Here, Talk About Impeachment
ElJeffe
Registered User, ClubPA regular
Registered User, ClubPA regular
Some people want to talk about impeachment, including a bunch of Democrats in the House. Other people DON'T want to talk about impeachment, including a bunch of different Democrats in the House. Are you part of that first group? Cool, here is a thread to do that thing.
Let it be said, though, that the last impeachment thread turned into endless pages of "impeachment is stupid, we must be strategical!" vs "impeachment is the One True Way, we must be brave!" at ever increasing volume. This is not a thread to yell at one another! And before you post something that has already been said 284 times before, ask yourself what you're really contributing to this discussion. If the thread BECOMES just a place to yell at one another, it will be sent into the corner to think about what it's done.
So anyway.
Impeachment.
GO.
Let it be said, though, that the last impeachment thread turned into endless pages of "impeachment is stupid, we must be strategical!" vs "impeachment is the One True Way, we must be brave!" at ever increasing volume. This is not a thread to yell at one another! And before you post something that has already been said 284 times before, ask yourself what you're really contributing to this discussion. If the thread BECOMES just a place to yell at one another, it will be sent into the corner to think about what it's done.
So anyway.
Impeachment.
GO.
Would you say I had a plethora of pinatas?
+11
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
1. Investigative committees / hearings: Already kind of doing this, but for the most part they're being stonewalled by the Executive branch basically ignoring all directives and subpoenas. Only real recourse here is to go to #2
2. Start impeachment hearings: I have no idea if this is the same as actually the same as drawing up articles of impeachment, or if the articles are the potential result of the hearings? Can someone clarify?
3. Actual Impeachment: This is where articles of Impeachment have been drafted (usually by one of the Committees), outlining the charges against a public official (Trump or Barr most likely in this case). If this were to occur, the entire House debates and votes to approve the articles (or just parts of them). This only requires a simple majority. At that point, certain members of the House would be tasked to present their arguments to the Senate.
From there you get the more stereotypical "trial" presided over by the Supreme Court. The Senate would vote after the trial, with a super majority (2/3rds) needed to convict.
Am I missing anything?
Senate holds the trial.
House only needs a 50% vote to start impeachment. Then they are pretty much hands off. When it is over, removal takes a 2/3rds vote from the Senate.
This is correct, except that only the Chief Justice presides as the whole Senate listens to the trial.
Also there is the terrifying little wrinkle that the Constitution does not actually FORCE the Senate to listen or hold a vote. It only invest the Senate with the power to convict and remove the official.
Not holding the trial would be Death of the Republic level unthinkable but, Mitch McConnell presides over the Senate so nothing is 100% certain any longer.
This is not really true. Past Senate trials have involved House managers of the trial in the Senate (basically prosecutors).
Fun fact: As a House Manager for the Clinton Impeachment, one Lindsey Graham made his first big national debut. Last I checked the fellow seems less keen on the process.
I'm not following? The Senate votes on whether to convict or not. But he's right, only 50% of the House is needed to START impeachment.
Proceedings should be started with the obvious assumption that its going to fail. But things have degraded so much that we are at the point where not starting the proceedings in the House makes the House leadership negligent in their responsibilities as members of Congress.
The process doesn't really start with the House vote, it starts in committee. What is being debated right now is whether to formally start that committee process. Then it goes through committee, is voted upon by the House, and if it received a majority the President is impeached. Then, the matter is referred to the Senate for the trial, where representatives from the House provide their case to the Senate.
Got it. Thanks for clarifying.
I think where this started is that Democratic leadership:
1) Knows they don't have the votes for impeachment and/or doesn't have all the Democrats on board
2) Thinks that just running a bunch of hearings instead of outright impeachment gets them the negative Trump press they want without the risks associated with impeachment
That was their original position.
I think that it has become increasing obvious as the Trump Admin and the GOP engage in an unprecedented level of obstruction that 2) is no longer viable and that's why you are seeing the change of stances in the just-below-leadership ranks.
I think though that for the moment 1) remains true, which is a big part of why Democratic leadership has yet to fully embrace a different stance.
The other thing is, of course, general DC culture problems and the utter stupidity of Democratic DC strategists (which are linked issues of course)
That means the vote count is shifting.
We can see that from public statements. I was trying to find some place keeping a running tally. I think we're somewhere around 20-30 publicly in favor now?
It’s maybe/just about at the point where I’d start calling for removal from office of house members that don’t move to impeach
Not holding the trial is like a half-step worse than refusing to hold a vote on a Supreme Court nominee. It's not any more death of the republic than we're already at, which is to say it's been dead for awhile but it's not like we're gonna see riots in the streets or anything.
If it's one, then the democrats best choice is to run more hearings and hope that turns up more information that convinces more people to be aboard with that idea.
I posted this in the Mueller thread, but I'll link it here because given when a good chunk of Trump's illegal bullshit was conducted. This probably makes it much more likely that someone turns on him because once that law goes into effect. Any fucker that committed a crime on Trump's behalf, while in New York, breaking state laws, will not be saved by Trump's abuse of the pardon.
Once one of those guys gets caught. They only have two options now. Either sell Trump out in hopes of a plea deal that means they get a lighter punishment. Or eat the full brunt of the punishment. I suspect the latter is going to not be very appealing given Trump's track record of completely fucking his people over for his own hide.
It'd have been nice to start moving sooner . Dem leadership loves polls and shaking their fingers threatening to do something 6-7 items before they actually have a meeting where they discuss the possibility of doing something.
The administration might, but a sham trial followed by a party-line vote is not going to endear the GOP to anyone who is capable of independent thought
Chief Justice Roberts decides - McConnell has no control over the trial once it begins.
Like what, threaten his family? There's no political way he could bring any influence to bear against the Chief Justice.
Trump continues to illegally profit off being president every day until he’s removed from office. And I don’t mean in the way that all presidents become rich because they monetize the prestige of being president, I mean actual blood and laundered money.
He decides? I thought Senate was the jury and the chief Justice merely presides.
Senate votes, Justice operates the proceedings.
The delusion was probably easier to believe in, when the pardon would at least be effective for these fuckers, if they lived in New York. Now that New York, has taken it off the table, it just got harder and it only really takes one finally cracking. It's worth noting, that Trump isn't the only fucker that will get burned when someone cracks, these swine will rat out multiple people involved in both an effort to minimize their punishment and ensure that the plea deal sticks. I know if I were a prosecutor in New York, that goes after any of these guys, I'd make it crystal clear that failure to disclose any crimes they committed for or with Trump, along with knowingly withhold names of accomplices will render their deal null and void.
I suspect will see a stampede of scumbags trying to cover their asses before the end of summer.