Nadler on the offense
Representative Nadler managed to insult some of the people one would think he’d like to persuade:
The House Democrat made a critical error early in the trial of President Trump. He didn’t just say that Republican senators, who voted to begin the proceedings without calling witnesses, were part of a cover up. He said they had committed treason: “So far, I’m sad to say, I see a lot of senators voting for a coverup. Voting to deny witnesses and obviously a treacherous vote. A vote against honest consideration of the evidence against the president. A vote against an honest trial. A vote against the United States.”
Murkowski and Collins were not amused.
More:
A Republican senator told me before the trial began that the conduct of the House managers would play a major role in forming senators’ judgments. Nadler’s eruption proved the point. The contemptuous attitude of Democrats toward Republicans, and the pass-the-buck mentality that drove the House to impeach Trump before the evidence was in and inter-branch disputes settled by the courts, give GOP senators every reason to vote on the charges sooner rather than later.
But that “contemptuous attitude” and “pass-the-buck mentality” had both been in prominent display long before the Schiff and Nadler show moved to the Senate. Had the moderate GOP senators not been paying attention all this time? Is it only when they personally are insulted that they start taking offense?
I recall a statement made by Paul Krugman a while ago in which he stated that doesn’t read anything that is right of center. That leads to a very provincial view. I think lot of Dems are under the same influence – no idea of the broader outlook and how others perceive things.
What liberals contemptuous of their opponents! I find that hard to believe !
Know your audience could be a thing at trial.
The mere fact that the House managers together have chosen to use the entire 24 hours granted them, as opposed to limiting themselves to half that or less, say, tells us they hold the entire Senate in utter contempt.
They could have made their case in full in five hours while respecting the minds of their auditors. That they chose not? Tells the Senators they are viewed as if children.
This attitude can be grudgingly accepted by some of the Democrats in order to go for the main chance: get Trump! I doubt they’re all quite so humiliation proof.
The Republicans on the other hand? Not one should put up with this insult. Not one.
Here’s one problem with the Dem “bring the whole team” approach. Nancy named what–7 or 8 “impeachment team members”. Now some pigs are more equal than others, and Adam Schiff seems to have collected the most speechifying time. But every team member has to have an hour or two to shine (or not).
The facts, such as they are, are pretty thin on the ground, and don’t take long to describe. But if every “team member” has to have at least an hour (if not more) they soon run out of new things to talk about.
One is reminded of Dem antics during the recent Kavanaugh confirmation
You are looking at the wrong audience. This is aimed at defeating Republican senators in the election, not removing Trump. The audience is reporters who know what to repeat ad nauseam to defeat Collins and others.
It’s a good point Paul. You’re right: they look past the formal meaning of their enterprise, disrespecting the entire nation in the process.
Paul has the right of it. The dems have known all along that Trump will not be convicted in the Senate. This is about creating a narrative that there was not a fair, honest trial and, that a corrupt Republican majority obstructed justice. The goal is to regain enough seats in the Senate, so that the dems can block any future legislation and any judicial nominations that Trump may seek in the future. The dems aren’t seeking to eject Trump, they’re seeking to set the preconditions for his castration.
I believe I saw this morning that Collins said she would NOT base her vote on Nadler’s insult. So why he may have pissed her off enough that she sent a note to Roberts, that appears to be the end of it.
Ala what Paul Baker said… I also think the Dems have a longer term strategy here than impeachment. Taking back the Senate is one goal. I also think much of what Schiff has been going on about is to lay the groundwork for declaring the November election null and void. He has repeated many times about Trump already cheating in the election, and other Dems have picked that up.
They could have made their case in full in five hours while respecting the minds of their auditors. That they chose not? Tells the Senators they are viewed as if children.
No, the Democrats’ audience is the TV audience. That’s why they went on so long and repetitively. But the networks started going to soap operas and regular programming so that failed.
The Trump team’s audience is the Senate so they can wind up in a few hours.
Then Nadler pissed off Murkowski who is a swamp creature if there ever was one. Big mistake. No witnesses.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who has been seen as a swing vote, appeared wary of a legal fight, characterizing House Democrats as trying to get the Senate to go through a legal battle they bypassed.
“It’s kind of like the House made a decision that they didn’t want to slow things down by having to go through the courts,” she said. “And yet now they’re basically saying you guys need to go through the courts. We didn’t but we need you to. That’s kind of where we are.”
“Much of what Schiff has been going on about is to lay the groundwork for declaring the November election null and void.” physicsguy
If it comes to that with the dems united, I would imagine that Trump will take it to the Supreme Court, as it would be a Constitutional crisis. If the dems then defy the S.C., what choice will Trump have but to declare martial law?
“I believe I saw this morning that Collins said she would NOT base her vote on Nadler’s insult.”
I think I’ve noted my loathing of the GOP in just about every comment I’ve made here and this sort of thing is a key reason why.
I’d like to know just what, exactly, would cause people like Collins to lose what is either a silly pretense that they aren’t human enough to get angry because of the endless insults and attacks by scum such as Nadler or is cluelessness beyond the capacity of words to express.
A while back I happened to see a story about Collins. Her husband had to spend a couple weeks in quarantine after a leftist sent them an envelope stuffed with something that was claimed to be anthrax. Of course, since this is typical leftist behavior it passed without much notice.
But this happened to her, up close and personal. I would thought it would have left a mark, so to speak, on her worldview.
Yet here she is, unable or unwilling to connect the dots between the casual and relentless hostility of leftists like Nadler and the time her husband spent wondering if he was going to die.
Nope, eyes not opened, clue not gotten. She won’t base her vote her vote on the actions of leftists, who hold her in contempt, insult her, and attack her family, and by the way literally never ever stop inciting their supporters to violence.
She’ll base her vote- well, upon just what, exactly? Her magic 8 ball’s latest answer?
Nadler closed by calling Trump a dictator.
Why Oh Why does the the GOP put up with this shit? In the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body, where the work for the American people is to be done?
Xennady:
I would think Collins should base her vote on the merits – or lack of merit – of the case, not whether she’s insulted or annoyed or bored.
That’s what they all should be doing, but of course they aren’t.
So it’s my guess that what you’re angry about is that she appears to be playing by the old-fashioned rules of merit, and they are not. It’s the old question that we discussed the other day in this thread.
Also, she has a particular dilemma, being from a mostly-blue state. Her chance of re-election, and of the GOP keeping the majority in the Senate, could hinge on her making a choice that placates enough voters to get her re-elected.
Nadler is a moron.
The Dems think this trial will help them win in November. Wrong. Trump’s victory margin just increases.
Cornhead,
No, Nadler is not a moron. He, along with Schiff and Pelosi are after the Senate, as a way to neuter Trump.
Nadler is however, a seditionist. His intent is treason. He justifies it by telling himself that the end justifies the means. As do they all.
neo on January 24, 2020 at 7:23 pm said:
Xennady:
I would think Collins should base her vote on the merits – or lack of merit – of the case, not whether she’s insulted or annoyed or bored.
That’s what they all should be doing, but of course they aren’t.
* * *
I agree with the philosophy, but we all know that’s not what’s going to happen.
And maybe Collins is just dissembling for public consumption.
No one is going to hook her up to a lie detector after the vote.
“Her chance of re-election, and of the GOP keeping the majority in the Senate, could hinge on her making a choice that placates enough voters to get her re-elected.”
One of the reasons why Collins is from a mostly blue state is because Republicans like her are unwilling to point out just how vile the left actually is. Thus, in this example, faced with an impeachment process that is utterly without merit, she piously intones that she won’t notice. She’ll wipe Nadler’s spit off her face, and pretend nothing is wrong.
This is foolishness. She is not only a Senator, but also a politician. Presumably she should understand the need to make a political case to win votes. Presumably her actions in this matter are undertaken with this in mind, as you note.
Yet somehow she feels the need to placate voters who aren’t aware of the vile and baseless nature of this impeachment. That is, she feels the need to accept the leftist framing of events, instead of pointing out why it is wrong.
Why?
My take is that she is bad at her job. That is, she actually lacks the ability to make a political case and win over voters, thus allowing herself to speak freely. Or, alternatively, she doesn’t really understand what is actually happening, and is saying what she really thinks now.
Neither case makes me respect her. She should be a slam-dunk for re-election, period. If she isn’t, then maybe her theory of politics is wrong. If she is, then she should certainly be able climb out a little way on a proverbial limb to point out the vile and fraudulent nature of the democrat party and its endless and baseless lies.
But no, that never happens. Instead, people like Collins keep temporizing until they lose, thus turning their states over to the viciously stupid cretins of the democrat party.
Interesting to me is that, while the Democrats continue to raise the specter of Russia as the Bond villain in every speech, nobody in the Republican team calls time out to review cases as a thought experiment. So: Russians control Trump and fixed the election, huh? Let’s review: Mueller found what again? Oh that’s right, no collusion. Mueller was your guy, right? Check. Russia is getting its ass waxed strategically in the Middle East by the US. Check. US Military strength & capability being increased. Check. US Economy stronger than ever. Check. Unemployment at historic record lows across all races and demographics. Check. Government regulatory structures being streamlined to make it business and populace friendly. Check. Foreign Policy: one win after the other. Check. Now – Which of those is a Russian objective, again? Any Democrat? Anyone? If not those, then what American Vulnerability is being exploited by the Russians, please? The national debt, maybe? And who is mostly responsible? Any Democrat? Anyone?
No one – not even the Senators themselves – seem to be paying attention to the impeachment trial.
On the one hand, I hope it lasts for months because as long as it is going on our ‘leaders’ in Washington DC can’t pass more ways to shaft us.
On the other hand, the Senate can’t approve any more Judges while this mockery of a travesty of a travesty of a mockery of ‘justice’ continues. (riffing on an old Woody Allen movie)
and the time her husband spent wondering if he was going to die.
There are antibiotic treatments for anthrax.
Collins’ is living up to her brand. You can wager she’s quite aware of what she’s facing, just not tipping her hand.
She has an election to fight and faces a difficult campaign. There’s a great deal of out-of-state money flowing in from leftoids outraged that she defended Brett Kavanaugh.
Red State has several posts up on Nadler’s Deplorables Moment, and Conservative Treehouse is covering a lot of the pressers by the GOP, which is where they are trying to counter the Democrat narrative & expose their lies.
However, I think Joni Ernst raised the best question.
https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2020/01/24/771546/
And Graham 2.0 is in full swing.
https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2020/01/24/lindsey-graham-doubles-down-on-his-investigation-into-the-bidens-nobody-has-explained-how-hunter-got-rich-in-ukraine/
A news item I haven’t seen elsewhere.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/22/21-state-attorneys-general-submit-legal-brief-urging-senate-to-reject-articles-of-impeachment/
My take is that she is bad at her job. That is, she actually lacks the ability to make a political case and win over voters,
She’s been winning over voters for 20-odd years in Maine. Come up with a better thesis.
Part of Nadler’s team at work.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/24/george-stephanopoulos-caught-on-camera-telling-abc-studio-to-cut-off-trump-defense-attorney/
But they can’t shut down everyone, no matter how hard they try.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/23/elise-stefanik-improperly-constructed-house-articles-are-no-excuse-for-new-senate-witnesses/comment-page-2/#comment-7776854
But the press will do their best (from the above CTH post).
Actually, Nadler and the Democrats are very much on the defense with this entire impeachment drama.
While they are focusing attention on a show in DC that the country isn’t watching, Trump is racking up win after win around the world.
For instance, although Mexico is not paying of the bricks and mortar of the border wall, they are paying for the military troops that are keeping migrants from getting to the border in the first place — admittedly to avoid losing their financial aid, but it is money we would have given them anyway, and they are spending it at Trump’s direction.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/24/lopez-obrador-under-globalist-fire-for-blocking-central-american-migrants/
Read his speeches at Davos and the Right to Life March.
Yuge.
“There are antibiotic treatments for anthrax.”
Much like there are various treatments for cancer. Yet I suspect no one thinks after that diagnosis, no problem there are treatments.
“Collins’ is living up to her brand.”
We agree here.
“She has an election to fight and faces a difficult campaign.”
My point- WHY does she face a difficult campaign? My take- she’s bad at her job.
“There’s a great deal of out-of-state money flowing in from leftoids outraged that she defended Brett Kavanaugh.”
No doubt. What is she going to do about it? My guess- nothing. Sniveling about events is not action, unfortunately for her and her similarly incompetent gop friends.
That’s why these folks ended up with Donald Trump as nominee, then president.
They’re idiots. Nuff said. Goodnight.
“She’s been winning over voters for 20-odd years in Maine. Come up with a better thesis.”
Then why does she face a supposedly tough re-election fight this year?
I thought I addressed this- oh wait, I did.
Read the comment you quoted. No, read it. Seriously.
Again, read that comment.
Well, you won’t, so I’ll repost the relevant bits here again to give you another chance.
“She should be a slam-dunk for re-election, period. If she isn’t, then maybe her theory of politics is wrong. If she is, then she should certainly be able climb out a little way on a proverbial limb to point out the vile and fraudulent nature of the democrat party and its endless and baseless lies.”
Either she’s been winning over voters for 20-odd years, or she hasn’t been winning them over. She’s popular, or she isn’t. If she is, then she should be able to express her disdain about the shockingly vile attempt to overturn the 2016 election result, quite freely. If she isn’t popular, maybe that explains why she would think her policy of falling between two stools is her best option.
Whatever. Bedtime foe me.
My point- WHY does she face a difficult campaign? My take- she’s bad at her job.
Yeah, but your take is stupid. If she were bad at her job, she’d have been run out of Washington by the Democratic Party in Maine 17 years ago. She wasn’t because whatever she’s good at or bad at, she does know how to run fundraising and publicity campaigns in her constituency. She’s not Nancy Pelosi sitting for 30 years in a safe seat in Frisco. Statewide elections in Maine are quite competitive.
“She should be a slam-dunk for re-election,
In your imagination, only. Democrats have won five of the last 12 gubernatorial elections in Maine (with non-partisan candidates winning three of those 12). They’ve won three of the last 13 U.S. Senate contests in Maine; two others were won by a non-partisan candidate who caucuses with the Democrats and three others were won by a ‘Republican’ who (unlike Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe) usually voted with the Democrats and eventually took a cabinet post in the Clinton Administration. The Democrats have also held the positions of Secretary of State, State Treasurer, and state Attorney-General (all elected by the legislature) for about 90% of the time since 1975. They’ve held one U.S. House seat for 33 of the last 45 years and the other for 21 of the last 45 years (and for four years that 2d house seat was held by that same with-friends-like-these Republican who held the Senate seat for three terms). She doesn’t have an easy constituency in which to run.
Xennady:
Are you familiar with Maine?
Actually, its politics have changed over time. This is true of a lot of states. It’s actually rather amazing that it still might elect a Republican senator, considering the political makeup of the state at present. Once Collins goes – if she goes – that may never happen again. Recent GOP governor Le Page was only elected because it was a five-way race the first time,and a three-way race the second time; he never got a majority (see this). All of Maine’s members of the House are Democrats. The Maine legislature Is strongly Democratic. Until Trump won the more rural Maine District 2 (51% to 41%, with the rest going to third party candidates), no Republican presidential candidate had won in either district since Bush 1. In District 1, Hillary won 54% to 39%. Hillary also won the at-large electoral votes from Maine. So Collins faces an uphill battle and it’s amazing she still has any chance at all.
So no, she shouldn’t be a slam dunk, despite her incumbency. Incumbency isn’t some sort of magic ticket to re-election, and Collins has been swimming successfully against a Democratic tide in Maine for a long time, but she may not be able to do it forever if the tide becomes too overwhelming. The Democrats’ impeachment trial is meant to put her on trial. She has to please the right in her state but she can’t anger the Democrats in her state too much or she will lose, and that’s that.
Years ago, I recall listening to then-RNC chair Reince Priebus- no, I’m not going to google the actual spelling his name so it might be wrong- lamenting that many of the states that Bush 41 carried in 1988 weren’t even in play for 43 or Mittens.
I thought, how did that happen Reince? Why is the gop such a sniveling set of losers?
My conclusion- these people are bad at their jobs.
I have no special animus against Susan Collins- or Reince- nor any sort of expertise about the politics of Maine, not least because I don’t really care.
But we aren’t really talking about Maine. We’re discussing the background of national politics upon which the national frame of discussion rests. That is, Collins isn’t merely a local minion representing an obscure locality most people will never visit or care about.
She’s a player on the national political scene.
What does she do with that opportunity/responsibility?
Well, she meekly accepts the asinine assumptions the left conjured up to fool people into thinking they aren’t murderous vermin, which is typical of the gee oh peee. In this particular example, she accepts that this impeachment has some reasonable basis and stated that she’ll base her vote on the non-existent merits, instead of angrily pointing out that the impeachment actually has no merits.
This is what failure looks like.
I’ve had enough, as have most voters. This is why an orange-haired reality tv star crushed what I was told by my conservative betters was the best GOP field of candidates ever in 2016, despite a legion of flaws.
My conclusion- these people are bad at their jobs.
By 2011, the position of the GOP in the state legislatures was as robust as it had been at any time since the 1920s and they held more seats in the House of Representatives than they had in any Congress (bar one) since the 1920s. They actually were performing better than the Lee Atwater-era GOP.
Susan Collins seems to be an honorable person. She stuck her neck out to do the right thing in the Kavanaugh hearing.
Here’s the transcript of her speech about that for those who have forgotten (I don’t read Vox, I just googled for the transcript and that’s the first place I found it):
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/5/17943276/susan-collins-speech-transcript-full-text-kavanaugh-vote