increase and it literally took most of a year to get Manchin to agree to that, there was no magic wand they had to magick Manchin into not dragging his feet for a year had they chosen to listen to Mitch and not put Trump on trial.

I think most people agree the Democrats are in disarray on messaging and basically have been for almost 10 years now, with little sign of improvement. There are big blocks of voters who are locked into both parties and won't be swayed by any messaging, there's another big block who seem to basically be "Golden retriever puppy voters" who just chimerically run from one party to the next based on an almost psychotic desire to never vote for the same party twice (I've seen estimates that peg this phenomenon at upwards of 10% of the electorate), and then you have the 10-15% of persuadable voters, who mostly are conservative--a reality Democrats don't tend to like admitting and means much of their political strategizing to improve with them would involve softening stances and doing things the activist class hates.

But none, absolutely none, of any of that has anything to do with an impeachment trial held in February of 2021, no matter whatever pained, stupid inaccurate or distortionary claim you cook up next to try and make it so.

Quote from: alfred russel on October 21, 2022, 08:17:39 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 21, 2022, 08:12:33 AMThat's a better argument.  Go with that one.

That was my original argument and I haven't shifted from that.

You shifted with all of the agility of an elite climber going up a very difficult rock face.

You get to name your next thread.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 21, 2022, 08:51:45 AMNo--your original argument was not "Democrats suck at messaging", it was that holding the impeachment trial in February 2021 was very bad. The two are not remotely the same argument--although I understand given the weakness of the argument you actually made, a desire to change it to a completely different argument.

I wish i could find the original thread, but it was that it was bad to hold the trial in February 2021 because it indicated the top priority was prosecuting trump vs. putting in place the administration or other legislative initiatives, and that any potential political embarrassment for republicans would be lessened by having to abbreviate the trial when there were so many competing legislative priorities.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 21, 2022, 08:51:45 AMI also think your understanding of messaging is fairly off base. I think you get little to no real credit with low information swing voters from "holding votes" unless those votes produce clear and easily explainable policy wins.

The Democrats actually held a vote on raising the minimum wage--it lost because of Kyrsten Sinema (in the short term, I think it also would have had to clear the parliamentarian to even be considered part of the recon bill, which wasn't certain), they get no credit for having held that vote. Raising the corporate tax was not viable in early 2021 because both Sinema and Manchin were not willing to play ball--Biden's most recent Build Back Better law does contain a corporate tax increase and it literally took most of a year to get Manchin to agree to that, there was no magic wand they had to magick Manchin into not dragging his feet for a year had they chosen to listen to Mitch and not put Trump on trial.

Come on--there was never a concerted push to increase the minimum wage with the President out front sending a proposal to congress and Pelosi and Schumer there talking about it being a priority, and spinning the excise tax on corporate share repurchases as a corporate tax increase is silly. Trump reduced corporate taxes from 35% to 21% and Biden ran on taking it to 28%. With some effort I think a minimum wage increase would have passed, and I understand a corporate tax increase probably wouldn't--but pushing these things is meaningful especially on the minimum wage (people will notice if there is a vote that would increase their pay, and it fails because almost all republicans oppose).

The point is they spent not just significant time but also the most important time on a new administration's calendar (the start), on a doomed effort to convict trump of incitement. I think it clearly communicates where their priorities lay, for better or worse.

If the message was, "look what happened is serious and we need to fully investigate, but we are focused on the future and right now we have a covid crisis and our top priority is getting the new administration in place to respond to the crisis and also covid relief to make sure small businesses that are getting crushed by the pandemic can surivive", that would have been the winning play imo.

Quote from: alfred russel on October 21, 2022, 10:57:58 AM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 21, 2022, 08:51:45 AMI also think your understanding of messaging is fairly off base. I think you get little to no real credit with low information swing voters from "holding votes" unless those votes produce clear and easily explainable policy wins.

The Democrats actually held a vote on raising the minimum wage--it lost because of Kyrsten Sinema (in the short term, I think it also would have had to clear the parliamentarian to even be considered part of the recon bill, which wasn't certain), they get no credit for having held that vote. Raising the corporate tax was not viable in early 2021 because both Sinema and Manchin were not willing to play ball--Biden's most recent Build Back Better law does contain a corporate tax increase and it literally took most of a year to get Manchin to agree to that, there was no magic wand they had to magick Manchin into not dragging his feet for a year had they chosen to listen to Mitch and not put Trump on trial.

Come on--there was never a concerted push to increase the minimum wage with the President out front sending a proposal to congress and Pelosi and Schumer there talking about it being a priority, and spinning the excise tax on corporate share repurchases as a corporate tax increase is silly. Trump reduced corporate taxes from 35% to 21% and Biden ran on taking it to 28%. With some effort I think a minimum wage increase would have passed, and I understand a corporate tax increase probably wouldn't--but pushing these things is meaningful especially on the minimum wage (people will notice if there is a vote that would increase their pay, and it fails because almost all republicans oppose).

The point is they spent not just significant time but also the most important time on a new administration's calendar (the start), on a doomed effort to convict trump of incitement. I think it clearly communicates where their priorities lay, for better or worse.

If the message was, "look what happened is serious and we need to fully investigate, but we are focused on the future and right now we have a covid crisis and our top priority is getting the new administration in place to respond to the crisis and also covid relief to make sure small businesses that are getting crushed by the pandemic can surivive", that would have been the winning play imo.

None of this has anything to do with the impeachment trial in February of 2021. Holding a trial did not communicate the things you say it did, and it did not prevent them from doing the things you think they should have done. It simply did not.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 21, 2022, 11:05:47 AMNone of this has anything to do with the impeachment trial in February of 2021. Holding a trial did not communicate the things you say it did, and it did not prevent them from doing the things you think they should have done. It simply did not.

It was a terrible start. Not an unrecoverable one but a terrible start nonetheless.

Look at Bernie Sanders. It doesn't matter what the topic of the day is. His communications are all about the billionaire class, standing up to corporations, and healthcare. You spend the better part of the first month prosecuting trump, the message that sends is that is your priority.

The second part of this is that it made the trial ineffective public theater. The point of the poll at the top of this thread remains: there was a lot of compelling testimony and facts shared during the Jan. 6 hearings. The audience was a fraction of the impeachment trial. If the point of the trial was to make republicans squirm because the result was preordained, make them fucking squirm: don't just go through a quick 2 week presentation without witnesses because you have to get back to confirming people and passing covid relief.

Quote from: Berkut on October 20, 2022, 11:31:38 AMThe idea that there is fucking ANYTHING the Senate could be doing that is more important then addressing the fact that the President tried to enact a fucking coup is just hilarious.

I'll say this before Tuesday and we get the results of the election. This is completely wrong. There are only two things worth doing: doing things that achieve results, and doing things that achieve electoral advantage. The trial only achieved a Trump acquittal and it looks like now that no republican is paying much of a price for supporting Trump. Certainly not in a competitive senate race.

Biden won the popular vote by over 4% and got over 300 electoral votes. By the standards of our polarized times, that was a massacre. And yet he only won 25 states: in a massive democratic year, democrats are going to have to win senate seats in states that went for Trump when he was at low ebb or they will be in a permanent minority. Ominiously, in 2020, democrats didn't take a single senate seat in a Trump state and lost one in a Biden state. It was a strong sign that campaigning against Trump doesn't work downballot even with Trump leading the ticket, and he may never be on a ballot again.

I don't know what is going to happen on Tuesday, but none of the very competitive states are in Trump 2020 states: we are mostly focused on Senate races in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, and New Hampshire; all of which are among the 25 states Biden won. Maybe there will be a surprise but Republicans are likely to sweep the Trump 2020 states and pick off a number of Biden 2020 states.

Your top priority may be holding a senate trial to convict Trump but that is a shit way to win senate seats in trump states. Hell even in the most ardent Trump states, you have a legitimately election denying republican house member that is surprisingly competitive in a race for New York governor. Schumer saying that is top priority being "climate climate climate" may have also played well to the democratic base and helped him avoid a primary challenge but it also won't win in trump states.

Luckily the democrats can coast off of the republican massacre of 2018, but that just means that they have no opportunity to make up ground in 2024 if they lose the majority this time--and in 2024 they will likely lose ground even with a good cycle.

I love that you are showing up now to setup for a GOP win, so you can then turn around and say "SEE I TOLD YOU SO!"

Quote from: Berkut on November 04, 2022, 04:47:07 PMI love that you are showing up now to setup for a GOP win, so you can then turn around and say "SEE I TOLD YOU SO!"

I made a mental note of a few arguments from much earlier including early 2021 that i intend to bring out as part of the "I told you so". Absolutely not something from the Friday before the election. Right now i'm just reading polling numbers and venting how absolutely brain dead the strategy has been that has set everything up for what is going to happen on Tuesday.

Continuing to think political strategy minutiae explain large scale cultural changes.