[Winstonm]

This story just won't stay dead - does that mean it has legs?

Quote

Given the limitations of D.N.S. data, none of the independent experts I spoke to could be certain of what Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization were doing. Some of them cautioned that it was impossible even to guess at every way that an e-mail system might malfunction. A senior analyst at a D.N.S.-service provider said, “Things can get messed up in unexpected ways.” But Paul and Leto maintained that they had considered and rejected every scenario that they had encountered in decades of cybersecurity work. “Is it possible there is an innocuous explanation for all this?” Paul said. “Yes, of course. And it’s also possible that space aliens did this. It’s possible—just not very likely.”

[ggwhiz]

johnu, on 2018-October-12, 00:39, said:

A moderate or progressive justice could be nominated and confirmed and that would be a result worth the effort of impeachment. If Dennison is still president, he'll just nominate somebody even worse (if that's possible) but who doesn't have any bones in the closet that could lead to impeachment down the road.

It's much better to leave Kavanaugh alone for now.

Agreed but..........What is the history of changing the confirmation votes needed from 60 to 51?

More importantly, who thought that was a good idea? Under the 60 vote scenario wing-nuts need not apply, left or right and I for one would like to see it make a comeback.

[kenberg]

johnu, on 2018-October-12, 00:39, said:

If there was a Democratic President, removing Kavanaugh, either by Federal prosecution for perjury, or impeachment would make sense. Kavanaugh has about the same command of the truth as Dennison so an FBI interview where he is forced to give straight answers would either be a perjury party, or he would have to take 5th to avoid incriminating himself.

A moderate or progressive justice could be nominated and confirmed and that would be a result worth the effort of impeachment. If Dennison is still president, he'll just nominate somebody even worse (if that's possible) but who doesn't have any bones in the closet that could lead to impeachment down the road.

It's much better to leave Kavanaugh alone for now.

My point was different. It was that if voters become convinced that Dems would use election successes to oust Kavanaugh, this will hurt the Dems chances for electoral success.
Three indicators of this come from the article that I was responding to.
1. Republicans are saying that Dems would use electoral success to oust Kavenaugh, Presumably they are making this charge because they expect that this will hurt, not help, Democrats.
2. Pelosi says :"We are not about impechement". Presumably she says this because she does not want voters to think that the Dems are about impeachment.
3. The author of the article asserts, referring to the charges that the Dems could use electoral success to pursue impeachment, "the claim has no factual basis". Presumably he points this out because he thinks the charges, if believed, would hurt Democrats.


So I think that I am not the only one, not by a long shot, who thinks that painting the Dems as pro-impeachemnt will be harmful to the Dems' electoral chances. And I don't think that saying impeachment will not be immediate but rather when there is a Dem president really changes this calculation.

So my hope is that the Dems think this through and then make it very clear whether they plan to impeach or do not plan to impeach. Never mind about exactly when this impeachment would occur. Do they or don't they plan to impeach Kavanaugh? The clock is ticking, they should have worked this through already. Dionne suggests enlarging the court as a way to respond. If voters come to think of this suggestion as a serious Democratic strategy, for 2020 or whenever, i think this will cost the Dems quite a few votes. Politicians like to play both sides of the street. I don't think that this will work here. The issue is pretty straightforward: Are the Dems prepared to accept the results of the confirmation process and move on, or are they not? Silence will suggest, and allow others to credibly suggest, that they are planning to impeach as soon as the time is right. If impeachment, sooner or later, is in fact the plan, then fine. If it is not the plan, I strongly advise them to make this clear. Today. Preferably yesterday.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2018-October-12, 07:48, said:

My point was different. It was that if voters become convinced that Dems would use election successes to oust Kavanaugh, this will hurt the Dems chances for electoral success.
Three indicators of this come from the article that I was responding to.
1. Republicans are saying that Dems would use electoral success to oust Kavenaugh, Presumably they are making this charge because they expect that this will hurt, not help, Democrats.
2. Pelosi says :"We are not about impechement". Presumably she says this because she does not want voters to think that the Dems are about impeachment.
3. The author of the article asserts, referring to the charges that the Dems could use electoral success to pursue impeachment, "the claim has no factual basis". Presumably he points this out because he thinks the charges, if believed, would hurt Democrats.


So I think that I am not the only one, not by a long shot, who thinks that painting the Dems as pro-impeachemnt will be harmful to the Dems' electoral chances. And I don't think that saying impeachment will not be immediate but rather when there is a Dem president really changes this calculation.

So my hope is that the Dems think this through and then make it very clear whether they plan to impeach or do not plan to impeach. Never mind about exactly when this impeachment would occur. Do they or don't they plan to impeach Kavanaugh? The clock is ticking, they should have worked this through already. Dionne suggests enlarging the court as a way to respond. If voters come to think of this suggestion as a serious Democratic strategy, for 2020 or whenever, i think this will cost the Dems quite a few votes. Politicians like to play both sides of the street. I don't think that this will work here. The issue is pretty straightforward: Are the Dems prepared to accept the results of the confirmation process and move on, or are they not? Silence will suggest, and allow others to credibly suggest, that they are planning to impeach as soon as the time is right. If impeachment, sooner or later, is in fact the plan, then fine. If it is not the plan, I strongly advise them to make this clear. Today. Preferably yesterday.

I don't think a Kavanaugh impeachment matters in the midterms. The Democratic party is finally allowing and supporting candidates who appeal to individual districts, regardless of social positions.

The Democrats should be running on a simple plan concerning Kavanaugh - we will adhere to the rule of law.

[barmar]

ggwhiz, on 2018-October-12, 07:41, said:

Agreed but..........What is the history of changing the confirmation votes needed from 60 to 51?

More importantly, who thought that was a good idea? Under the 60 vote scenario wing-nuts need not apply, left or right and I for one would like to see it make a comeback.

This is called the "nuclear option", see the Wikipedia page. It was used in 2013 by Democrats to eliminate the 60-vote rule on approving executive branch nominations and federal judges, and last year by Republicans for Supreme Court nominations (so they could prevent a fillibuster on Neil Gorsuch). It's a very weird, and legally dubious, process. But since both parties make use of it from time to time, neither of them is going to challenge its validity, because they don't want to destroy a weapon they might need in the future.

How weird is it? It's basically a vote by the Senate that one of its own rules (the one requiring 60 votes to end debate) doesn't actually mean what it says in certain circumstances.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2018-October-12, 08:26, said:

I don't think a Kavanaugh impeachment matters in the midterms. The Democratic party is finally allowing and supporting candidates who appeal to individual districts, regardless of social positions.

The Democrats should be running on a simple plan concerning Kavanaugh - we will adhere to the rule of law.

Since nobody expects then to announce that they intend to not adhere to the rule of law, this approach amounts to remaining silent. My recommendation is that they announce their intentions (beyond announcing that they won't break the law). I think they are going to take your path instead of mine. I believe that this will cost them some votes.

But I guess I am repeating myself, so I will stop.

[awm]

kenberg, on 2018-October-12, 12:33, said:

Since nobody expects then to announce that they intend to not adhere to the rule of law, this approach amounts to remaining silent. My recommendation is that they announce their intentions (beyond announcing that they won't break the law). I think they are going to take your path instead of mine. I believe that this will cost them some votes.

But I guess I am repeating myself, so I will stop.

The problem is that there's a significant part of the Democratic base that wants to see the Democrats play hardball. When the Republicans have power they (ab)use it in any way they can, whereas when the Democrats take power they try to bargain and be 'bipartisan" and this dichotomy is extremely frustrating for some on the left. While the party can pretty much take these peoples' votes for granted (and frequently does), they're also a big part of the people who go door-to-door and/or make calls for candidates, and a big part of the donor base. So the Democrats don't want to upset their base by announcing that they definitely won't pursue impeachment... but they also don't want to alienate swing voters by announcing that they will. By forcing them to take a clear position the Republicans help themselves either way.

Of course, the same can be said of Republicans and their position on Obamacare and protections for people with pre-existing conditions, or on tax cuts and budget deficits, or on racism and "white nationalists." But Republicans are usually willing to tell different things to different audiences (and sometimes straight-up lie) and they seem not to get called on it (at least not by Fox News and other channels watched by right-leaning voters).

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2018-October-12, 12:33, said:

Since nobody expects then to announce that they intend to not adhere to the rule of law, this approach amounts to remaining silent. My recommendation is that they announce their intentions (beyond announcing that they won't break the law). I think they are going to take your path instead of mine. I believe that this will cost them some votes.

But I guess I am repeating myself, so I will stop.

My point is that they should not make the election about Kavanaugh but about being worthy of trust - meaning that Kavanaugh's confirmation process should be investigated - not that he is automatically unworthy. But this should only be done by the leadership and not the individuals on the campaign trail. It would be a mistake to declare Kavanaugh guilty enough to be impeached prior to investigation - the issue is to address is not to let it go but not to automatically look to condemn - in other words, the trick is to appear reasonable and grown-up.

To sloganize it: Don't dump or duck Kavanaugh. Get it right!

[Al_U_Card]

And appearances can be deceiving ... Trump used "Lock her up!" to great advantage and still does (Feinstein) yet nary a hint of real prosecution.
Run on electoral substance and let the people decide .... oh wait, half are deplorable and a lot of the rest aren't elite enough to be "trusted". No wonder Hil is inciting violence, the empress has no clothes and she is not much to look at.

[kenberg]

awm, on 2018-October-12, 12:55, said:

The problem is that there's a significant part of the Democratic base that wants to see the Democrats play hardball. When the Republicans have power they (ab)use it in any way they can, whereas when the Democrats take power they try to bargain and be 'bipartisan" and this dichotomy is extremely frustrating for some on the left. While the party can pretty much take these peoples' votes for granted (and frequently does), they're also a big part of the people who go door-to-door and/or make calls for candidates, and a big part of the donor base. So the Democrats don't want to upset their base by announcing that they definitely won't pursue impeachment... but they also don't want to alienate swing voters by announcing that they will. By forcing them to take a clear position the Republicans help themselves either way.

Of course, the same can be said of Republicans and their position on Obamacare and protections for people with pre-existing conditions, or on tax cuts and budget deficits, or on racism and "white nationalists." But Republicans are usually willing to tell different things to different audiences (and sometimes straight-up lie) and they seem not to get called on it (at least not by Fox News and other channels watched by right-leaning voters).

Right. The Dionne article I cited, advocating increasing the size of the Supreme Court as soon as Dems get the power to do it, speaks for one branch of the Dems. The party has some things to decide. As do Republicans. There are more than a few conservative columnists who are not supporting Trump.
Some of this, probably a lot oi it, comes down to how we approach the world. I think it would be a good idea for Dems to say what they intend to do about Kavanaugh, and I think that not saying what they will do leaves them open to being portrayed in the worst light. I do recognize that they have a problem. It's a natural human tendency to duck problems, but it doesn't always work so well.

[johnu]

Al_U_Card, on 2018-October-12, 15:55, said:

And appearances can be deceiving ... Trump used "Lock her up!" to great advantage and still does (Feinstein) yet nary a hint of real prosecution.
Run on electoral substance and let the people decide .... oh wait, half are deplorable and a lot of the rest aren't elite enough to be "trusted". No wonder Hil is inciting violence, the empress has no clothes and she is not much to look at.

Wow, you need to get to a doctor's office and get treated for Dennison syndrome

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2018-October-12, 16:03, said:

Right. The Dionne article I cited, advocating increasing the size of the Supreme Court as soon as Dems get the power to do it, speaks for one branch of the Dems. The party has some things to decide. As do Republicans. There are more than a few conservative columnists who are not supporting Trump.
Some of this, probably a lot oi it, comes down to how we approach the world. I think it would be a good idea for Dems to say what they intend to do about Kavanaugh, and I think that not saying what they will do leaves them open to being portrayed in the worst light. I do recognize that they have a problem. It's a natural human tendency to duck problems, but it doesn't always work so well.

Ken,

I don't understand how you can propose the Dems take any position on Kavanaugh without proper evidence. If they say impeach, and the evidence doesn't follow, they look like a rabid mob. If they say don't impeach, and the evidence shows impeachment proper, they look like part of the swamp.

What they should do is act and speak like adults: we will investigate and act accordingly. That's all any reasonable person can truly say.

The Dems should be showing the country that they are the adults in the room.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2018-October-12, 17:01, said:

Ken,

I don't understand how you can propose the Dems take any position on Kavanaugh without proper evidence. If they say impeach, and the evidence doesn't follow, they look like a rabid mob. If they say don't impeach, and the evidence shows impeachment proper, they look like part of the swamp.

What they should do is act and speak like adults: we will investigate and act accordingly. That's all any reasonable person can truly say.

The Dems should be showing the country that they are the adults in the room.

Of course they cannot say that they will impeach him without evidence, the proper phrase would be pursue impeachment, or maybe investigate impeachment or maybe some other phrase. I might have spoken carelessly. But we do both understand the choice, do we not?


51 Senators confirmed Kavanaugh and there are now nine justices on the Supreme Court. Of course any or all of the nine could be investigated. Do the Dems feel that such an investigation is particularly warranted for any specific one of these nine?
I expect that some Dems believe that the answer is yes, and some believe that the answer is no. Instead of making us guess, they could tell us. Voters sometimes appreciate clarity. This has all been recent enough so that few voters will say "Kavanaugh, who's that?"
Am I really being that unclear?

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2018-October-12, 19:58, said:

Of course they cannot say that they will impeach him without evidence, the proper phrase would be pursue impeachment, or maybe investigate impeachment or maybe some other phrase. I might have spoken carelessly. But we do both understand the choice, do we not?


51 Senators confirmed Kavanaugh and there are now nine justices on the Supreme Court. Of course any or all of the nine could be investigated. Do the Dems feel that such an investigation is particularly warranted for any specific one of these nine?
I expect that some Dems believe that the answer is yes, and some believe that the answer is no. Instead of making us guess, they could tell us. Voters sometimes appreciate clarity. This has all been recent enough so that few voters will say "Kavanaugh, who's that?"
Am I really being that unclear?

Maybe I am dense.

[johnu]

kenberg, on 2018-October-12, 19:58, said:

51 Senators confirmed Kavanaugh and there are now nine justices on the Supreme Court. Of course any or all of the nine could be investigated. Do the Dems feel that such an investigation is particularly warranted for any specific one of these nine?

I don't speak for anybody but myself but now that you bring it up, there's a good case for doing another background check on Clarence Thomas. But, as for the the same reasons as Bart O these should be put off for at least 2 more years.

[johnu]

kenberg, on 2018-October-12, 19:58, said:

I expect that some Dems believe that the answer is yes, and some believe that the answer is no. Instead of making us guess, they could tell us. Voters sometimes appreciate clarity. This has all been recent enough so that few voters will say "Kavanaugh, who's that?"
Am I really being that unclear?

LOL, you expect politicians to provide clarity? I'll try to track down the turnip truck that you hitched a ride into town on

[kenberg]

johnu, on 2018-October-13, 00:58, said:

LOL, you expect politicians to provide clarity? I'll try to track down the turnip truck that you hitched a ride into town on

Well, to be technical, no, I don't expect it. I would like it. I would like many things that I don't actually expect to happen.In this particular case, my argument is that I think not being clear hurts their chances in the election. I am not trying to appeal to their better natures, I am giving them unasked for advice about how to cope with some of the R attack strategy.

I was going to say "But nobody listens to me" and then put in a crying emoticon but I don't see any crying emoticons, what's a sorrowful guy to do?


The Rs say "If the Dems win they will purge our guy", everyone from Trump to Pelosi thinks the Rs will profit from that strategy, the Ds could counter this by making a clear statement that they accept the result of the confirmation and are prepared to move on, they don't do this. So voters conclude, probably with some accuracy, that the Ds do hope to oust Kav when they get the power to do it, and I think this is going to cost them with a lot of everyday type voters who are really tired of the paralysis that comes with nothing ever being considered settled.

Well, too late now. If a straightforward unambiguous response to a simple situation takes weeks to appear, nobody believes it.

More unasked for advice: We need a crying emoticon.

[Winstonm]

Ken,

I am surprised you listened to the fake news reports about the Democrats when you know that as soon as that great civil rights activist, Robert E. Lee, is appointed over the objections of the angry mob of 17 Democrats that the sale of $110 billion in arms will prevent Mexico from stealing our jobs as soon as the wall is complete. China, too!

[hrothgar]

ggwhiz, on 2018-October-12, 07:41, said:

Agreed but..........What is the history of changing the confirmation votes needed from 60 to 51?

More importantly, who thought that was a good idea? Under the 60 vote scenario wing-nuts need not apply, left or right and I for one would like to see it make a comeback.

The cloture requirements for circuit court justices was changed from 60 --> 51 back during the Obama administration when the Republicans refused to seat ANY Obama nominees to circuit courts.

The reason that Trump is getting to appoint so many judges is that he inherited 100+ vacancies.

https://www.brooking...ncies-to-trump/

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2018-October-13, 06:41, said:

The Rs say "If the Dems win they will purge our guy", everyone from Trump to Pelosi thinks the Rs will profit from that strategy, the Ds could counter this by making a clear statement that they accept the result of the confirmation and are prepared to move on, they don't do this. So voters conclude, probably with some accuracy, that the Ds do hope to oust Kav when they get the power to do it, and I think this is going to cost them with a lot of everyday type voters who are really tired of the paralysis that comes with nothing ever being considered settled.

Ken, regardless of whether or not the Democrats planned to impeach Kavanaugh, the Republicans would be claiming that they would and their idiot cult like followers will eat it up.

With this said and done, I do hope that the Democrats launch an investigation into Kavanaugh's background and pack the Supreme Court.
Its much more humane than assassination.