Uphill: Welcome to Inauguration Week

Cabinet hearings, Republican repositioning, and—at some point—an impeachment trial.

By
71

Good morning. President-elect Joe Biden will take office this week. President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial may also begin in the Senate, although the exact timing remains unclear. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not disclosed when she plans to send the article of impeachment the House passed at breakneck speed last week to the Senate. Once the Senate receives the article, it must begin the trial the next day. At the earliest, the trial could begin Wednesday, the same afternoon Biden is inaugurated—but Pelosi may hold off until after then. Last time, she withheld the House’s first articles of impeachment against Trump for a couple of weeks, delaying the start of the trial.

Still, Rep. Ted Lieu, an impeachment manager, said on CNN Monday night that his expectation is the article will be delivered to the Senate at some point this week. 

In the meantime, lawmakers are preparing for Biden’s inauguration tomorrow. Security precautions are at the top of everyone’s mind after the attack on the Capitol two weeks ago. Thousands of members of the National Guard have been stationed around the Capitol and other parts of the city. The Capitol complex and other key buildings in the area have been surrounded with fencing and razor wire. Members of Congress are also taking steps to protect themselves personally.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
71
By
Comments (71)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

    There's a slight chance things may turn out. One can hope if only for a brief moment that Democrats don't behave like Democrats and Republicans don't behave like... well, Trump.

    It may be too much to ask for but I do hope Democrats understand that they just can't lazily fall back on the cotton-candy, more-the-merrier view on immigration or the racial/gender, balkanized, politicking that, ironically, has been losing them votes precisely among those groups, blacks/Hispanics, they have courted in successive elections. Some attention to real substance rather than the atmospheric cultural ambience that surrounds it would go a long way to smoothing things out. The whole "everybody gets a lollypop" kind of Democratic shtick that turns off even people who vote for them has to go.

    As for the Republicans... who knows? Whether the country blows up or not pretty much now depends on whether they and the right-wing media can fight thier way out of the enthno-nationalist populist cul-de-sac they are in; or at the least are marginalized. The country needs two functioning political parties to work and if one is sunk in sabotage, insurrection and conspriratorial delusion then nothing Democrats can do will be satisfactory. Indeed, it will just drive Democrats to do exactly what they please unmoderated by any sensible opposition. And then the wheels come off.

    What are the chances?

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Patrick Brennan

    Dear Ms Wilt: Thank you. I enjoy reading Uphill. I also appreciate your comments on podcasts; I fail to understand their attraction. There is too much going on and too little time in the day to focus on spoken ramblings. Written communication is more thoughtful and information-dense.
    Paddy B.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Boomer Bob

    "If you’re anything like me, listening to podcasts (or at least paying attention while listening to podcasts) can be a challenge. It’s easier for me to process written information." - Yes! Thanks so much for the summary. I'd love it if there were transcripts and/or summaries of all the Dispatch podcasts.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      John D. Wright

      We live in a high tech age. Could we not generate transcripts and have a section where those are accessible? I know manually doing it would be far too cumbersome but we are high tech now right? I love listening but there are times I would read them.

      Collapse
  4. Scroop Moth

    Breakneck speed would have been impeachment right after the counting was finished around 2am Jan. 7. Lawmakers are human, so impeachment took days. Speed was proper and necessary to show that Congress will respond to an emergency. It's McConnell who "held off" further proceedings thus far. Trump's departure will give Democrats space to deal with other emergencies first.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Dave Conant - MO

    Like Lisa, I appreciate the written summary of the podcast and would probably read some of the other Dispatch podcasts if transcripts were available. I'll admit to not having looked for them so it may be on me.
    Rep. Meijer mentions the possibility that the vote would have changed had it been conducted by secret ballot. Is this possible under House or Senate rules? If so, one wonders why it wasn't done that way since the votes, after counting, would presumably have been on the public record or would that contravene the idea of secret balloting?

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    LE

    Thanks for the podcast summary from one who also finds it easier to process written information.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Adam Bridge

    I'd love to see reporting on two topics: discuss what "reconciliation" is, how it works, and why it might be used. Discuss the power-sharing agreement that will be put in place in the Senate what with the 50-50 split.

    And what's the state of GA senators?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Haley Byrd Wilt vertical-nib Author

      Hello! I did cover these a couple of newsletters ago, if you want to go back and read it! It's in the second item, after the impeachment one. One update since then—we expect the Georgia senators to be sworn in sometime tomorrow, but timing isn't final yet. https://uphill.thedispatch.com/p/get-ready-for-another-impeachment

      Collapse
  8. Very Old Grumpy Guy

    Lot's of great links, especially Sasse! I am totally convinced that if Sasse got the Republican nomination, he would win in a Reaganesque landslide. But as the Spartans replied to Philip of Macedonia, "If".

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    jhc

    "If you’re anything like me, listening to podcasts ... can be a challenge. It’s easier for me to process written information."

    Ditto! So thanks for the "few key moments" of the conversation with Peter Meijer. The synopsis is much appreciated.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    "The hard right wing of the party..."

    STOP IT!!!

    I realize this is challenging. I make the same mistake all of the time: we don't have the correct vocabulary anymore to describe what is going on in world politics.

    But please try: don't use the term "right" to describe the populist wing of the GOP. If you did, that would make Ben Sasse what? Left? It's nonsense.

    The terms "left" and "right" came to mean in the modern era, and in the context of modern Western mixed economies like ours, a greater and lesser presence of the government in our economic lives. In the US specifically, it also came to mean more "conservative" (which is another term that has been messed up and misused).

    Today, the populist wing of the GOP does not talk about economics *at all*. As a matter of fact, they don't even talk about *policy* very much except to bring up things that would own the libs. But Trump passed virtually nothing in terms of actual policy and they don't care--because that was never the point.

    If you need a term to describe the two electoral forces in the Republican party right now, describe them as, "populist" and "conservative". Describe Democrat's factions as, "conservatives", "moderates", and "radicals".

    Using a continuum like that--from left to right--makes one think of a more extreme dedication to our founding principles (conservatism) must mean... white grievance and violence against our Constitution. It's nonsense. Stop doing it. There is no continuum anymore, only factions with a specific set of ideas and actions.

    And also, call the two parties by their names. Democrats are not "left", they are a collection of their factions which you must name one at a time. Same with Republicans not being "right".

    Using this new vocabulary, you can roughly break down the landscape into the following factions (sorting here roughly from most numerous to least numerous):

    1. Moderates: Biden, Kasich, Clyburn, etc. (~40%)

    2. Populists: Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Trump, etc. (~30% of voters)

    3. Radicals: AOC, Bernie, etc. (~15%)

    4. Conservatives: Bloomberg, George Will, Lincoln Project, Romney, Sasse, etc. (~15%)

    OF COURSE these are very broad buckets, and OF COURSE these numbers are very rough and can change, but the idea here is to replace the usage of the words, "left" and "right" which are not just overly broad anymore, they are wrong and misleading.

    And I use names in there to give people an idea, but in politics you work with *coalitions* of factions to make a majority, so all of those politicians live at least partially in another bucket sometimes, and some politicians make a career out of this e.g. McConnell and Pelosi, neither of whom could be described very well by any of these for that reason.

    Stop fighting the last war, people...

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      John D. Wright

      THANK YOU!!!!!!!! I am sick of hearing that those who oppose Trump are moderates. I guarantee I am to the right of both David and Jonah. I am very conservative. I consider social security an unjust imposition. I am also as NeverTrump as anyone could be.

      I think your classification looks good.

      Collapse
    2. Matt

      Has the Lincoln Project actually advocated any form of policy or otherwise acted conservative? Or just jump in the gutter with Trump? What's the difference between the two?

      Collapse
    3. Evergreen

      I think it's illogical to label Bernie Sanders, AOC, and others "radicals" when the true radicals are the folks who stormed the Capitol, ie the ones who've been "radicalized." Call the latter populists if you must, but then please have the decency to label Sanders, et al "progressives."

      Collapse
    4. ChrisJM

      Lincoln Project is "conservative"? Hmm, not buying that.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        This is exactly my point: you are defining "conservative" to be, "Republican", which is wrong.

        The Lincoln Project is anti-Republican.

        The Republican party is the populist party of the United States.

        Populism is the diametric opposite of conservatism.

        Therefore it is consistent that the Lincoln Project is conservative (which they are).

        Collapse
      2. ChrisJM

        Though I do agree that the linear spectrum is no longer a fitting description (if it ever was).

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

          That's cause it ain't a line. It's a horseshoe. The more radical each side becomes the more thier conclusions and solutions mirror each other.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          Not only linear, but *any* sort of spectrum. Somebody who likes pork and not chicken is not, "extreme pork". Somebody who watches baseball but not hockey as much is not on some "spectrum" between baseball fans and hockey fans.

          The entire *way* we talk about politics is wrong in the USA (interestingly, other Western countries e.g. Europe do this much better because they use words like "moderate", and "populist" etc. The US never had multiple parties in the modern era which killed the whole conversation).

          Collapse
Load More