1) A LOT of balls in the air today on Capitol Hill, as is per usual here in December.

The House is expected to vote on a short-term spending bill today to avoid a government shutdown this weekend. Remember, this was supposed to be the easy part of the puzzle.

1) The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the New Congress Starting Today and the Election for Speaker.

2) Starting the new Congress is inherently messy in a pandemic. The House of Representatives implemented “remote voting” in the spring.

3) That’s where the House permitted members who were at high risk, quarantining, tested positive or caring for someone who is ill could “phone in” their vote. The Hse will vote on Monday on a new “rules package” to begin the new Congress which will include a remote voting option

4) But in the House, you can’t carry over rules from the 116th Congress to the 117thCongress.

That’s why everyone has to show up at noon today.

This poses an interesting, ethical question:

5) Is it appropriate for members who have tested positive, have been in quarantine or been exposed, be present today?

Here’s what to expect in the House today.

1) The Hitchhiker's Guide to a 2nd impeachment of President Trump: The House can impeach someone twice. And the Senate can even launch an impeachment trial after the President vacates his office.

1) The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Starting an Impeachment Trial

2) It is unclear when and how the Senate may begin President Trump’s second impeachment trial. The problem with “starting” an impeachment trial is that once you start, under the Senate impeachment rules, it can potentially supersede all other Senate action.

3) That’s the case - UNLESS - the Senate works out some sort of an agreement on handling an impeachment trial. Otherwise, once you start an impeachment trial, without a side agreement, the Senate meets six days a week at 1 pm et, Sundays excluded, until the trial is finished.

4) The key is when the House sends over the article of impeachment. That triggers a lot of things.

First things first. The Senate must send a parliamentary message to the House that it’s ready to “receive” the article.

5) This is kind of like a football referee waving his hand at a kickoff returner stationed in the end zone to make sure he’s ready to proceed with the kickoff. Once the Senate does that, the House can send the articles.

But…

1) Washington is staring at the potential of a government shutdown Monday night. This is grim. Congress has approved four temporary spending bills since the end of the government’s fiscal year in September to prevent a shutdown.

2) The most recent stopgap measure was a seven day plan this week. Mbrs knew that the COVID/coronavirus bill was so large, it would take several days to send to the White House. Yes, that bill funds the government until next fall. But it isn’t law until the President signs it.

3) So, the most recent Band-Aid measure was the equivalent of fiscal grout. The House will approve another emergency measure on Monday. But there's doubt the Senate will do anything before then. And, it’s unclear if President Trump would sign anything. That means a shutdown.

4) A shutdown is always dangerous. It could be more dangerous during a pandemic. And it’s unclear if a shutdown could have devastating impacts on distributing the vaccine.

5) It takes a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate to override a presidential veto. With 359 House yeas and 92 Senate yeas on the COVID/omnibus bill, both bodies have way more than a supermajority to override a presidential veto.

A) This is “Capitol Crunch.” Congress often faces an avalanche of activity in December as lawmakers try to wrap up for the year. And the challenges this year are particularly acute.

B) Talks go on behind the scenes about a potential coronavirus relief package. We truly don’t know the size of the final product. But we keep hearing that the bipartisan “baseline” will be a little more than $900 billion.

C) But there are still major sticking points over liability protections and money for state and local governments.

D) It appears that the only way to advance any sort of coronavirus bill will be to latch it to the big, $1.4 trillion, omnibus spending bill which leaders and appropriators have been working on for weeks. But that’s far from settled, too.

E) Issues still remain regarding migrant detention policy and money for the wall.

Frankly, it’s going to take until at least early next week to get a coronavirus bill which can jell – let alone, the bill to avoid a government shutdown at 11:59:59 pm et on December 11.

The Democrats are at least two parties. The progressive wing of the party (which is by no means unified) and the finance wing of the party, which is also the party leadership.

1/

During the leadership race, the progressive wing was represented by @SenSanders and @SenWarren; the former wants to minimize the role of markets in our lives, the latter wants to redeem markets by regulating them. It's a distinction with a difference, but I donated to both.

2/

Both wings of the party have prominent representatives in Congress; Sandersism are most visibly associated with @AOC (whom I donated to) and Warrenism is embodied by @RepKatiePorter (likewise), who was also one of Warren's law school proteges.

3/

Porter is a force of nature. She is infamous - and celebrated - for her brutal, no-holds-barred questioning of both corporate and administration witnesses, using a white-board to pin them down and eviscerating any attempts at bullshittery.

4/

This isn't just about getting facts into the record (though, she is SO GOOD at getting facts into the record!), it's also about effecting change, like when she single-handedly cornered the CDC's chief into guaranteeing universal, free covid

🚨 Thread: It’s Happening!

1. This may be the most important thread I’ve put together, yet. This is truly an exciting time for America. We are about to witness history in the making. It will, in fact, be Biblical. Not just for Us, but for the world.

That new attack piece about Seth Abramson is full of easily debunked false claims. Whenever the mainstream media gets annoyed at an indie pundit like Seth, it just publishes a bunch of bullshit about him, and most people mistakenly believe it. They've done the same thing to me.

The sad part is that when the author of that piece tried to smear a bunch of mainstream media journalists for daring to compare notes with him, they all responded by lying and said they've never compared notes with him. Even though Abramson has proof that they have.

This is the EXACT same strategy that certain mainstream media outlets used against me in 2017-2018. First they lied about me. Then they attacked my mainstream media associates for associating with a "fake news" pundit like me. Then some in the media felt compelled to disown me.

Sadly, it didn't matter that I had overwhelming proof that everything said about me in those attack pieces was false. When you defend yourself, no matter how factually, the average observer merely decides you're being "defensive" and therefore guilty as charged.

Ask yourself why the mainstream media is choosing now to dishonestly attack Abramson. The media's ratings are way down now that Trump is gone. Abramson presumably still has his entire niche audience intact. So the media gets jealous and takes it out on him.

1/9 Impeachment fun fact: sitting Congressman #AlceeHastings, participating in current #impeachment, was himself impeached. He was fed judge convicted on 8 articles related to bribery/lying under oath. 4-years later, he was in #Congress. Following is from

2/9 “In 1981, a fed grand jury indicted Judge Hastings along with his friend William Borders, a D.C. lawyer. Hastings was charged with conspiracy/obstruction of justice for soliciting a $150,000 bribe in return for reducing the sentences of two mob-connected felons.” #corruption

3/9 “A year after Borders was convicted, the result of an FBI sting, Hastings's case came before the criminal court. Despite Borders’ conviction, and the fact that Hastings had indeed reduced the sentences of the two felons, he was acquitted...and returned to his judicial post.”

4/9 “Subsequently, suspicions arose that Hastings had lied and falsified evidence during the trial in order to obtain an acquittal. A special committee of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals began a new probe into the Hastings case.”

5/9 “The resulting three-year investigation ended with the panel concluding that Hastings did indeed commit perjury, tamper with evidence, and conspire to gain financially by accepting bribes. The panel recommended further action to the U.S. Judicial Conference...”