Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 251: Cop Out

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/ASFleischman/status/1202274746039181312

---

as always, lol national review

---

https://www.howardstern.com/show/2019/12/4/hillary-rodham-clinton-offers-advice-2020-candidates-reveals-why-donald-trump-inauguration-hardest-days/

Really fascinating stuff; Stern is a great interviewer.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://www.howardstern.com/show/2019/12/4/hillary-rodham-clinton-offers-advice-2020-candidates-reveals-why-donald-trump-inauguration-hardest-days/

Really fascinating stuff; Stern is a great interviewer.

Clinton did an interview on Howard stern she is running for president (this is already a headline somewhere I checked).

Every so often, the media freaks out about how horrible US scores are, citing test score results. Of course, if you control for "certain factors," the results aren't nearly so bleak...

http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-new-2018-pisa-school-test-scores-usa-usa/

---

---

SmartMuffin posted...

Every so often, the media freaks out about how horrible US scores are, citing test score results. Of course, if you control for "certain factors," the results aren't nearly so bleak...

http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-new-2018-pisa-school-test-scores-usa-usa/

Regardless of accuracy...

Wow, what a source. Check out the wikipedia page on that one

---

In more positive news, Bernie is leading in California bolstered by latinx voters whooo

---

Leafeon13N posted...

Clinton did an interview on Howard stern she is running for president (this is already a headline somewhere I checked).

I saw a headline about that.

---

For Chris.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-howard-stern/index.html

---

Shes still the 6th favorite to win the primary based on gambling odds, after Biden, Pete, Warren, Bernie, and Bloomberg

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

In more positive news, Bernie is leading in California bolstered by latinx voters whooo

https://twitter.com/AriRabinHavt/status/1202581626452168706?s=19

lol

---

Corrik7 posted...

For Chris.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-howard-stern/index.html

I would expect an article like that from Yahoo News reporting on Game of Throne speculation. CNN has sunk really really far.

---

https://twitter.com/msdncnews/status/1202331079425888257?s=21

Just fuck off already.

---

Not going to take one poll that appears to be an outliar as a "he's leading woo", but it is encouraging and could be the start of a trend.

Corrik7 posted...

For Chris.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-howard-stern/index.html

Saw it and don't care. The media not liking Bernie is old news. Focused on policy and getting voters.

---

Reg posted...

Not going to take one poll that appears to be an outliar as a "he's leading woo", but it is encouraging and could be the start of a trend.

California has a fair amount of these kind of polls mixed in with ones where Biden is leading so they're all 3 probably tied-ish.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/california/

---

Very cool that Rudys meeting with a Ukrainian whose dad has people assassinated

https://twitter.com/aaronblake/status/1202648674448412674?s=21

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

California has a fair amount of these kind of polls mixed in with ones where Biden is leading so they're all 3 probably tied-ish.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/california/

CA is proportional anyway, so it's not like it's that important of a state

---

I can personally confirm that Biden will get a positive number of votes in CA...!

---

CA also votes in June, right? It will have long been over by then.

---

No, it's in March. Super Tuesday, dude.

---

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/12/05/joe-biden-calls-man-damn-liar-076438

Woof

---

Trump's sociopathic ability to shrug off insults without letting it get to him really contrasts with Biden losing his temper over this.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/12/05/joe-biden-calls-man-damn-liar-076438

Woof

Tbf the guy was lying about his kid!

---

I will admit that the pushups/IQ test thing was embarrassing, though

---

I will say, the ability to feel anger isn't necessarily a bad thing.

---

So North Korea, which previously threatened nuclear war, is now threatening.....to send personal insults about the US President if they don't get what they want.

Trump needs a Nobel peace prize. Who could have predicted such a radical change from North Korea!

---

Speaking of Biden, John Kerry endorsed him.

Doubt itll matter too much with anyone who wasnt already voting Biden, but Kerrys probably the biggest name to weigh in so far, right? Not sure which single endorsements would really impact things much besides Obama and Clinton (neither of whom is likely to do so before things are already wrapped up).

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I will admit that the pushups/IQ test thing was embarrassing, though

I don't think that's too damaging, but "you're too old to vote for me" is bad.

---

Another kid dies in border patrol custody after his flu symptoms were ignored:

https://twitter.com/lizzieohreally/status/1202668025041825799?s=21

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Speaking of Biden, John Kerry endorsed him.

Doubt itll matter too much with anyone who wasnt already voting Biden, but Kerrys probably the biggest name to weigh in so far, right? Not sure which single endorsements would really impact things much besides Obama and Clinton (neither of whom is likely to do so before things are already wrapped up).

Today I learned that Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale are still alive! I was going to say that Kerry has less political clout than any living former presidential candidate, but they killed that theory.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I was going to say that Kerry has less political clout than any living former presidential candidate

Really? Not knowing that Dukakis and Mondale are still alive is understandable, but I can't believe you of all people would forget about W.
---

I knew Mondale was alive because I saw that he had endorsed Klobuchar a while back!

Actually now Im wondering if Bush endorsing the Dem in the general would matter (...and if so, in which direction)

---

Xeybozn posted...

Really? Not knowing that Dukakis and Mondale are still alive is understandable, but I can't believe you of all people would forget about W.

W is beloved in Texas and is generally increasing favorability nationally (probably from staying out of politics). If there was a tight primary and he wanted to swing Texas, he absolutely could do that.

Literally no one cares about John Kerry.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I knew Mondale was alive because I saw that he had endorsed Klobuchar a while back!

Actually now Im wondering if Bush endorsing the Dem in the general would matter (...and if so, in which direction)

It would help Trump. He isn't Republican Party leader anymore but most non-Republicans still think he was a bad president.

---

If Hillary could somehow contrive of a way to credibly endorse Trump, that could sink his candidacy. But no one would believe her if she said she honestly supported him.

---

red sox 777 posted...

If Hillary could somehow contrive of a way to credibly endorse Trump, that could sink his candidacy. But no one would believe her if she said she honestly supported him.

Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!

---

Someone apparently rang our doorbell and left a "Justice for Mike Brown" poster that was crossed out with #trump2020 written underneath.

My housemate answered the door 15 seconds after it rang and they were nowhere to be seen, so I guess they just ran off. Weird.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty3BhhcAJGQ

---

I don't really have a good lead-in for this, but I saw this earlier today and thought it was an interesting read and could be helpful for anyone curious about the procedures and mechanics that are likely to be in play for a Senate Impeachment trial:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/imagining-senate-trial-reading-senate-rules-impeachment-litigation

Lawfare wrote up a piece examining the Senate's current rules for impeachment and how it would work out, as well as hypothesizing over some tactics each party may use, and answers some questions along the way like "Could Senate Republicans really turn things into a Biden investigation and call Hunter Biden or Schiff or whoever to the stand?" (Answer: ...Probably? Might depend on what Roberts says though.) It's a bit lengthy but worth the read IMO.

Some of the bigger points IMO:

-Roberts isn't truly the judge here. He is simply made the presiding officer of the Senate for the trial. The Senators themselves play the role of both judge and jury.

-Roberts may rule on questions of evidence like relevancy but he does not have to. Furthermore, even should he make a ruling, any Senator may call for a vote on the question and the Senate votes on it and that result is the final decision. Roberts can also simply punt such questions directly to a Senate vote if he doesn't want to rule himself.

-There's a twist wherein you need 67 votes to change a rule rather than 51. So if a motion can't be made to be reconciled with the existing rules you would need 67 votes to waive or change said rule.

-The Senate can motion to adjourn the trial sine die (basically dismiss the case.)

-You would need 51 votes to call witnesses

-It's not entirely clear what occurs in a 50-50 tie here. Obviously that's normally broken by Pence but because of the conflict of interest, it's Roberts who is the presiding officer of the Senate for the trial, not Pence. Precedent suggests Roberts is the tiebreaker as during the Johnson impeachment the Chief Justice broke two ties. It's a fringe case, but in cases where Roberts sides with the Democrats it would mean they would only need 3 flips to uphold such rulings instead of 4.

---

xp1337 posted...

I don't really have a good lead-in for this, but I saw this earlier today and thought it was an interesting read and could be helpful for anyone curious about the procedures and mechanics that are likely to be in play for a Senate Impeachment trial:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/imagining-senate-trial-reading-senate-rules-impeachment-litigation

Lawfare wrote up a piece examining the Senate's current rules for impeachment and how it would work out, as well as hypothesizing over some tactics each party may use, and answers some questions along the way like "Could Senate Republicans really turn things into a Biden investigation and call Hunter Biden or Schiff or whoever to the stand?" (Answer: ...Probably? Might depend on what Roberts says though.) It's a bit lengthy but worth the read IMO.

Some of the bigger points IMO:

-Roberts isn't truly the judge here. He is simply made the presiding officer of the Senate for the trial. The Senators themselves play the role of both judge and jury.

-Roberts may rule on questions of evidence like relevancy but he does not have to. Furthermore, even should he make a ruling, any Senator may call for a vote on the question and the Senate votes on it and that result is the final decision. Roberts can also simply punt such questions directly to a Senate vote if he doesn't want to rule himself.

-There's a twist wherein you need 67 votes to change a rule rather than 51. So if a motion can't be made to be reconciled with the existing rules you would need 67 votes to waive or change said rule.

-The Senate can motion to adjourn the trial sine die (basically dismiss the case.)

-You would need 51 votes to call witnesses

-It's not entirely clear what occurs in a 50-50 tie here. Obviously that's normally broken by Pence but because of the conflict of interest, it's Roberts who is the presiding officer of the Senate for the trial, not Pence. Precedent suggests Roberts is the tiebreaker as during the Johnson impeachment the Chief Justice broke two ties. It's a fringe case, but in cases where Roberts sides with the Democrats it would mean they would only need 3 flips to uphold such rulings instead of 4.

Ah cool, I'm glad to hear it clarified that the whole Senate acts as judge and not only as jury. I think we are looking at a very productive trial then where Biden, Comey, etc. can finally be put on trial. Maybe even Hillary...


---

xp1337 posted...

Precedent suggests Roberts is the tiebreaker as during the Johnson impeachment the Chief Justice broke two ties.

I assume that's because Johnson didn't have a VP though

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I assume that's because Johnson didn't have a VP though

Maybe.

I think the Constitution is unclear here.

Article I Section 3

The Vice President of the United states shall be President of the Senate but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside

I feel like you can read this validly either as:

1. The VP's tiebreaker role is executed through his role of the presiding officer of the US Senate - the title "President of the Senate." Since the Chief Justice is explicitly named the presiding officer in the event of a Presidential Impeachment Trial that authority - which resides with the presiding officer - lies with him in this very specific instance.
2. The above is reading too much into it.

Now, obviously I favor interpretation 1, but I'm not a lawyer and won't claim that my interpretation there is correct.

I think it is legitimately an open legal question what occurs in that situation. Nonetheless, I feel like if 2 were the correct reading that Chief Justice Chase would simply have lacked the authority to vote there at all and the tie would have stood. There not being a VP at the time didn't magically make him VP at that moment to cast those tiebreakers. If you want to argue he was acting unconstitutionally, so be it!

---

https://twitter.com/jesselehrich/status/1202741636666740737?s=21

---

xp1337 posted...

Maybe.

I think the Constitution is unclear here.

Article I Section 3

I feel like you can read this validly either as:

1. The VP's tiebreaker role is executed through his role of the presiding officer of the US Senate - the title "President of the Senate." Since the Chief Justice is explicitly named the presiding officer in the event of a Presidential Impeachment Trial that authority - which resides with the presiding officer - lies with him in this very specific instance.
2. The above is reading too much into it.
Now, obviously I favor interpretation 1, but I'm not a lawyer and won't claim that my interpretation there is correct.

I think it is legitimately an open legal question what occurs in that situation. Nonetheless, I feel like if 2 were the correct reading that Chief Justice Chase would simply have lacked the authority to vote there at all and the tie would have stood. There not being a VP at the time didn't magically make him VP at that moment to cast those tiebreakers. If you want to argue he was acting unconstitutionally, so be it!

So the problem with 1 is, I think, the president pro tempore and other presiding officers of the Senate do not have tiebreaking powers. So it seems the tiebreaking vote does not run with being presiding officer.

The way it's literally written (shall have no vote except) seems to imply the VP's vote is not a true tiebreak vote at all - it counts the same as the vote of any other member of the Senate, but he may not cast it unless they are equally divided.

This interpretation is consistent with the tiebreaking power of the Speaker of the British House of Commons. He casts no vote unless the sides are equally divided and then he has a vote to cast because he is a Member. If that's the precedent the framers followed, then the Chief Justice cannot break a tie because he is not a member of the Senate and no normal presiding officer other than the VP can break a tie because they would be casting a 2nd vote.

---

And I guess if there is no VP or he abstains....the CJ maybe could cast a true tiebreak vote....where the result is 50-50 (1-0) rather than 51-50. But I guess CJ Roberts will have to decide this very tricky business as there's no great precedent for this!


---

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1202767133538684928?s=21

Not surprising, but amazing that no one seems to care that every country with surveillance capabilities can probably blackmail the president

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1202767133538684928?s=21

Not surprising, but amazing that no one seems to care that every country with surveillance capabilities can probably blackmail the president

This president openly admits everything. He cannot be blackmailed.

---

red sox 777 posted...

So the problem with 1 is, I think, the president pro tempore and other presiding officers of the Senate do not have tiebreaking powers. So it seems the tiebreaking vote does not run with being presiding officer.

That's where I'd attack that interpretation from, yeah. However, I'd argue that is simply because the president pro tempore, etc. already have a vote and have presumably cast it (had they not then the mere act of voting would be, in effect, a tiebreaker)

I'd admit this argument takes a pretty fatal blow if the Senate is allowed to choose non-Senators to act as presiding officers because that'd be introducing one hell of a "clearly that isn't how it should work" case... but can they? I know we all joke about naming whoever Speaker but can the Senate choose their officers from outside their body?

Basically, you don't see other presiding officers cast a "tiebreaking vote" because it would be a second vote from them and that's a no-go.

Though, like I said, I admit that the argument you're putting forth against this seems sound to me. It's why I said it's an open question IMO and why Lawfare said it was complicated, cited Article 1 Section 3 about the VP, that the Senate Impeachment rules don't address this situation, and simply noted the precedent of Chief Justice Chase in the Johnson Impeachment suggests that Roberts probably could break a tie.

---