tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post1055881127133894867..comments2024-03-18T17:09:55.964-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Updates from space - and beyondDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger163125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40965993563454363192019-09-28T14:37:59.166-07:002019-09-28T14:37:59.166-07:00onward
onwardonward<br /><br />onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-2115224273042681532019-09-28T08:41:02.449-07:002019-09-28T08:41:02.449-07:00Felix-Americans unite! Let's show the world w...Felix-Americans unite! Let's show the world we aren't pussies!Zepp Jamiesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03024670772812706971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70497717878077516002019-09-28T06:52:59.654-07:002019-09-28T06:52:59.654-07:00Actually, the "don't have to be a member&...Actually, the "don't have to be a member" interpretation does make it easier for my cat to become Speaker, and then possibly President. I mean, to the extent that there's no requirement for the Speaker to be a member of the House, there's also no requirement that the Speaker be a person. So instead of his having to first win an election, the House could simply <b>choose</b> my cat as Speaker. Then, one Rapture later, he ascends to the presidency without that pesky Electoral Vote count of "<b>persons</b>" getting in the way.<br /><br />He's not 35 years old or an American citizen, you say? Those restrictions only apply to <b>persons</b>. The only reason he couldn't just run for president is that the Electoral College only transmits to Congress the tally of <b>persons</b> they vote for. The succession path bypasses that little complication.<br /> Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3782967904576374562019-09-27T20:56:48.892-07:002019-09-27T20:56:48.892-07:00LH: Simple, direct, clear. You see, that's wh...LH: Simple, direct, clear. You see, that's why you need a society that is hagridden with lawyers. How are we supposed to function if we can't agree what the meaning of "is" is?Zepp Jamiesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03024670772812706971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3497045103667203912019-09-27T20:15:37.104-07:002019-09-27T20:15:37.104-07:00When I was on jury duty, the first instruction the...When I was on jury duty, the first instruction the jury is given is to select a foreman. There's no explicit rule that the foreman be one of the jurors, but really what else could be meant by that instruction? As with the House, no one but the jury is allowed in the jury room during deliberation, so if we had selected, say, Lindsay Graham as the foreman, what exactly would be expected to happen after that?<br /><br />It seems blindingly obvious to me that "choose their...officers" means "choose which <b>of their members</b> will take on the role of officers". It doesn't make sense any other way. And the fact that "The speaker doesn't have to be a member of the House" is the new cool thing to say is becoming more of a pet peeve of mine than "irregardless". And that's saying something!<br />Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-43914003383880400542019-09-27T20:06:01.292-07:002019-09-27T20:06:01.292-07:00"parliament MPs are the very ones who fill ca..."parliament MPs are the very ones who fill cabinetry posts."<br /><br />Something I heartily approve of because it makes them accountable. "Question Hour" is one of the strongest elements of Parliamentary governance. Zepp Jamiesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03024670772812706971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-74253768253877330172019-09-27T20:04:14.931-07:002019-09-27T20:04:14.931-07:00@LH: Well, this IS a science fiction blog. If we...@LH: Well, this IS a science fiction blog. If we can't blue-sky concepts here, then where? <br />Well, OK, Faux News maybe...Zepp Jamiesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03024670772812706971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70287181957139875062019-09-27T19:25:27.413-07:002019-09-27T19:25:27.413-07:00While technically the rules don't require the ...While technically the rules don't require the Speaker to be a member of the House, there's another rule saying that when the House is in session only members are allowed on the floor. So unless you want a Speaker that can't attend sessions of the House, you're pretty well stuck with House members.<br /><br /><i>No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.</i><br /><br />It seems pretty plain to me, once superfluous commas are ignored, that what it's saying is that Congressfolk can't take any other government offices while remaining in Congress, and that someone holding another office has to resign before they can run for Congress. Keeps folks from double-dipping as, say, the Senate Majority Leader <i>and</i>, oh, just for the sake of discussion, Secretary of Transportation.<br /><br />The Presidential Succession Act doesn't violate that; the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, as amended in 2006, specifies that upon the incapacity of both the President and VP the office falls upon the Speaker of the House, but that the moment the oath is taken that individual is no longer Speaker and thus becomes eligible for the office of President. (An attempt to discharge both offices at once would clearly be in violation of both the word and the spirit of the statute.)Jon S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13585842845661267920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25369965131198145142019-09-27T19:20:26.493-07:002019-09-27T19:20:26.493-07:00UK style parliament MPs are the very ones who fill...UK style parliament MPs are the very ones who fill cabinetry posts.<br /><br />(From Houston Airport)David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-74264552162756166632019-09-27T18:25:00.248-07:002019-09-27T18:25:00.248-07:00Zepp Jamieson:
But here's an oddity: there...Zepp Jamieson:<br /><i><br />But here's an oddity: there's no requirement that the Speaker of the House actually be a member of the House. <br /></i><br /><br />Everyone seems to believe that except me. I don't understand why all of a sudden, that idea is taking hold that "<i>The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers</i>" doesn't mean "from among their members." I mean, you might as well assert that there is no requirement that the president of General Motors be employed by General Motors.<br /><br />How would a Speaker even function not being a House member?<br /><br />I'm sorry, but to me this is crazy talk.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3143414216969362662019-09-27T16:34:38.361-07:002019-09-27T16:34:38.361-07:00@Bob Neinast
It occurs to me that once the Speaker...@Bob Neinast<br />It occurs to me that once the Speaker became an "Officer" of the administration, she would be only required to resign her Congressional seat. But here's an oddity: there's no requirement that the Speaker of the House actually be a member of the House. In theory, she could thus be President and Speaker, although with no actual House seat. <br />I'll also note that while it used to be traditional for members of Congress running for President to step down, that's no longer the case, and there have even been instances where an individual was running for their incumbent seat AND president (Rand Paul did, if I recall correctly). The only real restriction on becoming an "Officer" would then be only that one immediately resign their legislative seat.Zepp Jamiesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03024670772812706971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75971914732473209352019-09-27T16:32:08.661-07:002019-09-27T16:32:08.661-07:00Bob Neinast:
In fact, in 1792 Madison specificall...Bob Neinast:<br /><i><br />In fact, in 1792 Madison specifically says that Congress made a mistake by including a legislator in the succession statute. (See their footnote 20.)<br /></i><br /><br />I'll agree that it would make more sense to limit the presidential succession to the executive branch. Legislators in line for the chief executive job is weird. Then again, so is the Vice President presiding over the Senate. I'm just surprised this hasn't been addressed in the past 200 years. I suppose the supreme court doesn't rule on hypotheticals, so the President and VP would actually have to both vacate their positions before the case would come up. And that hasn't happened yet ever, except in fiction.<br /><br /><i><br />There is also the issue of what happens with an Acting President. <br /></i><br /><br />An aside, but I thought it was clear from the Constitutional language that the founders envisioned Congress selecting an <b>Acting</b> President should both top positions be vacated at the same time, not an actual new president. IIRC, the first time a VP ascended to the position, there was some debate over whether <b>he</b> was just an Acting President. But the language is a little clearer there that the office of the presidency "devolves" upon the VP.<br /><br /><i><br />Madison thought a cabinet official could keep his cabinet post while acting as Acting President. But it would really screw up the separation of powers if Pelosi could remain Speaker while being an Acting President (in the case of temporary incapacity).<br /></i><br /><br />Again, I've only seen this in fiction, but on <i>The West Wing</i> when the Republican Speaker assumed the presidency (via the 25th Amendment), he had to give up his Speakership, and wasn't even able to return to his House seat after President Bartlet resumed office. I don't know how accurate that is, but Sorkin was usually a reliable sticker for details.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-74428487675828711222019-09-27T14:50:02.266-07:002019-09-27T14:50:02.266-07:00By the way, I thought Catfish's last comment w...By the way, I thought Catfish's last comment was pure gold.TCBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08153506222271955110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17514347125331258332019-09-27T14:37:24.043-07:002019-09-27T14:37:24.043-07:00Larry (re Pelosi in the line of succession),
Read...Larry (re Pelosi in the line of succession),<br /><br />Read Section A ("Text and Original Understanding") of the article to see how Amar addresses your comment about Officers of the House and Officers of the Senate. They provide a thorough analysis to pretty convincingly (to me) show that "Officer" in the succession section means "Officer of the United States", which does not include any member of the legislature.<br /><br />Interestingly, they even point out that during drafting, the original version <b>did</b> say that only "Officers of the United States" were eligible, but that got removed by a committee on "style". In fact, in 1792 Madison specifically says that Congress made a mistake by including a legislator in the succession statute. (See their footnote 20.)<br /><br />There is also the issue of what happens with an Acting President. Madison thought a cabinet official could keep his cabinet post while acting as Acting President. But it would really screw up the separation of powers if Pelosi could remain Speaker while being an Acting President (in the case of temporary incapacity). Anyways, read through the whole paper. Quite fascinating.<br /><br />Regardless, if we somehow <b>do</b> get to the point of having both Trump and Pence removed at the same time (with neither having the opportunity to appoint a new VP), expect this article to suddenly become very popular with Republicans.Ahcuahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06514651362748555460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-51087615795201573362019-09-27T14:20:54.552-07:002019-09-27T14:20:54.552-07:00Hmmm, we've seen and been humiliated over Core...Hmmm, we've seen and been humiliated over Corey Lewendowski's refusal to answer questions at the Congressional hearing at Trump's behest, but the later exchange with the Majority Counsel is quite a different kettle of fish. The guy gets Lewendowski to tacitly admit that he lied on a tv interview, and otherwise makes Lewendowski's evasions look transparent and ridiculous.<br /><br />Congressmen should step back and let the trained professionals handle this sort of thing.<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrlDGvuUxMY<br /><br />Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-30125923772562044742019-09-27T13:54:16.896-07:002019-09-27T13:54:16.896-07:00SCORE!
Picked up hardcover "Kiln People"...SCORE!<br />Picked up hardcover "Kiln People" at a used book sale. No royalty to Dr. Brin, but increased knowledge from a huge fan.<br /><br />Re: Politics<br />Agree with the plea to suppress glee. Also, mental illness is no joke, even when it afflicts your opponents. Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.scidatahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04992209167553267488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-44422697766626239682019-09-27T13:52:23.190-07:002019-09-27T13:52:23.190-07:00Dr Brin,
Not disagreeing, but I don't underst...Dr Brin,<br /><br />Not disagreeing, but I don't understand why you think we don't already agree<br /><br /><i><br />B. The other kind of martyrdom is more likely, of course — with those judo-master GOP manipulators giggling as they back pedal and let democrats clean up their mess for them, getting rid of their problem for them while feeding Red America’s paranoias by appearing like a partisan lynch mob.<br /></i><br /><br />Hmmmm, I don't see how Republicans could do that without themselves voting to convict in the Senate. How can they possibly remove Trump or Pence (let alone both) without taking some of the obvious blame?<br /><br /><i><br />Pelosi is absolutely right (!!) that a race to *rapid* impeachment is stupid. Profoundly stupid! It presents Romney/Ryan + Putin with a rash gift That would feed #1-8 while failing to deliver any satisfaction. If hurried, it will give them every thing on this list.<br /><br />If done right, and timed right, impeachment *can* corner the GOP into a lose-lose. Think! Use “impeachment hearings” to overcome the Roberts Doctrine and regain full subpoena power. Go after the money-laundering for Russian mobs. Demolish Trump’s reputations as a businessman, as a judge of character, and above all as “strong.” (George Lakoff makes clear that his appearance of blustery strength is THE core-psychic root of his redder support.) Chopping away at all of that, across the 2020 campaign, would EITHER lead to an effective impeachment or else corner all Republican senators into an impossible and hopefully position.<br /></i><br /><br />I just don't think this is a secret. Pelosi is handling things in exactly this manner. At this point, I presume she knows what she's doing.<br /><br />Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11675923411270233762019-09-27T13:29:38.693-07:002019-09-27T13:29:38.693-07:00Continuing...
What I desperately fear is the one...Continuing...<br /><br /><br />What I desperately fear is the one path that would touch all of these bases at the same time. That path is martyrdom. A martyred Trump is the way to accomplish all of them. And I have long been on-record pointing this out, horrified that no one else has even mentioned it.<br /><br />Put all of this together:<br /><br />A. God bless the United States Secret Service. And if they fail, YOU need to react tactically, not emotionally! It will be counterproductive if you celebrate, encouraging the meme that “lib’ruls did it!” Vastly better would be to express rage and suspicion toward those who would benefit most — the Ryan-Romney-Putin-and especially Fox interests — from such a martyrdom.<br /><br />B. The other kind of martyrdom is more likely, of course — with those judo-master GOP manipulators giggling as they back pedal and let democrats clean up their mess for them, getting rid of their problem for them while feeding Red America’s paranoias by appearing like a partisan lynch mob. <br /><br />Pelosi is absolutely right (!!) that a race to *rapid* impeachment is stupid. Profoundly stupid! It presents Romney/Ryan + Putin with a rash gift That would feed #1-8 while failing to deliver any satisfaction. If hurried, it will give them every thing on this list.<br /><br /> If done right, and timed right, impeachment *can* corner the GOP into a lose-lose. Think! Use “impeachment hearings” to overcome the Roberts Doctrine and regain full subpoena power. Go after the money-laundering for Russian mobs. Demolish Trump’s reputations as a businessman, as a judge of character, and above all as “strong.” (George Lakoff makes clear that his appearance of blustery strength is THE core-psychic root of his redder support.) Chopping away at all of that, across the 2020 campaign, would EITHER lead to an effective impeachment or else corner all Republican senators into an impossible and hopefully position.<br /><br />Again and again: Trump is infuriating, but his White House leaks! He is cauterized! The civil and defense services are alerted! Things… could… be… much… worse! A Pence White House will be tightly disciplined and leakproof. He would smoothly call for comity and calm and negotiation — an utter lie that we have fallen for many times. He will soothe back into line hundreds of thousands of civil servants and officers who sigh with premature relief that the. Trump Nightmare is over. When the new president is a maniac who prays daily for an end to all freedom, ambition, curiosity and children and an end to the world and the USA.<br /><br />No, no, I am not is a rush to remove the cauterized and 80% neutralized Donald Two Scoops before the timing is right. And it is right if it helps crush the GOP in the election! If nothing else, have impeachment on the docket when the NEW Senate takes over, some weeks before the 2020 inauguration. Removing Trump and dragging him out in shame and banned from the Capitol steps is a fantasy we might, if we work hard, manage to see.<br /><br />FINAL scenarios! As one of you pointed out, the goppers might jettison BOTH Trump and Pence, allowing Pelosi(!) to become president, as a tactical move saddling her with (1) Trump’s martyrdom, (2) resumption that was her ambition all along, and (3) blame for the sudden recession and incumbency during a rejection-election. Problems with this scenario. Pelosi would unlock every filing cabinet every Putin scheme gets uncovered and the election cheating gets harder. Ryan might go for it. Not Murdoch or Putin.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91291083543959367032019-09-27T13:29:26.933-07:002019-09-27T13:29:26.933-07:00Hanged-man, of course it’s not Bolton, but you are...Hanged-man, of course it’s not Bolton, but you are right that Romney and Ryan and party elders — overlapping to an unknown degree with the puppet masters Murdoch, Putin, Mercer & MBS etc. — are likely desperately seeking a path that can:<br /><br />1 - eliminate Trump’s biggest effect: that of narrowing the GOP constituencies, driving off all professions and ethnicities, crushing down to a rabid, confederate base… <br /><br />(Of course, desideratum #1 means somehow eliminating Trump himself, since he will not modify or compromise. See below.)…<br /><br />2- while somehow not enraging that base against the establishment by ‘betraying” Trump…<br /><br />3- while enraging that base against lib’ruls…<br /><br />4- while raising up new GOP leaders with credibility…<br /><br />5- while protecting the establishment oligarchs and the pyramid of blackmailed servants…<br /><br />6- while protecting the cheating methods that are their only hook into power.<br /><br />It’s a difficult path to thread, especially since the Party Elders and the Puppet Masters probably part company over the following:<br /><br />7- the rise of would-be theocrats (e.g. Pence and dominionists) who would continue the narrowing while possibly setting in motion the deliberate end of the world…<br /><br />8- unleashing of violent waves of disruptive McVeighs., tearing America apart.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3659600556875357222019-09-27T13:10:00.859-07:002019-09-27T13:10:00.859-07:00@Bob Neinast,
That linked article about president...@Bob Neinast,<br /><br />That linked article about presidential succession seems to really be reaching.<br /><br />The objection to the Speaker being in the line of succession seems to come from the idea that the Speaker is not an "officer", and that the successor Congress chooses is required to be an "officer" per Article II (emphasis mine) :<br /><br /><i><br />In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, <b>declaring what officer shall then act as President,</b> and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.<br /></i><br /><br />The piece's author then claims that this section from Article I makes clear that House members are not "officers", and that they are forbidden to be (emphasis mine) :<br /><i><br />No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: <b>and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.</b><br /></i><br /><br />Yet then what are we to make of this, also from Article I, which makes explicit that the Speaker is in fact an officer? :<br /><i><br />The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; <br /></i><br /><br />Fair disclosure: I have a dog (such as it is) in this fight as the Speaker ascending to the presidency is the only way my cat is eligible to be President. :)<br />Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26304684733113731012019-09-27T12:35:42.312-07:002019-09-27T12:35:42.312-07:00Bob Neinast:
Regarding Pelosi as president, there...Bob Neinast:<br /><i><br />Regarding Pelosi as president, there's a good chance that the official line of succession is unconstitutional. <br /></i><br /><br />The Speaker being third in line isn't in the Constitution itself?<br /><br />I don't know why I always thought it was.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-64770863030182213302019-09-27T08:28:15.965-07:002019-09-27T08:28:15.965-07:00Catfish 'n Cod:
which could be why Lord Aran...Catfish 'n Cod:<br /><i><br /> which could be why Lord Arancia calls DW "almost a spy"... in the Deep State mindset, Deep Whistle is a spy for an "opposing" power.<br /></i><br /><br />That's the part that would be comedic if the subject matter weren't so serious. The idea that exercise of the internal checks and balances <b>within</b> the United States government constitutes "spying" and "treason". Against whom?<br /><br />Benedict Donald has made it abundantly clear that he considers himself to be President of the Republicans specifically, that the rest of us are an enemy who was vanquished in the 2016 election, and that our engagement in the political process constitutes insurrection. In other words, the latest Civil War is already on, at least in a cold phase. The man occupying the office of the presidency doesn't consider us to be participants in the United States of America.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45891801615611883532019-09-27T07:59:13.236-07:002019-09-27T07:59:13.236-07:00Regarding Pelosi as president, there's a good ...Regarding Pelosi as president, there's a good chance that the official line of succession is unconstitutional. According to well-known constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar, the Constitution says that the list must come from "Officers" of the United States. And in the rest of the Constitution, that means members of the Executive Branch. In fact, Article I, Section 6 says, "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." That says that being a member of Congress means you are not holding an Office, and are not an Officer.<br /><br />See <a href="https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1959&context=fss_papers" rel="nofollow">Is the Presidential Succession Law Constitutional?</a><br /><br />Of course, at the time, we really don't need that extra complication.Ahcuahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06514651362748555460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-28351623086499621332019-09-27T07:51:15.820-07:002019-09-27T07:51:15.820-07:00I was deeply concerned when NYTimes ran that Deep ...I was deeply concerned when NYTimes ran that Deep Whistle was a CIA liaison, but WaPo reported this morning that Deep Whistle ran this by the CIA General Counsel first, who then followed proper procedure -- possibly unwisely -- and called the White House and AG Barr. So they've known that much about Deep Whistle this whole time, which could be why Lord Arancia calls DW "almost a spy"... in the Deep State mindset, Deep Whistle is a spy for an "opposing" power. <br /><br />Which isn't completely wrong, if you consider the U.S. Constitution an opposing power, and loyalty to it over your splendiferous self and exalted followers to be pseudo-treasonous. <br /><br />In any event, Deep Whistle seems to have done all the homework they could before blowing. I suspect that they have a number of people supporting them, but I don't think it's a "draw the short straw" scenario so much as "you spoke up? Congratulations, you've volunteered for hazardous duty."<br /><br />Meanwhile, Pelosi knows the consensus on impeachment only exists on Ukraine at the moment, so she has ordered a focused investigation on that. I'm thinking this is more of her Br'er Rabbit tactics at work: letting the evidence (and the flailing on Pennsylvania Avenue) make the case for more articles of impeachment than this. If the House passes articles and #MoscowMitch squashes them, there's no reason they can't investigate more, pass MORE articles, and keep the catapults going all through 2020 if need be. There are strings from this back to Manafort, and at least indirectly to Putin, as well as what OTHER diplomatic blackmail might be happening; what OTHER political calls got sent to the codeword-level server; what OTHER foreign policy moves have been happening through private agents rather than any government apparatus.<br /><br />Pelosi also wants the ability to shove articles at the Senate before the primaries, which makes several kinds of sense:<br />(1) It allows the GOP primaries a chance to knock out Congressional incumbents for their treason -- unlikely, I know, but possible;<br />(2) It allows her to turn the impeachment process on and off if need be for the Democratic primaries;<br />(3) It gets everything out in time for Big T to be knocked off the 2020 ticket;<br />(4) It gives everyone plenty of time to digest "The President has betrayed the Constitution and the Republicans are defending him", which would be a Richter 9 earthquake in US politics.<br /><br />The Deep Whistle issue is sufficiently simple and straightforward that I think articles (possibly just the first tranche thereof) passing soon after the first of the year is a reasonable goal. With malfeasance this blatant and incompetence this clear, I can't imagine Roberts being willing to stick his neck out for these Executive Branch doofuses, and without court backing, the fraction of people willing to face down the House Sargent-of-Arms is pretty low.Catfish 'n Codhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07727883524069548484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38863211498029602412019-09-27T07:47:35.227-07:002019-09-27T07:47:35.227-07:00Jon S.: "Donnie's already thrown Pence un...Jon S.: <i>"Donnie's already thrown Pence under the bus, pointing out that Pence had some interesting phone calls overseas too."</i><br /><br />Yeah, but Pence has a really good defense: He was just following Trump's orders. :-)Ahcuahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06514651362748555460noreply@blogger.com