Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Ninja Nancy and the Two-Way Win

 

In his book Win Bigly, Scott Adams described the two-way win: Setting up a situation where if you get your ask, you win, and if you don’t get your ask, you still win because you will have advanced your position relative to never making the ask. Scott tweets a recent example in President Trump’s suggestion that China should investigate Hunter Biden’s deal when he went to China with Vice President Biden on Air Force Two. If China does investigate and something negative comes out about Biden, Trump wins. If China declines to investigate, that confirms suspicions of influence peddling, and Trump wins.

Well, Ninja Nancy Pelosi has set up her own two-way win with the upcoming “no confidence” vote on the President (referred to in our previously constitutional system as “impeachment”). With the aid of the legacy media, the content and significance of the hearings will not matter and at the end of the day; it will be sufficient that a House majority repudiated a repugnant politician. Then it is over to the Senate.

Here is where the two-way win occurs: (1) The Senate could vote to remove President Trump for whatever reason 67 Senators deem appropriate and the “no confidence” vote would have succeeded in taking the architect of our current national good fortune out of both the White House and the 2020 national election, or (2) the Senate does not vote to remove the president. The second scenario is not a loss unless there is strong bipartisan repudiation of the House’s action. Under Chuck Schumer that is a very unlikely scenario. More likely is that the manner in which the Senate rejects removal will be riven with dissension and hard feelings, further alienating the President from useful allies. This saps strength from an otherwise strong Trump coalition for the 2020 election, and better assures that Nancy can keep her House majority.

There are those who think the Democrats have overplayed their hand and made their position worse. But the question is “worse, relative to what?” Their candidate field is not impressive, otherwise the ossified Hilary and Bloomberg would not be teasing their entry. Nancy has a choice of doubling down or dialing back. Doubling down is the likely path to her two-way win. Dialing back strengthens the Trump coalition and lengthens and widens his coattails in the 2020 election — a sure path to Nancy having the gavel removed from her cold, cold hands.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 23 comments.

  1. MichaelKennedy Coolidge

    Hugh Hewitt has a good column this in WaPoo that has drawn the usual insane comments in WaPoo.

    https://www.newsmax.com/politics/hugh-hewitt-trump-impeachment/2019/10/01/id/935032/

    I have a subscription but WaPoo is too incompetent to find it on Chrome. The comments to the piece are typical.

    He added: “Most of us in the group of ‘sometimes Trumpers’ have long records of criticizing the president on a host of issues, most recently the failure — twice — to respond to Iran’s aggression with military strikes that would restore deterrence.”

    But Hewitt said the “sometimes Trumpers” know the president “has put scores of originalists on the federal bench who will defend the Constitution. We know that he has poured money into a depleted U.S. military.”

    And he warned: “The feeling of an illegitimate attempt at a coup dressed in constitutional clothing marks this latest turn as it never did the special counsel’s investigation.”

    The left is oblivious to this. He added in the article that it needs a motion for the Senate to take this up. He suggests the simplest solution is to dismiss it.

    • #1
    • November 12, 2019, at 11:30 AM PST
    • 6 likes
  2. cdor Member

    I agree, the Democrat/Media complex have played us like fools. It will take an American electorate much more grounded and alert than I would expect for this House lynching not to be effective in 2020. Hopefully the House Republicans are sharp enough to be able, even from their underdog position, to be able to blow up this farse starting tomorrow, when things go semi-public. If the past is prologue, the House Dems could swing and strikeout. I sure pray that happens.

    • #2
    • November 12, 2019, at 11:33 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  3. Rodin Member
    Rodin Post author

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):
    [Hewitt] added in the article that it needs a motion for the Senate to take this up. He suggests the simplest solution is to dismiss it.

    This will not negate the two-way win unless there are a number of Democrat Senators who join in. Nancy and the Dems would get to spin (with legacy media amplification) this as a partisan defense of a “crook”. I am not sure this builds the needed Tsunami to really punish the sad maneuvering of the malign progressive project.

    • #3
    • November 12, 2019, at 11:37 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  4. Rodin Member
    Rodin Post author

    cdor (View Comment):
    If the past is prologue, the House Dems could swing and strikeout. I sure pray that happens.

    Objectively they will swing and strike out as a matter of substance. But it is all about the narrative — and that will remain regardless of facts. If the Republicans have a strategy for putting pressure specifically on the seats the Democrats flipped in 2018, this is time to employ it. There needs to be some raucous events in those districts otherwise nothing will avoid a majority for impeachment.

    • #4
    • November 12, 2019, at 11:43 AM PST
    • Like
  5. Rodin Member
    Rodin Post author

    After making this post I wondered whether there was anything that Trump can do, by himself, to negate or blunt Nancy’s two-way win? He is the sole voice, through his tweeting, that actually reaches people unedited and without interpretation (for good or ill). Even when the legacy media broadcasts his tweeting with disapproval or disparagement, they are still re-publishing his message. 

    The only thing I come up with is something on the order of:

    “Nancy is taking a page out of ‘Win Bigly’ trying for a two-way win: impeach and hope some Republicans join in the coup. Good for Nancy, bad for America. Nancy & Chuck, win American hearts instead of playing partisan games.”

    In one tweet Trump would bring Scott Adams’ book to people’s attention which is generally favorable to Trump’s skills, acknowledge the value of the strategy to Nancy but not Americans generally, and characterize Republican defectors as participants in a coup.

    • #5
    • November 12, 2019, at 12:08 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  6. Arahant Member

    It is very much a two-way win for Speaker Pelosi, but not necessarily for the Democratic Party. The party radicals get their way on impeachment in the short term, and Nancy stays speaker until the next election either way. In the longer term, failure in the Senate may give her a chance to say, “See! I told you the time wasn’t right.” It may also allow her to lose some of these critters in 2020.

    • #6
    • November 12, 2019, at 12:32 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  7. Jon1979 Lincoln

    I suppose the Democrats could set up the House hearings to be something akin to a star-chamber session, put out all their evidence while denying Republicans any chance to refute that, wait for all of the information they put out to be disseminated by the supportive media and then…

    … cancel the vote.

    It would deny the angriest of the Trump opponents the satisfaction of seeing the House Democrats impeach on an almost party-line vote, and the Republicans would howl about the waste of time the entire thing was and how it proves that there was nothing there in the first place. But if your goal is just to get the anti-Trump talking points and sound bites out there for the election cycle, everything looks like it’s going to be downhill once any vote is taken, because when it goes to the Senate it’s now out of Schiff and Pelosi’s hands.

    If their witnesses/whitsleblowers’ information is questionable and their motives suspect, they can keep that from going on the official House record. But in the Senate, unless they can get John Roberts to agree to their loopy claim that Trump and his lawyers don’t have the right to face their main accuser due to federal law on whitsleblower protection, they can’t hide their witnesses or their weaknesses in a Senate trial. In that scenario, it’s better to still have the ability to accuse Trump and act like he’s guilty, even if people are asking why you didn’t take it to Senate trial, than to vote to impeach, take it to the Senate and have the whole thing come crashing down under cross-examination.

    • #7
    • November 12, 2019, at 2:58 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  8. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge

    The analysis ignores the huge loss, when the GOP Senate takes control of the process. The GOP could choose to spend 2 or 3 months of exposing Democratic corruption in Ukraine and all over Europe. Trump can declassify everything. Regimes have changed in Ukraine and elsewhere and no incentive to hide the past corruption. The GOP as a whole has a good incentive to destroy the DNC and a few GOP members are itching for a fight.

    Thus, the most likely scenario is a House censure vote and not an impeachment vote. The House gets to throw mud, but keeps the corruption hidden. This whole thing is an illusion and the illusion only works when the Dems control the view and lighting.

    • #8
    • November 12, 2019, at 3:34 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  9. Rodin Member
    Rodin Post author

    DonG (View Comment):

    The analysis ignores the huge loss, when the GOP Senate takes control of the process. The GOP could choose to spend 2 or 3 months of exposing Democratic corruption in Ukraine and all over Europe. Trump can declassify everything. Regimes have changed in Ukraine and elsewhere and no incentive to hide the past corruption. The GOP as a whole has a good incentive to destroy the DNC and a few GOP members are itching for a fight.

    Thus, the most likely scenario is a House censure vote and not an impeachment vote. The House gets to throw mud, but keeps the corruption hidden. This whole thing is an illusion and the illusion only works when the Dems control the view and lighting.

    @donG I wish that the Senate Republicans had the cojones to do just that, but I don’t think so. That is what a uniformly aggressive party (like the Democrats) do, but is out of character for the Republicans in the Senate.

    The censure idea is plausible, but if Nancy judges the Senate Republicans the way I do then she would love nothing better than to drop this bag of poo on their desk and watch them posture and dither.

    • #9
    • November 12, 2019, at 4:54 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  10. Skyler Coolidge

    I don’t think this is what Scott Adams meant.

     

    • #10
    • November 13, 2019, at 5:43 PM PST
    • 1 like
  11. Joseph Stanko Member

    Rodin: The Senate could vote to remove President Trump for whatever reason 67 Senators deem appropriate and the “no confidence” vote would have succeeded in taking the architect of our current national good fortune out of both the White House and the 2020 national election

    Is the latter part actually true, though? I’ve been wondering about this for a while: the Constitution gives the Senate the power to remove a President from office, but it doesn’t say anything about barring him from holding office again in the future.

    Suppose the Senate voted sometime next year to remove Trump from office, and Pence is sworn in as President. Meanwhile by now Trump is already listed on all the states’ primary ballots, while no other major candidates are even running. If Trump wins a majority of the delegates to the GOP convention, what then? Does the convention nominate Trump or Pence?

    Meanwhile the Democrats, convinced the election is a slam-dunk, go ahead and nominate a Warren-Buttigieg dream ticket. What would happen if, against all expectations, a furious Trump base turns out in record numbers and he actually wins?

    My assumption is, constitutionally, he’d have to be sworn in again come January 2021. And then the Dems would probably impeach him all over again.

    • #11
    • November 13, 2019, at 10:29 PM PST
    • 1 like
  12. Skyler Coolidge

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):
    Is the latter part actually true, though? I’ve been wondering about this for a while: the Constitution gives the Senate the power to remove a President from office, but it doesn’t say anything about barring him from holding office again in the future.

    Yes it does. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7

    “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

    He would be removed from office, if convicted by the Senate, and never be allowed to have any federal office of any sort again.

    • #12
    • November 13, 2019, at 10:53 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  13. Skyler Coolidge

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):
    Suppose the Senate voted sometime next year to remove Trump from office, and Pence is sworn in as President. Meanwhile by now Trump is already listed on all the states’ primary ballots, while no other major candidates are even running. If Trump wins a majority of the delegates to the GOP convention, what then? Does the convention nominate Trump or Pence?

    It’s not clear to me. One possibility is that any votes for Trump would be nulled out which would result in a massive win for the democrat. Another would be that Pence would receive those votes, but I’m skeptical that would be the case. I suspect that state law would prevail on how it is handled.

    I’m thinking that changing the ballots to not list Trump would be a huge battle. New Jersey has changed ballots contrary to law not too long ago (and I think twice). Let’s hope we never have to live through what would be a struggle to make “hanging chads” look quaint.

    • #13
    • November 13, 2019, at 10:58 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  14. Skyler Coolidge

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):
    Is the latter part actually true, though? I’ve been wondering about this for a while: the Constitution gives the Senate the power to remove a President from office, but it doesn’t say anything about barring him from holding office again in the future.

    Yes it does. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7

    “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

    He would be removed from office, if convicted by the Senate, and never be allowed to have any federal office of any sort again.

    It’s conceivable to me that the Senate could convict but choose only part of the consequences; i.e., they could remove from office but not bar from future office. I think that would be a huge mess to convince others that they can do it, even if they tried.

    • #14
    • November 13, 2019, at 11:02 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  15. Arahant Member

    Skyler (View Comment):
    It’s conceivable to me that the Senate could convict but choose only part of the consequences; i.e., they could remove from office but not bar from future office.

    Alcee Hastings is an example of this. He was removed as a Federal judge, but not barred from running for Congress.

    • #15
    • November 14, 2019, at 6:48 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  16. Arahant Member

    On the other hand, if they vote to remove Trump, they will surely go to maximum penalty (as they start a civil war).

    • #16
    • November 14, 2019, at 7:02 AM PST
    • 1 like
  17. Rodin Member
    Rodin Post author

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):
    Is the latter part actually true, though? I’ve been wondering about this for a while: the Constitution gives the Senate the power to remove a President from office, but it doesn’t say anything about barring him from holding office again in the future.

    Yes it does. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7

    “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

    He would be removed from office, if convicted by the Senate, and never be allowed to have any federal office of any sort again.

    It’s conceivable to me that the Senate could convict but choose only part of the consequences; i.e., they could remove from office but not bar from future office. I think that would be a huge mess to convince others that they can do it, even if they tried.

    Removal isn’t an adult “time out”. If 2/3 of the Senate want to remove the President why would they make him eligible to hold future office? One past president later became the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Otherwise presidents don’t tend to take other jobs in government. So not imposing a disqualification from future office only means that the Senate intends that the President do so. It would be a set up to continue to the 2020 campaign. But if, as a Senator, you think that should happen, how could you vote to remove?

    • #17
    • November 14, 2019, at 7:05 AM PST
    • 1 like
  18. Arahant Member

    Rodin (View Comment):
    Otherwise presidents don’t tend to take other jobs in government.

    John Quincy Adams served in Congress after his Presidential term. Taft was Chief Justice, as you alluded to. Cleveland came back for a second non-contiguous Presidential term. Former Presidents have served in all three branches.

    • #18
    • November 14, 2019, at 7:09 AM PST
    • 1 like
  19. Skyler Coolidge

    Rodin (View Comment):
    But if, as a Senator, you think that should happen, how could you vote to remove?

    Yeah, I only meant that it was theoretically possible, but they’d have a vicious Constitutional fight about it if they tried.

    • #19
    • November 14, 2019, at 10:36 AM PST
    • 1 like
  20. MichaelKennedy Coolidge

    Skyler (View Comment):
    He would be removed from office, if convicted by the Senate, and never be allowed to have any federal office of any sort again.

    It’s interesting that this did not impede Alcee Hastings from being elected to the House after impeachment as a federal judge for corruption. He has served in the House for 20 years and served on the committee drawing up “the rules” for this show trial.

    • #20
    • November 14, 2019, at 10:50 AM PST
    • 1 like
  21. Arahant Member

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):
    He would be removed from office, if convicted by the Senate, and never be allowed to have any federal office of any sort again.

    It’s interesting that this did not impede Alcee Hastings from being elected to the House after impeachment as a federal judge for corruption. He has served in the House for 20 years and served on the committee drawing up “the rules” for this show trial.

    In sentencing, someone can get the minimum penalty, the maximum penalty, or somewhere in between.

    • #21
    • November 14, 2019, at 10:54 AM PST
    • 1 like
  22. Rodin Member
    Rodin Post author

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):
    He would be removed from office, if convicted by the Senate, and never be allowed to have any federal office of any sort again.

    It’s interesting that this did not impede Alcee Hastings from being elected to the House after impeachment as a federal judge for corruption. He has served in the House for 20 years and served on the committee drawing up “the rules” for this show trial.

    Hmm, maybe someone more expert on the subject might opine, but it may be that a congressional seat is not a “federal office” as that term is used in the Constitution. 

    • #22
    • November 14, 2019, at 11:02 AM PST
    • Like
  23. Skyler Coolidge

    Rodin (View Comment):

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):
    He would be removed from office, if convicted by the Senate, and never be allowed to have any federal office of any sort again.

    It’s interesting that this did not impede Alcee Hastings from being elected to the House after impeachment as a federal judge for corruption. He has served in the House for 20 years and served on the committee drawing up “the rules” for this show trial.

    Hmm, maybe someone more expert on the subject might opine, but it may be that a congressional seat is not a “federal office” as that term is used in the Constitution.

    I think this is the answer. The people of a state can send whomever they wish to be their representative. It was up to the House to decide not to seat him.

    • #23
    • November 14, 2019, at 11:47 AM PST
    • 1 like