Market politics

[wdolson]

And then, in an interview, he says he just said that because the democrats didn't charge T with bribery. I guess they should have. But he probably just meant to hypotheticalize legal theory. Or something like that.

And another lawyer defending T was apparently according to Bolton actually part of it. Not saying anything about that at all.

Is it not as absurd as I think ?

The defense was trying to defend someone in which both the law and the facts were against them. Their arguments were amazingly poor. If Trump had been charged with bribery they would have argued something equally weaselly.

This was a whitewash from the start. Trump now has a significant cadre of ex-Republicans with rich backers in the Lincoln Project, quite a few wealthy people who are willing to open up their wallets and throw millions at the election, and this whitewash trial handed the Democrats a massive weapon to use against them this year.

Polls were showing that somewhere between 70 and 80% of Americans wanted to see witnesses and documents in this trial, but in the end only two Republicans voted for that. The Democrats are absolutely right that a trial involves presenting facts and witnesses and every impeachment in US history has had them. But McConnell knew that facts and witnesses would only prove to the American public how guilty Trump was, so he worked overtime to make sure there were not enough votes to allow them.

Compare this to the Clinton impeachment where Democrats were on board with a complete trial. If I remember right all the votes for the rules in that trial were unanimous. Why? The Democrats knew the case against Clinton was very thin and the American public saw it. The case against Trump was strong and presenting real evidence would just make the case that much stronger.

Rick Wilson said today the Lincoln Project is preparing ads to pummel every Republican Senator up for re-election who votes to acquit.

Immediately after Trump's acquittal expect him to do something even more impeachable. Rumor has it they plan to arrest John Bolton on made up security breach charges. Trump may try to arrest a bunch of Democrats too.

Trump is a malignant narcissist. He believes no rule applies to him and he can do whatever he wants. He has an attorney general who is telling him he is above the law and a defense team who successfully argued that in front of a jury heavily biased in his favor. The Republican Senate just handed a live hand grenade to a toddler and are expecting a safe result.

 

[bkp_duke]

Immediately after Trump's acquittal expect him to do something even more impeachable. Rumor has it they plan to arrest John Bolton on made up security breach charges. Trump may try to arrest a bunch of Democrats too.

With a statement like this, I can only assume you are high as a freaking kite. What a complete load of FUD.

 

[Norbert]

The defense was trying to defend someone in which both the law and the facts were against them. Their arguments were amazingly poor. If Trump had been charged with bribery they would have argued something equally weaselly.

This was a whitewash from the start. Trump now has a significant cadre of ex-Republicans with rich backers in the Lincoln Project, quite a few wealthy people who are willing to open up their wallets and throw millions at the election, and this whitewash trial handed the Democrats a massive weapon to use against them this year.

Polls were showing that somewhere between 70 and 80% of Americans wanted to see witnesses and documents in this trial, but in the end only two Republicans voted for that. The Democrats are absolutely right that a trial involves presenting facts and witnesses and every impeachment in US history has had them. But McConnell knew that facts and witnesses would only prove to the American public how guilty Trump was, so he worked overtime to make sure there were not enough votes to allow them.

Compare this to the Clinton impeachment where Democrats were on board with a complete trial. If I remember right all the votes for the rules in that trial were unanimous. Why? The Democrats knew the case against Clinton was very thin and the American public saw it. The case against Trump was strong and presenting real evidence would just make the case that much stronger.

Rick Wilson said today the Lincoln Project is preparing ads to pummel every Republican Senator up for re-election who votes to acquit.

Immediately after Trump's acquittal expect him to do something even more impeachable. Rumor has it they plan to arrest John Bolton on made up security breach charges. Trump may try to arrest a bunch of Democrats too.

Trump is a malignant narcissist. He believes no rule applies to him and he can do whatever he wants. He has an attorney general who is telling him he is above the law and a defense team who successfully argued that in front of a jury heavily biased in his favor. The Republican Senate just handed a live hand grenade to a toddler and are expecting a safe result.

The current republican motto: We don''t want to be right. We just want.

 

[jdw]

... The Democrats are absolutely right that a trial involves presenting facts and witnesses and every impeachment in US history has had them. But McConnell knew that facts and witnesses would only prove to the American public how guilty Trump was, so he worked overtime to make sure there were not enough votes to allow them.

Compare this to the Clinton impeachment where Democrats were on board with a complete trial. If I remember right all the votes for the rules in that trial were unanimous. Why? The Democrats knew the case against Clinton was very thin and the American public saw it.

You are are aware that constitutionally, the investigation & discovery for impeachment happens in the house and the house managers then present the charges and evidence to the senate which functions as the jury, not as the prosecutor. There were no senate witnesses called in Clintons impeachment either, although house managers did play a few videos of testimony given to the house & provided the special counsels investigation results and documented witness testimony.

With Trump, Democrats did the equivalent of charging the the President with "criminal behavior" without specifying what the crime was. They failed to identify an actual crime, failed to call actual first party witnesses and instead presented 17 witnesses that were either hearsay witnesses, opinion witnesses or professors. They also delivered 28000 rambling pages of "evidence" of a non-crime to the senate.

Imagine if you were indicted for a non-crime like "criminal behavior" but the prosecutor did no discovery before the trial and instead decided to do his discovery later in front of the jury, calling all kinds of witnesses your lawyer had no time to prepare for, trying to see if one of them could provide testimony to nail you for an actual crime of some kind. "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime".

In their rush to save democracy and impeach Trump before Christmas, the Dems botched the impeachment guaranteeing an acquittal - even if the whole process hadn't been completely partisan in both houses.

 

[wdolson]

You are are aware that constitutionally, the investigation & discovery for impeachment happens in the house and the house managers then present the charges and evidence to the senate which functions as the jury, not as the prosecutor. There were no senate witnesses called in Clintons impeachment either, although house managers did play a few videos of testimony given to the house & provided the special counsels investigation results and documented witness testimony.

With Trump, Democrats did the equivalent of charging the the President with "criminal behavior" without specifying what the crime was. They failed to identify an actual crime, failed to call actual first party witnesses and instead presented 17 witnesses that were either hearsay witnesses, opinion witnesses or professors. They also delivered 28000 rambling pages of "evidence" of a non-crime to the senate.

Imagine if you were indicted for a non-crime like "criminal behavior" but the prosecutor did no discovery before the trial and instead decided to do his discovery later in front of the jury, calling all kinds of witnesses your lawyer had no time to prepare for, trying to see if one of them could provide testimony to nail you for an actual crime of some kind. "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime".

In their rush to save democracy and impeach Trump before Christmas, the Dems botched the impeachment guaranteeing an acquittal - even if the whole process hadn't been completely partisan in both houses.

I was talking about the Senate Democrats who agreed to the rules of the trial for Clinton. In that impeachment the House managers who were prosecuting the case were Republicans. In the Clinton trial depositions were considered for three witnesses: Vernon Jordan, Sidney Blumenthal, and Monica Lewinsky. In the end they did get depositions from Jordan and Blumenthal, but not from Lewinsky. They did allow video excepts of her testimony though.

Clinton timeline:
Clinton impeachment timeline

The House subpoenaed quite a few witnesses that Trump blocked from testifying. As far as first hand witnesses, there were witnesses on the phone call and witnesses on the ground in Kiev who did testify. The reason more witnesses were not heard was because of the second charge against Donald Trump: Obstruction of Congress.

Trump did something no president has ever done during a presidential investigation. He claimed "blanket immunity" and claimed that Congress does not have the authority to investigate him. That is an absolutely ludicrous claim. In previous presidential investigations the White House turned over at least some of the requested documentation and allowed witnesses to testify. There were court cases about specific information that was not provided (the Oval Office tapes from the Nixon impeachment being one of the most famous), but a blanket refusal to cooperate in any way has never happened.

The Republicans have gotten very good at doing something that causes a problem and then citing that problem as an issue. This is an example of that. On the one hand blocking anyone from testifying then citing that the case is weak because those people didn't testify. Blocking the witnesses in the first place was a crime.

As far as the Abuse of Power article, the House Judiciary committee released a 658 page report on December 16 report on that article of impeachment that detailed criminal bribery and wire fraud as part of that article.

The impeachable crimes in the Constitution are:
"Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

The impeachments of Johnson and Clinton, as well as the almost impeachment of Nixon all fell into the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" part. That was a common legal term in the 18th century, but has fallen out of use. It basically means any behavior not befitting the office which could include actual crimes, but could also include any abuse of power, or even just obnoxious behavior.

Just because the word "bribery" does not appear in the articles is a distraction used by Trump's defenders in an attempt to discredit the impeachment.

And as far as the timeline goes. Trump has been using the courts to drag things out. He loses in trial court, then appeals to the appellate court. When he loses there, he appeals to the Supreme Court. One of the cases of a witness he blocked months ago is being fast tracked through SCOTUS and it's unlikely there will be a decision until March at the earliest. He will almost certainly lose, but that isn't the point, it's to drag things out as long as possible. Nancy Pelosi and the key committee chairs all made the point that the case against Trump is strong with what they have now. Getting more witnesses closer to Trump and the mountain of requested documents would take until the late spring or into the summer to get through SCOTUS. then all those witnesses have to have hearings and all the documents have to be digested. If that was the case, we're looking at filing articles around August and the Republicans would claim it was too close to the election and the Democrats were filing so late for political purposes, why didn't they file earlier? See above about creating a problem then citing it as the reason things can't be done.

Because the election is approaching there was pressure on both sides of the aisle (McConnell publicly said he wanted to hold the trial before Christmas) in both houses to get the impeachment filed and hopefully the impeachment trial done before the primaries started.

My SO is an attorney and talks with a lot of other attorneys on Twitter including some well known published authors like Seth Abramson. Those who have worked criminal law all agree that if this was a court case instead of an impeachment, conviction would be a slam dunk. The first article is about the crimes and the second article is about the obstruction covering up those crimes. Any evidence lacking you can simply point to the second article and he's guilty there. In other words, no matter what the argument he's guilty of one, the other, or both.

I do think the House managers did not clarify that well enough when presenting their case. But that's really my only criticism. They laid out the case quite well.

 

[bkp_duke]

My SO is an attorney and talks with a lot of other attorneys on Twitter including some well known published authors like Seth Abramson. Those who have worked criminal law all agree that if this was a court case instead of an impeachment, conviction would be a slam dunk. The first article is about the crimes and the second article is about the obstruction covering up those crimes. Any evidence lacking you can simply point to the second article and he's guilty there. In other words, no matter what the argument he's guilty of one, the other, or both.

If this were a court case, about 90% of what Adam Schiff did would be inadmissible and the case would be thrown out. That guy is the epitome of Washington Swamp.

 

[bkp_duke]

Trump did something no president has ever done during a presidential investigation. He claimed "blanket immunity" and claimed that Congress does not have the authority to investigate him. That is an absolutely ludicrous claim. In previous presidential investigations the White House turned over at least some of the requested documentation and allowed witnesses to testify. There were court cases about specific information that was not provided (the Oval Office tapes from the Nixon impeachment being one of the most famous), but a blanket refusal to cooperate in any way has never happened.

Wrong again. There is nothing in the constitution that says a defendant MUST help the prosecution put their case together. This is called the 5th amendment. If the Democrat's case was SO STRONG (like everyone led us to believe), then why would the closest inner circle of the President be needed to testify against him to get a Senate conviction.

It's the ever-moving goalpost of the Democrats. First it was Russia, and we would be shown DEFINITIVE PROOF that Trump was in collusion with Putin to overthrow our government, despite the fact that he's put Russia under far harsher sanctions than at anytime during the Obama administration. Hell, Obama SAT BY AND WATCHED Russia invade Ukraine, and STILL didn't do anything.

Second, it was that Trump was out to get political dirt on his potential 2020 opponent from Ukraine. But in the end there was no quid-pro-quo that the Democrats could charge him with. No ACTUAL crime that anyone can point to in a law book. So we get these vague articles of impeachment. Oh, and let's completely OVERLOOK the fact that there actually WAS a quid-pro-quo by Biden as VP while he was dealing with Ukraine. Inconvenient fact there, eh?

Third, as so eloquently pointed out by @jdw - it is COMPLETELY the RESPONSIBILITY of the House of Representatives to gather evidence to present to the Senate. The Senate is the Jury, not the investigators. Well, the House did a completely crap-tastic job there, so they are asking the Senate to do their job for them. The House was in such a rush to get things to the Senate, they DECIDED to not subpoena people like Bolton and wait for the courts to force him to testify (or not, up to the courts). This is the game they played, and it's completely backfired on them.

If the shoe were on the other foot, I 100% guarantee you that the Democrats would be doing exactly what Mitch McConnell has done, which is stick by the Constitution, and not allow the introduction of "new" evidence.

If the Democrats have a smoking gun, then let it go back to the House. They can impeach Trump a second time with the "new evidence" and perhaps they would actually charge him with a real crime this time. The Democrats committed political suicide the first time around, and I would love to see them go for it a 2nd time. Come November, their majority in the House would go "poof." if they tried for a second impeachment.

 

[jdw]

...Trump did something no president has ever done during a presidential investigation. He claimed "blanket immunity" and claimed that Congress does not have the authority to investigate him. That is an absolutely ludicrous claim. In previous presidential investigations the White House turned over at least some of the requested documentation and allowed witnesses to testify. There were court cases about specific information that was not provided (the Oval Office tapes from the Nixon impeachment being one of the most famous), but a blanket refusal to cooperate in any way has never happened....

The executive branch is under no obligation to turn over information or testimony to the legislative branch that can be protected by executive privilege - with or without a subpoena. The constitution provides a remedy for this, namely the judicial branch, which, in previous impeachments and arguments ruled on whether or not the executive branch could be compelled to comply.

The house never held a (constitutionally required) full house vote to authorise either Schiff's Intel commitee or Nadlers Judicial commitee to issue subpeonas, so quite rightly, the executive told them to pound sand. So not only did they fail to issue key subpeonas to actual fact witnesses, any requests or subpoenas they did issue were ignored as invalid. The replies to the committees from the executive said as much, and Trump never invoked executive privilege as he didn't need to.

Again, they were in such a rush to impeach Trump that they botched the job. No actual crime, no actual fact witnesses, Schiff's interference with the whistle blower and subsequent hiding of the IG's testimony (the 18th witness), no full house vote to authorise the impeachment investigation, and the partisan/political nature of the whole thing guaranteed acquital.

See Obama "Fast & Furious" for one precedent of "blanket refusal":

Wikipedia: "As a result of a dispute over the release of Justice Department documents related to the scandal, Attorney General Eric Holder became the first sitting member of the Cabinet of the United States to be held in contempt of Congress on June 28, 2012, in a vote largely along party lines in a Republican-controlled House.[18][19] At Holder's request, President Barack Obama had invoked executive privilege for the first time in his presidency in order to withhold documents that "were not generated in the course of the conduct of Fast and Furious."[20][21] In 2016, a federal court ruled that the records in question were not covered by privilege;[22] however, a House lawsuit to try to recover the records is still pending in federal court.[23]

PS: "Blanket Immunity" seems to be a media term to cover their misunderstandiing of the lack of house authorisation of the Dem's committees.

 

[Norbert]

So now it apparently depends on Bolton. Is that how it should be? I don't think so.

 

[Paracelsus]

 

[wdolson]

The executive branch is under no obligation to turn over information or testimony to the legislative branch that can be protected by executive privilege - with or without a subpoena. The constitution provides a remedy for this, namely the judicial branch, which, in previous impeachments and arguments ruled on whether or not the executive branch could be compelled to comply.

The executive branch is obligated to comply with legitimate legislative branch oversight investigations, whether it is impeachment related or not. There is black letter law that states the chairman of the House Ways and Means committee shall get any tax records on any American on request. Richard Neal asked for Trump's tax records a year ago and it's been tied up in the courts ever since. There is no wiggle room in the law. It orders the Treasury Department to hand them over on request.

In previous impeachments there were court fights over specific things, but most of the requested material was handed over to Congress and the president never banned his people from testifying to Congress.

The house never held a (constitutionally required) full house vote to authorise either Schiff's Intel commitee or Nadlers Judicial commitee to issue subpeonas, so quite rightly, the executive told them to pound sand. So not only did they fail to issue key subpeonas to actual fact witnesses, any requests or subpoenas they did issue were ignored as invalid. The replies to the committees from the executive said as much, and Trump never invoked executive privilege as he didn't need to.

First off any committee with oversight powers can conduct an investigation into the executive branch at any time and they do all the time. The Fast and Furious investigation you mention was one of them. Committees have the power to subpoena anything within their area of oversight as part of their investigation.

And as far as the full House vote on starting a formal impeachment, it happened Oct 31
A Divided House Endorses Impeachment Inquiry Into Trump

This impeachment was different from previous impeachments because the Nixon and Clinton impeachments started with special investigations outside of Congress and then Congress' job started when those reports were turned over to Congress. In this case, the DOJ refused to cooperate and do any form of investigation which required Schiff's committee to do the investigation work that had been done by outside investigators in previous cases.

Again, they were in such a rush to impeach Trump that they botched the job. No actual crime, no actual fact witnesses, Schiff's interference with the whistle blower and subsequent hiding of the IG's testimony (the 18th witness), no full house vote to authorise the impeachment investigation, and the partisan/political nature of the whole thing guaranteed acquital.

Except for a handful of lawyers coming to Trump's defense and the Republicans in Congress, you are at odds with most of the lawyers in this country with that assertion. What Trump did was a crime and he would have been convicted in a heartbeat if the DOJ would allow indictments of sitting presidents.

There were also several fact witnesses who testified. More fact witnesses did not testify because Trump prevented them from testifying. Again creating the problem, then citing that problem as the failing of the Democrats.

The Republicans have become so tribal they will stand by a clearly guilty president from their own party and vote against anything the Democrats do just so it makes good talking points on Fox News. They have become party first and everything else can go hang.

See Obama "Fast & Furious" for one precedent of "blanket refusal":

Wikipedia: "As a result of a dispute over the release of Justice Department documents related to the scandal, Attorney General Eric Holder became the first sitting member of the Cabinet of the United States to be held in contempt of Congress on June 28, 2012, in a vote largely along party lines in a Republican-controlled House.[18][19] At Holder's request, President Barack Obama had invoked executive privilege for the first time in his presidency in order to withhold documents that "were not generated in the course of the conduct of Fast and Furious."[20][21] In 2016, a federal court ruled that the records in question were not covered by privilege;[22] however, a House lawsuit to try to recover the records is still pending in federal court.[23]

PS: "Blanket Immunity" seems to be a media term to cover their misunderstandiing of the lack of house authorisation of the Dem's committees.

Eric Holder testified about Fast and Furious multiple times before Congressional committees for both houses. The administration also turned over a number of documents related to the operation, but held back some with Obama citing executive privilege.

A timeline of the scandal:
Operation Fast and Furious Fast Facts - CNN

The Obama administration should have pointed out the fact that the Fast and Furious operation started under GW Bush's administration and it appears to have been the brain child and operation of the Arizona Field Office of the ATF. The first Fast and Furious sting was in 2006, over two years before Obama was elected. In Eric Holder's first testimony before Congress he stated he had just heard about this operation a week before he was called to testify.

The administration mishandled some things around this operation, but there is no evidence Eric Holder had any hand in running the operation, nor is there any indication he was lying about when he became aware of it.

As far as blanket immunity claims. The Obama administration attempted to invoke executive privilege over a number of documents, but the list was very specific. There was no attempt to invoke blanket immunity. That term was made up by conservative commentators.

If Obama did try to invoke blanket immunity, I can find no factual evidence that he did. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong (some conservative opinion piece does not count, some factual news reporting on it please).

 

[Webeevdrivers]

We own and live in a snowbird community which is about 30 percent Canadian this time of the year. One of the neighbour ladies from colorado laid it out for a few of us canuckians as the conversation drifted towards the impeachment. Something along the lines of “we don’t care what he does and who he does it to. As long as the stock market stays high and the price of gas stays low he can do whatever he wants“. Nice Christian lady. Church every Sunday.

Listening to how most of these guys talk I can see the US being a one party systym within a couple decades.

Jmho.

 

[dmunjal]

We own and live in a snowbird community which is about 30 percent Canadian this time of the year. One of the neighbour ladies from colorado laid it out for a few of us canuckians as the conversation drifted towards the impeachment. Something along the lines of “we don’t care what he does and who he does it to. As long as the stock market stays high and the price of gas stays low he can do whatever he wants“. Nice Christian lady. Church every Sunday.

Listening to how most of these guys talk I can see the US being a one party systym within a couple decades.

Jmho.

This new survey generally backs up your observation.

Americans' Take on the U.S. Is Improved, but Still Mixed

You wouldn't know it if all you did was watch mainstream media.

 

[Norbert]

First off any committee with oversight powers can conduct an investigation into the executive branch at any time and they do all the time. The Fast and Furious investigation you mention was one of them. Committees have the power to subpoena anything within their area of oversight as part of their investigation.

And as far as the full House vote on starting a formal impeachment, it happened Oct 31
A Divided House Endorses Impeachment Inquiry Into Trump

That was my undestanding of the discussions as well. These commitees have a right to subpoena, and it doesn't require the president to agreee that they are legitimate. In fact, that would be absurd when it is about oversight of himself. To me it looks like it was perhaps Barr's misguided believe in absolutistic power that allowed T to take that position in public.

Also it seems to me that the concept of "executive privilege" is given too much weight. At least it should be subject to review, perhaps by a specific court that is obligated to respond within a very short time frame. I wouldn't rule out that this also might apply to other presidents, I don't know, but that shouldn't really be the matter of discussion, except for the future.

Also the administration shouldn't be allowed to simply assert that a law doesn't apply, such as when it did about forwarding the whistleblower complaint.

And it shoudln't be possible to purposefully drag such matters through the court forever, as is apparently possible. That is perhaps for the courts to improve, as it must also decide quickly regarding subpoenas and/or search warrants and similar in criminal investigations.

Here I don't have the knowledge that wdolson has, but I feel I should state my views nevertheless.

 

[adiggs]

...

Listening to how most of these guys talk I can see the US being a one party systym within a couple decades.

Jmho.

Nah - we won't become a one party system. If nothing else, the people running the show in the 2 parties know that if they were one party, then it'd be harder to keep up the us vs. them dynamic that's so crucial to how things are run. It's important for voters to have somebody to vote against, cuz we sure haven't had somebody to vote FOR in a long time (or at least I should speak for myself - I haven't had somebody to vote FOR since i can't remember when (or ever)).

 

[dmunjal]

Nah - we won't become a one party system. If nothing else, the people running the show in the 2 parties know that if they were one party, then it'd be harder to keep up the us vs. them dynamic that's so crucial to how things are run. It's important for voters to have somebody to vote against, cuz we sure haven't had somebody to vote FOR in a long time (or at least I should speak for myself - I haven't had somebody to vote FOR since i can't remember when (or ever)).

 

[wdolson]

Nah - we won't become a one party system. If nothing else, the people running the show in the 2 parties know that if they were one party, then it'd be harder to keep up the us vs. them dynamic that's so crucial to how things are run. It's important for voters to have somebody to vote against, cuz we sure haven't had somebody to vote FOR in a long time (or at least I should speak for myself - I haven't had somebody to vote FOR since i can't remember when (or ever)).

One party is often pushed back the wilderness for a while after party systems change. The Republicans had very little power for the first years of the FDR administration and the Democrats lost their way in the 1980s. It could happen to the Republicans after Trump.

Trump has lit up the party like nobody since Reagan, but the Trump magic is very limited to Trump. Other Republicans who have tried to channel Trump have failed.

 

[Norbert]

One party system? Yes, for many the matter is settled and T can do and want as he pleases.

But then, there are signs like Cramer dropping oil stocks, changes, however if for you the matter is settled, what can you do? Looks like a dead end to me.

 

[wdolson]

One party system? Yes, for many the matter is settled and T can do and want as he pleases.

But then, there are signs like Cramer dropping oil stocks, changes, however if for you the matter is settled, what can you do? Looks like a dead end to me.

During the Bush administration there was talk of a one party Republican system, but the Republican party is really closest to collapse. People like to tout that the two parties are both ill, but the Democrats have always battled with one another. It's kind of like the large Mediterranean culture family. They yell at each other over the dining table but in the end they mostly pull together. Democrats are a more fickle voting block though because they want to fall in love with their candidate and if they don't feel it, turn out will be lower.

The Republicans, especially since Reagan are a more hierarchical military sort of structure. There are times when people can express their wishes, such as during presidential primaries, but once the nominee is chosen, everyone is expected to fall in line behind the nominee even if that person is bad for the country, bad for the party, and a despicable human being. Because Republicans fall in line, they are more reliable voters.

There is some massive tension under the surface right now. Some Republicans have left the party and are organizing a resistance to Trumpism, and others are laying low and waiting for Trump to leave before they try to seize back the party while another group who were mostly the rubes the Republicans conned into voting for them over and over even though everything the Republicans did was not in their best interest. That group are rabidly pro-Trump and now that they got their guy, they will be looking for another Trump-like candidate when Trump is gone. That sets up a big fight for control of the party and when Republicans fight each other, they mean it. It's not just a dinner table spat.

This difference was illustrated last year when Occassio-Cortez and Pelosi were tussling a bit. The Republicans saw it as strife in the party and Trump was stupid enough to try and frive a wedge in the party. He utterly failed because he didn't understand the dynamic of the Democratic party. Pelosi told Trump to butt out of the family argument and things settled down between her and AOC.

Demographics are also coming into play. Every year the US voting public becomes about 1/2% less white. The share of the white vote drops about 2% every election cycle. It was believed that 2012 was the last time a Republican could win by appealing mostly to white voters, but Trump temporarily reversed the trend and the white percentage of the vote in 2016 was just about equal to 2012. Minorities did not turn out as well and Trump got some white voters who had given up voting to vote for him.

The 2018 midterms reverted to the norm and while the midterm turnout is always more white than presidential elections, the percentage of the white vote from 2014 to 2018 dropped by about 2%. If that trend continues this year, the percentage of white vote will drop about 4% off of 2012 and 2016 numbers. That spells doom for Republicans who are a predominantly white party.

There is a movement by people like Bill Barr to turn the US into a white dictatorship before it becomes impossible for a Republican (of the party as it's constituted now) to win the presidency again.

In the next decade if the US goes through a period of being de-facto one party state and the Constitution holds, it will be a Democratic dominated government. The out of power party always regroups and comes back, or another party comes back in its place (as happened in the 1850s when the Whigg party fell apart and the new Republican party sprang up). Party systems usually last 30-50 years. The New Deal party system lasted from 1932 to 1980 and the Reagan party system has lasted from 1980 to now. At the end of party systems there is usually a feeling that the old ways don't work anymore and things are falling apart. The 70s were a chaotic time with the country coming to terms with the Vietnam War, the economic chaos from the US losing direct control of the world's oil market, and political fallout from Watergate.

The 20s ended with a massive Depression. Another party system ended with the start of the US Civil War.

The last president of an old party system is always, with one exception, the "in power" party for the last decades, and he is always a one term president who is seen as a failure. The incoming president has new ideas and a new direction. That would argue in favor of Bernie Sanders. But Trump is so chaotic people might run for the safe harbor of Biden only to have him have to step down for health reasons or die in office leaving his VP to take the country in the new direction.

That is a similar scenario to the one time one party ran the country through two party systems. In the 1900 presidential election popular rabble-rouser Teddy Roosevelt was picked for VP to shut him up. When McKinley was assassinated, Roosevelt took over and started the party system that ran until 1932.

The "out" party does win the presidency during a party system, but the out party takes on the memes of the in control party. Thus Democrats have talked in terms of trickle down economics over the last 30 years and both Eisenhower and Nixon were very liberal compared to Republicans post Reagan.

 

[jdw]

...First off any committee with oversight powers can conduct an investigation into the executive branch at any time and they do all the time. The Fast and Furious investigation you mention was one of them. Committees have the power to subpoena anything within their area of oversight as part of their investigation.

A more complete statement would be that, yes, any congressional committee usually has subpeona power (depends on the rules of that committee), but enforcement of an ignored subpeona requires the full house vote. Hence Eric Holder did not respond to several committees requests and the whole house voted to hold him in contempt of Congress. The committee could not have held Holder in contempt by themselves.

In Trumps case, the information the subpeonas requested could ultimately have been blocked with executive privilege, which would have spawned a judicial review which would not have happened within the time frame the committees were looking for. So they punted.