Another Arrow In The Quiver That Will Not Be Used

CNN tells us…

“New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Monday signed an amendment to New York law that would allow Congress to get hold of President Donald Trump’s state tax returns while the legal battle for his federal returns rages on.

“The law, which takes effect Monday, requires the state’s tax commissioner to provide New York state tax returns to Congress upon request from the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, or the Joint Committee on Taxation and mandates the removal of any federal tax information that might appear on state returns.”

I don’t expect much, I do not expect Rep. Neal (chairman of the Ways and Means Committee) to use this unless he gets rebuffed in his attempt to have the Worst. Bond. Villain. Ever to turn over Prznint Grifter’s taxes as required by law. Trump’s state taxes, while no doubt interesting, will not be as juicy as his Federal Taxes, so he won’t use it.

AND: let’s face it, Pelosi and Trump have succeeded in killing off any impeachment possibility. It’s over, Trump has won, impeachment is not going to happen. Pelosi is now his most powerful enabler.

And so, if Trump wins re-election, it really is on her shoulders.

This entry was posted in Comrade Preznint Stupid, The Russian Usurper, ITMFA, Little-Kremlin-on-the-Potomac, Nancy Pelosi, Tax Cheat, Taxes. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Another Arrow In The Quiver That Will Not Be Used

  1. Infidel753 says:

    It’s over, Trump has won, impeachment is not going to happen. Pelosi is now his most powerful enabler.

    I’m sorry, but I just don’t get this argument. There’s zero possibility of impeachment actually removing Trump, since 20 Republican Senators would need to vote for removal, and it would probably strengthen him since it would whip up the Trumpanzees like nothing else and then, after the Senate failed to remove him, he would endlessly proclaim vindication, and a lot of the great mass of people who don’t pay close attention to politics would find that plausible.

    It needs to be repeated and repeated everywhere until it sinks in — impeachment would make Trump’s re-election more likely, not less.

    The idea that impeachment hearings would rivet the countries attention and cause such a massive swing of public opinion as to get those 20 Republican Senators on board is a fantasy so delirious as to make flat-earth conspiratardia look plausible by comparison.

    Refusing to engage in a course which would be emotionally satisfying at first but wind up being counter-productive in the end is just one more example of why Pelosi is a better leader than most we could have had.

    Liked by 1 person

    • tengrain says:

      Oh, there was never a chance at removing him, but there should be an impeachment inquiry which is not the same thing. An impeachment inquiry gives the House a Grand Jury-like ability to summon (with enforcement) witnesses. An inquiry can inflict incalculable damage, but doesn’t necessarily result in sending a trial to the Senate.

      That’s a separate process. Admittedly, everyone thinks they are the same thing, the nomenclature is too similar.

      I’m saying that there will not even be an effective investigation now. it’s done.

      Rgds,

      TG

      Liked by 2 people

    • ming says:

      Infidel,
      Digby does a good job of capturing my thoughts about this and is much more eloquent than I will ever be. She has written about this a number of times. A some point you better take a stand and fight. Impeachment is sure to fail in the Senate, but it is time to unequivocally put Trump’s enablers on record for defending this criminal and immoral administration. This is pure political maneuvering and cowardice on Pelosi’s part. I’ve had enough of it. Time to do the right thing for a fucking change. I think the argument that impeachment would make Trump’s re-election more likely, not less, is complete bullshit. Maybe in the beltway, but not here from my perspective. And trust me – I’m not a member of the purity party. However I am good and goddamn mad. As always, what Digby said.

      https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2019/07/yes-it-is-source-of-shame-and-deep.html

      Like

  2. Infidel753 says:

    I think the argument that impeachment would make Trump’s re-election more likely, not less, is complete bullshit.

    On what evidence?

    I looked at the Digby link. I don’t think Pelosi is refusing to confront the reality of what’s happened to the Republican party. I think she’s eschewing one specific course of action which she has judged, probably correctly, would end up doing more harm than good to the cause of getting Trump out of office. This has made a lot of people mad who are frustrated by what they perceive as inaction and are in the grip of an urge to do something, so much so that they can’t think enough moves ahead to realize that doing this particular something would more likely than not blow up in their faces.

    Also, beware of posts full of swear words and emotionally-charged language. The state of mind they imply is not conducive to accurate assessment or strategic thinking.

    Liked by 1 person

    • tengrain says:

      I like healthy debates like this, and I’m glad we are all being civil.

      I maintain that the Trumpanzees are going to vote for Trump no matter what. It seems obvious to me that nothing will persuade them to change their minds, they could vote today.

      Which means that about 60% of the voting populace is up for grabs.

      Some portion of that populace is also fixed on the Left and nothing is going to change that, either.

      So whatever proportion is not fixed is where the battle is, so the question remains “what will get them to the polls?”

      I personally think the more information that could cut through the noise is the determining factor, and an inquiry has the potential.

      The world has moved on since Watergate when there were 3 networks only so it is fair to say that it is harder than ever to reach everyone through any one medium. And I know that Boomer Democrats all have nightmares about Clinton’s successful impeachment inquiry and failed trial: he was the first Boomer president (Dubya and then Trump being the others) and I realize that is the flashback Pelosi is (probably) having.

      But I believe that there is a fundamental difference in the nature of the crimes committed (from Clinton to Trump), and I do think that the Media loves this kind of a story and would cover it (except for Fox of course, but we already know that the Trumpanzees are not going to budge, so it doesn’t matter).

      Pelosi is a nose counter, par excellence. But she is not a strategic leader, she’s a tactician. And I think that is the difference here. If Pelosi effectively blocks the investigation (as she has) whatever is that percentage of uncommitted voters will not know about the assorted crimes and will be unlikely/unmotivated to vote. Reaching them is the most important thing we can do, and an inquiry would do it.

      Just my opinion.

      TG

      Liked by 2 people

      • Infidel753 says:

        But all this is an argument for an inquiry, not for an impeachment. They’re two different things. In the past I’ve expressed support for an impeachment inquiry since it would open up new avenues for investigation. But your post was criticizing the fact that Pelosi had taken impeachment itself off the table, and it’s impeachment itself that I argue would be counter-productive.

        As to the prospect of bringing out information that would sway less-committed voters, I’m dubious. I don’t see any evidence that issues like emoluments, Russian collusion, obstruction of justice, Trump Tower Moscow, and the like are of much interest to people beyond the activist / blogosphere / political junkie bubble, at least not enough to sway a lot of votes. They are not personally affected by such matters, even if they judge them immoral. I think what we need to emphasize is explaining issues like health care and trade wars, which are doing concrete harm to large numbers of voters and are thus much more likely to sway them. Even some Trumpanzees. They aren’t all a completely homogenous bloc. People exist more along a spectrum. Some can’t be swayed by anything at all, but some can.

        Finally, I don’t believe Pelosi is particularly motivated by analogies with the Clinton impeachment. Anyone can see that the two situations are quite different. I think it’s just her assessment of the current situation.

        Like

      • tengrain says:

        Infidel –

        I think we may be making the same point but using different terms. I accept that there is not going to be a REMOVAL, ever, I’ve accepted that for a long while now. Scissorhead 9K has been right about that from the beginning.

        What I don’t accept is that Pelosi has set the terms of the investigation. She has said to her caucus (as reported in the press) that she would only allow an INQUIRY to go forward if there was support from the public and overwhelming bipartisan support for the INQUIRY. Not for removal, which is within the Senate’s power, but they cannot start a trial for REMOVAL without having an inquiry in the House that recommends it.

        She has taken the INQUIRY off the table, effectively, by setting those terms. And that is what I object to.

        Rgds,

        TG

        Like

    • ming says:

      “On what evidence?”
      Well, the basis is the same as yours. It’s my opinion about the future and it’s never going to be tested given the current Democratic leadership. Risk adverse, poll-driven politicians such as Pelosi are the definition of leading from behind. Their unwillingness to actually get out in front of the issues and shape public discussion is a big part of what has enabled this shitshow to continue. Trump gets it and has used the Dem’s unwillingness to confront him to great advantage. The Senate may not remove Trump, but I believe that impeachment in the House is the venue to shape public discussion and tie congressional republicans around his neck for the trip down to the bottom. Whatever our common goals are, I understand that we are not going to agree on this point. So be it. I’m not that interested in arguing about it. However, when I hear someone say as Dawgs honest truth that impeaching Trump in the house will make his re-election more likely, I feel compelled to offer a different opinion.
      And I fucking like to swear. Whatever you believe about my state of mind, ability to read a situation, and plan strategically, is your projection. Unsolicited advice is seldom welcome or useful.

      Like

  3. 9thousandfeet says:

    Also, beware of posts full of swear words and emotionally-charged language. The state of mind they imply is not conducive to accurate assessment or strategic thinking.

    With as much respect as I can muster, this emotionally-charged flamethrower feels compelled to say that’s total fucking bollocks.
    You do good work, by and large, so there is that. But on this you could hardly be more full of shit. Feel free to kiss my proletarian ass any time you like.

    Like

    • 9thousandfeet says:

      And FWIW, I’ve argued much the same as you around here, Infidel. I too think actually impeachment, and the inevitable acquittal in the Senate, could very well be disastrous.
      I just use more colorful and emotional fucking language, that’s all.

      Like

    • tengrain says:

      And we love you for it, 9K. Totally Aces with me.

      I don’t expect anyone to agree with me, and I’m always (pleasantly) surprised when they do.

      Rgds,

      TG

      Liked by 1 person

    • ming says:

      Like a boss. I will aspire to be more colorful in my usage of profanity in the future.

      Like

Comments are closed.