They're fucking cowards. Don't expect any justice for the victims in civilian court, either.
If impeachment is about the removal of an officeholder, then yes, stepping down would end the process because it would be moot as he would not hold the office. And if ruling on banning him from running again is tied to impeachment, well - that's an oversight.
More that there's legal issues with trying to impeach someone who no longer holds office.
So as long as you quit before impeachment you can run again later? That seems like a poor outcome
This is another problem with structuring a political process as a legal one - you have to play by the rules of the law, and one of those is the concept of mootness. What this means is that courts require that a court case has to have a matter that is "live" - that is, that it is relevant. If the matter is no longer relevant and is now moot, then legal processes to affect that matter are ended. So yes, if the question of impeachment is to remover an officeholder, their stepping down can short-circuit the process by rendering the core matter to be moot.
They're fucking cowards. Don't expect any justice for the victims in civilian court, either.
If impeachment is about the removal of an officeholder, then yes, stepping down would end the process because it would be moot as he would not hold the office. And if ruling on banning him from running again is tied to impeachment, well - that's an oversight.
There's nothing saying impeachment is solely the removal of him from office. Their laws state that any investigation and impeachment trial can only result in the removal or expulsion from office. After that it's the courts.
Absolutely nothing says stepping down saves your ass from formally being removed or expelled after the fact. They're doing an old buddy a favor.
More that there's legal issues with trying to impeach someone who no longer holds office.
So as long as you quit before impeachment you can run again later? That seems like a poor outcome
This is another problem with structuring a political process as a legal one - you have to play by the rules of the law, and one of those is the concept of mootness. What this means is that courts require that a court case has to have a matter that is "live" - that is, that it is relevant. If the matter is no longer relevant and is now moot, then legal processes to affect that matter are ended. So yes, if the question of impeachment is to remover an officeholder, their stepping down can short-circuit the process by rendering the core matter to be moot.
But since impeachment is to remove from office and bar from office, it's not moot.
Mootness means "there's nothing the court can do here" and that's not the case.
More that there's legal issues with trying to impeach someone who no longer holds office.
So as long as you quit before impeachment you can run again later? That seems like a poor outcome
This is another problem with structuring a political process as a legal one - you have to play by the rules of the law, and one of those is the concept of mootness. What this means is that courts require that a court case has to have a matter that is "live" - that is, that it is relevant. If the matter is no longer relevant and is now moot, then legal processes to affect that matter are ended. So yes, if the question of impeachment is to remover an officeholder, their stepping down can short-circuit the process by rendering the core matter to be moot.
But since impeachment is to remove from office and bar from office, it's not moot.
Mootness means "there's nothing the court can do here" and that's not the case.
Lawyers would argue that "and" actually means that if one part of the matter is moot, the whole thing is. Hence why they said they need to refer to legal counsel.
They're fucking cowards. Don't expect any justice for the victims in civilian court, either.
If impeachment is about the removal of an officeholder, then yes, stepping down would end the process because it would be moot as he would not hold the office. And if ruling on banning him from running again is tied to impeachment, well - that's an oversight.
There's nothing saying impeachment is solely the removal of him from office. Their laws state that any investigation and impeachment trial can only result in the removal or expulsion from office. After that it's the courts.
Absolutely nothing says stepping down saves your ass from formally being removed or expelled after the fact. They're doing an old buddy a favor.
From your link:
Judgment in cases of
impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, or
removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any public
office of honor, trust, or profit under this state;
How can you remove someone from an office they no longer hold, or expell them from a body they no longer belong to? If the question at the heart of the matter is "should X hold position Y?", X stepping down from Y makes the question moot. That's the issue with trying to impeach someone who has left the position.
More that there's legal issues with trying to impeach someone who no longer holds office.
So as long as you quit before impeachment you can run again later? That seems like a poor outcome
This is another problem with structuring a political process as a legal one - you have to play by the rules of the law, and one of those is the concept of mootness. What this means is that courts require that a court case has to have a matter that is "live" - that is, that it is relevant. If the matter is no longer relevant and is now moot, then legal processes to affect that matter are ended. So yes, if the question of impeachment is to remover an officeholder, their stepping down can short-circuit the process by rendering the core matter to be moot.
But since impeachment is to remove from office and bar from office, it's not moot.
Mootness means "there's nothing the court can do here" and that's not the case.
Lawyers would argue that "and" actually means that if one part of the matter is moot, the whole thing is. Hence why they said they need to refer to legal counsel.
They're fucking cowards. Don't expect any justice for the victims in civilian court, either.
If impeachment is about the removal of an officeholder, then yes, stepping down would end the process because it would be moot as he would not hold the office. And if ruling on banning him from running again is tied to impeachment, well - that's an oversight.
There's nothing saying impeachment is solely the removal of him from office. Their laws state that any investigation and impeachment trial can only result in the removal or expulsion from office. After that it's the courts.
Absolutely nothing says stepping down saves your ass from formally being removed or expelled after the fact. They're doing an old buddy a favor.
From your link:
Judgment in cases of
impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, or
removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any public
office of honor, trust, or profit under this state;
How can you remove someone from an office they no longer hold, or expell them from a body they no longer belong to? If the question at the heart of the matter is "should X hold position Y?", X stepping down from Y makes the question moot. That's the issue with trying to impeach someone who has left the position.
They didn’t remove him, he resigned.
You can still have a judgment saying he’s formally impeached and expelled from office after he’s resigned. Nothing in there says you can’t, you just can’t use it for anything else.
More that there's legal issues with trying to impeach someone who no longer holds office.
So as long as you quit before impeachment you can run again later? That seems like a poor outcome
This is another problem with structuring a political process as a legal one - you have to play by the rules of the law, and one of those is the concept of mootness. What this means is that courts require that a court case has to have a matter that is "live" - that is, that it is relevant. If the matter is no longer relevant and is now moot, then legal processes to affect that matter are ended. So yes, if the question of impeachment is to remover an officeholder, their stepping down can short-circuit the process by rendering the core matter to be moot.
But since impeachment is to remove from office and bar from office, it's not moot.
Mootness means "there's nothing the court can do here" and that's not the case.
Lawyers would argue that "and" actually means that if one part of the matter is moot, the whole thing is. Hence why they said they need to refer to legal counsel.
They're fucking cowards. Don't expect any justice for the victims in civilian court, either.
If impeachment is about the removal of an officeholder, then yes, stepping down would end the process because it would be moot as he would not hold the office. And if ruling on banning him from running again is tied to impeachment, well - that's an oversight.
There's nothing saying impeachment is solely the removal of him from office. Their laws state that any investigation and impeachment trial can only result in the removal or expulsion from office. After that it's the courts.
Absolutely nothing says stepping down saves your ass from formally being removed or expelled after the fact. They're doing an old buddy a favor.
From your link:
Judgment in cases of
impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, or
removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any public
office of honor, trust, or profit under this state;
How can you remove someone from an office they no longer hold, or expell them from a body they no longer belong to? If the question at the heart of the matter is "should X hold position Y?", X stepping down from Y makes the question moot. That's the issue with trying to impeach someone who has left the position.
They didn’t remove him, he resigned.
You can still have a judgment saying he’s formally impeached and expelled from office after he’s resigned. Nothing in there says you can’t, you just can’t use it for anything else.
They let him off the hook on purpose.
Yes, he resigned - and in doing so made the core question of impeachment moot. You keep on saying "nothing in this one part of the law says anything about this" while ignoring the point that I have made that the legal system, as part of its basic foundation, requires that any legal case must have an issue that is live - and that includes impeachment, because of how it is framed as a legal process. I get that you want the Legislature to sanction him even though he is resigning - but that's not how the legal system works (and for good reason.)
The NYState assembly fucking hates Cuomo. They ain't want to do him this favor. I'm not 100% familiar with the impressment laws or bylaws but I strongly suspect AngelHedgie has the right of it here
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Ah, see with that they still impeached and it was that they couldn’t get more than 6 GOP senators (or whatever) to convict, whereas I would expect a large dem majority would even get GOP support here, I was very confused by the arguments being made and assumed NY had different impeachment rules
More that there's legal issues with trying to impeach someone who no longer holds office.
So as long as you quit before impeachment you can run again later? That seems like a poor outcome
This is another problem with structuring a political process as a legal one - you have to play by the rules of the law, and one of those is the concept of mootness. What this means is that courts require that a court case has to have a matter that is "live" - that is, that it is relevant. If the matter is no longer relevant and is now moot, then legal processes to affect that matter are ended. So yes, if the question of impeachment is to remover an officeholder, their stepping down can short-circuit the process by rendering the core matter to be moot.
But since impeachment is to remove from office and bar from office, it's not moot.
Mootness means "there's nothing the court can do here" and that's not the case.
Lawyers would argue that "and" actually means that if one part of the matter is moot, the whole thing is. Hence why they said they need to refer to legal counsel.
They're fucking cowards. Don't expect any justice for the victims in civilian court, either.
If impeachment is about the removal of an officeholder, then yes, stepping down would end the process because it would be moot as he would not hold the office. And if ruling on banning him from running again is tied to impeachment, well - that's an oversight.
There's nothing saying impeachment is solely the removal of him from office. Their laws state that any investigation and impeachment trial can only result in the removal or expulsion from office. After that it's the courts.
Absolutely nothing says stepping down saves your ass from formally being removed or expelled after the fact. They're doing an old buddy a favor.
From your link:
Judgment in cases of
impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, or
removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any public
office of honor, trust, or profit under this state;
How can you remove someone from an office they no longer hold, or expell them from a body they no longer belong to? If the question at the heart of the matter is "should X hold position Y?", X stepping down from Y makes the question moot. That's the issue with trying to impeach someone who has left the position.
They didn’t remove him, he resigned.
You can still have a judgment saying he’s formally impeached and expelled from office after he’s resigned. Nothing in there says you can’t, you just can’t use it for anything else.
They let him off the hook on purpose.
Yes, he resigned - and in doing so made the core question of impeachment moot. You keep on saying "nothing in this one part of the law says anything about this" while ignoring the point that I have made that the legal system, as part of its basic foundation, requires that any legal case must have an issue that is live - and that includes impeachment, because of how it is framed as a legal process. I get that you want the Legislature to sanction him even though he is resigning - but that's not how the legal system works (and for good reason.)
More that there's legal issues with trying to impeach someone who no longer holds office.
So as long as you quit before impeachment you can run again later? That seems like a poor outcome
This is another problem with structuring a political process as a legal one - you have to play by the rules of the law, and one of those is the concept of mootness. What this means is that courts require that a court case has to have a matter that is "live" - that is, that it is relevant. If the matter is no longer relevant and is now moot, then legal processes to affect that matter are ended. So yes, if the question of impeachment is to remover an officeholder, their stepping down can short-circuit the process by rendering the core matter to be moot.
But since impeachment is to remove from office and bar from office, it's not moot.
Mootness means "there's nothing the court can do here" and that's not the case.
Lawyers would argue that "and" actually means that if one part of the matter is moot, the whole thing is. Hence why they said they need to refer to legal counsel.
They're fucking cowards. Don't expect any justice for the victims in civilian court, either.
If impeachment is about the removal of an officeholder, then yes, stepping down would end the process because it would be moot as he would not hold the office. And if ruling on banning him from running again is tied to impeachment, well - that's an oversight.
There's nothing saying impeachment is solely the removal of him from office. Their laws state that any investigation and impeachment trial can only result in the removal or expulsion from office. After that it's the courts.
Absolutely nothing says stepping down saves your ass from formally being removed or expelled after the fact. They're doing an old buddy a favor.
From your link:
Judgment in cases of
impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, or
removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any public
office of honor, trust, or profit under this state;
How can you remove someone from an office they no longer hold, or expell them from a body they no longer belong to? If the question at the heart of the matter is "should X hold position Y?", X stepping down from Y makes the question moot. That's the issue with trying to impeach someone who has left the position.
They didn’t remove him, he resigned.
You can still have a judgment saying he’s formally impeached and expelled from office after he’s resigned. Nothing in there says you can’t, you just can’t use it for anything else.
They let him off the hook on purpose.
Yes, he resigned - and in doing so made the core question of impeachment moot. You keep on saying "nothing in this one part of the law says anything about this" while ignoring the point that I have made that the legal system, as part of its basic foundation, requires that any legal case must have an issue that is live - and that includes impeachment, because of how it is framed as a legal process. I get that you want the Legislature to sanction him even though he is resigning - but that's not how the legal system works (and for good reason.)
Is this different than Trump’s (lol) 2nd impeachment
No, and it was those very issues of mootness that was why they had to basically speedrun it.
How is having the judgment even after his exit to expell him from office moot?
You're advocating leaving the door open for him to come back in office and I can't for the life of me figure out why.
Because I'm not going to fuck myself over because of blind hate. The requirement to have a live question in legal matters is a protection to prevent the abuse of the legal system. Again, I agree that this system is fucked up! But the answer is to fix the system, not to pretend that it does what you want when it doesn't. If you want the Legislature to have the power to ban people from public office without needing to remove them from it, then the law should be changed to do so.
More that there's legal issues with trying to impeach someone who no longer holds office.
So as long as you quit before impeachment you can run again later? That seems like a poor outcome
This is another problem with structuring a political process as a legal one - you have to play by the rules of the law, and one of those is the concept of mootness. What this means is that courts require that a court case has to have a matter that is "live" - that is, that it is relevant. If the matter is no longer relevant and is now moot, then legal processes to affect that matter are ended. So yes, if the question of impeachment is to remover an officeholder, their stepping down can short-circuit the process by rendering the core matter to be moot.
But since impeachment is to remove from office and bar from office, it's not moot.
Mootness means "there's nothing the court can do here" and that's not the case.
Lawyers would argue that "and" actually means that if one part of the matter is moot, the whole thing is. Hence why they said they need to refer to legal counsel.
They're fucking cowards. Don't expect any justice for the victims in civilian court, either.
If impeachment is about the removal of an officeholder, then yes, stepping down would end the process because it would be moot as he would not hold the office. And if ruling on banning him from running again is tied to impeachment, well - that's an oversight.
There's nothing saying impeachment is solely the removal of him from office. Their laws state that any investigation and impeachment trial can only result in the removal or expulsion from office. After that it's the courts.
Absolutely nothing says stepping down saves your ass from formally being removed or expelled after the fact. They're doing an old buddy a favor.
From your link:
Judgment in cases of
impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, or
removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any public
office of honor, trust, or profit under this state;
How can you remove someone from an office they no longer hold, or expell them from a body they no longer belong to? If the question at the heart of the matter is "should X hold position Y?", X stepping down from Y makes the question moot. That's the issue with trying to impeach someone who has left the position.
They didn’t remove him, he resigned.
You can still have a judgment saying he’s formally impeached and expelled from office after he’s resigned. Nothing in there says you can’t, you just can’t use it for anything else.
They let him off the hook on purpose.
Yes, he resigned - and in doing so made the core question of impeachment moot. You keep on saying "nothing in this one part of the law says anything about this" while ignoring the point that I have made that the legal system, as part of its basic foundation, requires that any legal case must have an issue that is live - and that includes impeachment, because of how it is framed as a legal process. I get that you want the Legislature to sanction him even though he is resigning - but that's not how the legal system works (and for good reason.)
Is this different than Trump’s (lol) 2nd impeachment
No, and it was those very issues of mootness that was why they had to basically speedrun it.
How is having the judgment even after his exit to expell him from office moot?
You're advocating leaving the door open for him to come back in office and I can't for the life of me figure out why.
Because I'm not going to fuck myself over because of blind hate. The requirement to have a live question in legal matters is a protection to prevent the abuse of the legal system. Again, I agree that this system is fucked up! But the answer is to fix the system, not to pretend that it does what you want when it doesn't. If you want the Legislature to have the power to ban people from public office without needing to remove them from it, then the law should be changed to do so.
I'm saying they've got it right now, while hes still in office, and several other people in NYC seem to feel the same way.
Committee members were split in their reaction with some like Assemblymember Latrice Walker, a Democrat, telling NY1 on Tuesday that lawmakers have more important work to do than focus on Cuomo’s “future career choices.” Assemblymember David Weprin, also a Democrat, said an impeachment trial would have been a “tremendous waste of government resources.”
This does not sound like there was a blockage of the law, and even if there was he's still in office until the end of next week.
More that there's legal issues with trying to impeach someone who no longer holds office.
So as long as you quit before impeachment you can run again later? That seems like a poor outcome
This is another problem with structuring a political process as a legal one - you have to play by the rules of the law, and one of those is the concept of mootness. What this means is that courts require that a court case has to have a matter that is "live" - that is, that it is relevant. If the matter is no longer relevant and is now moot, then legal processes to affect that matter are ended. So yes, if the question of impeachment is to remover an officeholder, their stepping down can short-circuit the process by rendering the core matter to be moot.
But since impeachment is to remove from office and bar from office, it's not moot.
Mootness means "there's nothing the court can do here" and that's not the case.
Lawyers would argue that "and" actually means that if one part of the matter is moot, the whole thing is. Hence why they said they need to refer to legal counsel.
They're fucking cowards. Don't expect any justice for the victims in civilian court, either.
If impeachment is about the removal of an officeholder, then yes, stepping down would end the process because it would be moot as he would not hold the office. And if ruling on banning him from running again is tied to impeachment, well - that's an oversight.
There's nothing saying impeachment is solely the removal of him from office. Their laws state that any investigation and impeachment trial can only result in the removal or expulsion from office. After that it's the courts.
Absolutely nothing says stepping down saves your ass from formally being removed or expelled after the fact. They're doing an old buddy a favor.
From your link:
Judgment in cases of
impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, or
removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any public
office of honor, trust, or profit under this state;
How can you remove someone from an office they no longer hold, or expell them from a body they no longer belong to? If the question at the heart of the matter is "should X hold position Y?", X stepping down from Y makes the question moot. That's the issue with trying to impeach someone who has left the position.
They didn’t remove him, he resigned.
You can still have a judgment saying he’s formally impeached and expelled from office after he’s resigned. Nothing in there says you can’t, you just can’t use it for anything else.
They let him off the hook on purpose.
Yes, he resigned - and in doing so made the core question of impeachment moot. You keep on saying "nothing in this one part of the law says anything about this" while ignoring the point that I have made that the legal system, as part of its basic foundation, requires that any legal case must have an issue that is live - and that includes impeachment, because of how it is framed as a legal process. I get that you want the Legislature to sanction him even though he is resigning - but that's not how the legal system works (and for good reason.)
Is this different than Trump’s (lol) 2nd impeachment
No, and it was those very issues of mootness that was why they had to basically speedrun it.
How is having the judgment even after his exit to expell him from office moot?
You're advocating leaving the door open for him to come back in office and I can't for the life of me figure out why.
Because I'm not going to fuck myself over because of blind hate. The requirement to have a live question in legal matters is a protection to prevent the abuse of the legal system. Again, I agree that this system is fucked up! But the answer is to fix the system, not to pretend that it does what you want when it doesn't. If you want the Legislature to have the power to ban people from public office without needing to remove them from it, then the law should be changed to do so.
I'm saying they've got it right now, while hes still in office, and several other people in NYC seem to feel the same way.
Committee members were split in their reaction with some like Assemblymember Latrice Walker, a Democrat, telling NY1 on Tuesday that lawmakers have more important work to do than focus on Cuomo’s “future career choices.” Assemblymember David Weprin, also a Democrat, said an impeachment trial would have been a “tremendous waste of government resources.”
This does not sound like there was a blockage of the law, and even if there was he's still in office until the end of next week.
From your link:
Legal experts this week said they had questions over both the legality and practicality of trying to impeach Cuomo after he’d already left office.
Ross Garber, an attorney who has represented four recent U.S. governors facing impeachment proceedings in their respective states, had told The Associated Press his reading of state law is that a person must be in office at the time of impeachment.
Richard Rifkin, an attorney who has worked in state government for 40 years, including in the attorney general’s office and as a special counsel to former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, said the language in the state Constitution on impeachment was “really quite vague” and that there wasn’t definitive precedent saying whether impeachment could continue after Cuomo left office.
So, okay - you use the ~10 days left to speedrun his impeachment. Better make sure that you dot every I and cross every T, because if you don't, he'll be able to use anything you fuck up to invalidate the ruling. Not to mention that Cuomo's got the ability to, at any point here, peace out and leave office immediately.
More that there's legal issues with trying to impeach someone who no longer holds office.
So as long as you quit before impeachment you can run again later? That seems like a poor outcome
This is another problem with structuring a political process as a legal one - you have to play by the rules of the law, and one of those is the concept of mootness. What this means is that courts require that a court case has to have a matter that is "live" - that is, that it is relevant. If the matter is no longer relevant and is now moot, then legal processes to affect that matter are ended. So yes, if the question of impeachment is to remover an officeholder, their stepping down can short-circuit the process by rendering the core matter to be moot.
But since impeachment is to remove from office and bar from office, it's not moot.
Mootness means "there's nothing the court can do here" and that's not the case.
Lawyers would argue that "and" actually means that if one part of the matter is moot, the whole thing is. Hence why they said they need to refer to legal counsel.
They're fucking cowards. Don't expect any justice for the victims in civilian court, either.
If impeachment is about the removal of an officeholder, then yes, stepping down would end the process because it would be moot as he would not hold the office. And if ruling on banning him from running again is tied to impeachment, well - that's an oversight.
There's nothing saying impeachment is solely the removal of him from office. Their laws state that any investigation and impeachment trial can only result in the removal or expulsion from office. After that it's the courts.
Absolutely nothing says stepping down saves your ass from formally being removed or expelled after the fact. They're doing an old buddy a favor.
From your link:
Judgment in cases of
impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, or
removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any public
office of honor, trust, or profit under this state;
How can you remove someone from an office they no longer hold, or expell them from a body they no longer belong to? If the question at the heart of the matter is "should X hold position Y?", X stepping down from Y makes the question moot. That's the issue with trying to impeach someone who has left the position.
They didn’t remove him, he resigned.
You can still have a judgment saying he’s formally impeached and expelled from office after he’s resigned. Nothing in there says you can’t, you just can’t use it for anything else.
They let him off the hook on purpose.
Yes, he resigned - and in doing so made the core question of impeachment moot. You keep on saying "nothing in this one part of the law says anything about this" while ignoring the point that I have made that the legal system, as part of its basic foundation, requires that any legal case must have an issue that is live - and that includes impeachment, because of how it is framed as a legal process. I get that you want the Legislature to sanction him even though he is resigning - but that's not how the legal system works (and for good reason.)
Is this different than Trump’s (lol) 2nd impeachment
No, and it was those very issues of mootness that was why they had to basically speedrun it.
How is having the judgment even after his exit to expell him from office moot?
You're advocating leaving the door open for him to come back in office and I can't for the life of me figure out why.
Because I'm not going to fuck myself over because of blind hate. The requirement to have a live question in legal matters is a protection to prevent the abuse of the legal system. Again, I agree that this system is fucked up! But the answer is to fix the system, not to pretend that it does what you want when it doesn't. If you want the Legislature to have the power to ban people from public office without needing to remove them from it, then the law should be changed to do so.
I'm saying they've got it right now, while hes still in office, and several other people in NYC seem to feel the same way.
Committee members were split in their reaction with some like Assemblymember Latrice Walker, a Democrat, telling NY1 on Tuesday that lawmakers have more important work to do than focus on Cuomo’s “future career choices.” Assemblymember David Weprin, also a Democrat, said an impeachment trial would have been a “tremendous waste of government resources.”
This does not sound like there was a blockage of the law, and even if there was he's still in office until the end of next week.
From your link:
Legal experts this week said they had questions over both the legality and practicality of trying to impeach Cuomo after he’d already left office.
Ross Garber, an attorney who has represented four recent U.S. governors facing impeachment proceedings in their respective states, had told The Associated Press his reading of state law is that a person must be in office at the time of impeachment.
Richard Rifkin, an attorney who has worked in state government for 40 years, including in the attorney general’s office and as a special counsel to former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, said the language in the state Constitution on impeachment was “really quite vague” and that there wasn’t definitive precedent saying whether impeachment could continue after Cuomo left office.
So, okay - you use the ~10 days left to speedrun his impeachment. Better make sure that you dot every I and cross every T, because if you don't, he'll be able to use anything you fuck up to invalidate the ruling. Not to mention that Cuomo's got the ability to, at any point here, peace out and leave office immediately.
Yes.
Make an effort.
Legal experts have questions? There is a lack of precedent, so push for it until the questions are answered and precedent is made, or the laws get reworked.
More that there's legal issues with trying to impeach someone who no longer holds office.
So as long as you quit before impeachment you can run again later? That seems like a poor outcome
This is another problem with structuring a political process as a legal one - you have to play by the rules of the law, and one of those is the concept of mootness. What this means is that courts require that a court case has to have a matter that is "live" - that is, that it is relevant. If the matter is no longer relevant and is now moot, then legal processes to affect that matter are ended. So yes, if the question of impeachment is to remover an officeholder, their stepping down can short-circuit the process by rendering the core matter to be moot.
But since impeachment is to remove from office and bar from office, it's not moot.
Mootness means "there's nothing the court can do here" and that's not the case.
Lawyers would argue that "and" actually means that if one part of the matter is moot, the whole thing is. Hence why they said they need to refer to legal counsel.
They're fucking cowards. Don't expect any justice for the victims in civilian court, either.
If impeachment is about the removal of an officeholder, then yes, stepping down would end the process because it would be moot as he would not hold the office. And if ruling on banning him from running again is tied to impeachment, well - that's an oversight.
There's nothing saying impeachment is solely the removal of him from office. Their laws state that any investigation and impeachment trial can only result in the removal or expulsion from office. After that it's the courts.
Absolutely nothing says stepping down saves your ass from formally being removed or expelled after the fact. They're doing an old buddy a favor.
From your link:
Judgment in cases of
impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, or
removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any public
office of honor, trust, or profit under this state;
How can you remove someone from an office they no longer hold, or expell them from a body they no longer belong to? If the question at the heart of the matter is "should X hold position Y?", X stepping down from Y makes the question moot. That's the issue with trying to impeach someone who has left the position.
They didn’t remove him, he resigned.
You can still have a judgment saying he’s formally impeached and expelled from office after he’s resigned. Nothing in there says you can’t, you just can’t use it for anything else.
They let him off the hook on purpose.
Yes, he resigned - and in doing so made the core question of impeachment moot. You keep on saying "nothing in this one part of the law says anything about this" while ignoring the point that I have made that the legal system, as part of its basic foundation, requires that any legal case must have an issue that is live - and that includes impeachment, because of how it is framed as a legal process. I get that you want the Legislature to sanction him even though he is resigning - but that's not how the legal system works (and for good reason.)
Is this different than Trump’s (lol) 2nd impeachment
No, and it was those very issues of mootness that was why they had to basically speedrun it.
Hedgie the 2nd impeachment trial didn't occur until Trump was out of office. So no that's not why they had to "speedrun it". He was accused but not tried when on office.
Given that impeachment can include penalties beyond removal from office it is by definition not moot.
More that there's legal issues with trying to impeach someone who no longer holds office.
So as long as you quit before impeachment you can run again later? That seems like a poor outcome
This is another problem with structuring a political process as a legal one - you have to play by the rules of the law, and one of those is the concept of mootness. What this means is that courts require that a court case has to have a matter that is "live" - that is, that it is relevant. If the matter is no longer relevant and is now moot, then legal processes to affect that matter are ended. So yes, if the question of impeachment is to remover an officeholder, their stepping down can short-circuit the process by rendering the core matter to be moot.
But since impeachment is to remove from office and bar from office, it's not moot.
Mootness means "there's nothing the court can do here" and that's not the case.
Lawyers would argue that "and" actually means that if one part of the matter is moot, the whole thing is. Hence why they said they need to refer to legal counsel.
They're fucking cowards. Don't expect any justice for the victims in civilian court, either.
If impeachment is about the removal of an officeholder, then yes, stepping down would end the process because it would be moot as he would not hold the office. And if ruling on banning him from running again is tied to impeachment, well - that's an oversight.
There's nothing saying impeachment is solely the removal of him from office. Their laws state that any investigation and impeachment trial can only result in the removal or expulsion from office. After that it's the courts.
Absolutely nothing says stepping down saves your ass from formally being removed or expelled after the fact. They're doing an old buddy a favor.
From your link:
Judgment in cases of
impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, or
removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any public
office of honor, trust, or profit under this state;
How can you remove someone from an office they no longer hold, or expell them from a body they no longer belong to? If the question at the heart of the matter is "should X hold position Y?", X stepping down from Y makes the question moot. That's the issue with trying to impeach someone who has left the position.
They didn’t remove him, he resigned.
You can still have a judgment saying he’s formally impeached and expelled from office after he’s resigned. Nothing in there says you can’t, you just can’t use it for anything else.
They let him off the hook on purpose.
Yes, he resigned - and in doing so made the core question of impeachment moot. You keep on saying "nothing in this one part of the law says anything about this" while ignoring the point that I have made that the legal system, as part of its basic foundation, requires that any legal case must have an issue that is live - and that includes impeachment, because of how it is framed as a legal process. I get that you want the Legislature to sanction him even though he is resigning - but that's not how the legal system works (and for good reason.)
Is this different than Trump’s (lol) 2nd impeachment
No, and it was those very issues of mootness that was why they had to basically speedrun it.
Hedgie the 2nd impeachment trial didn't occur until Trump was out of office. So no that's not why they had to "speedrun it". He was accused but not tried when on office.
Given that impeachment can include penalties beyond removal from office it is by definition not moot.
His second impeachment was in office, if he wasn't president impeaching him again was worthless. The second was the fallout over January 6th.
More that there's legal issues with trying to impeach someone who no longer holds office.
So as long as you quit before impeachment you can run again later? That seems like a poor outcome
This is another problem with structuring a political process as a legal one - you have to play by the rules of the law, and one of those is the concept of mootness. What this means is that courts require that a court case has to have a matter that is "live" - that is, that it is relevant. If the matter is no longer relevant and is now moot, then legal processes to affect that matter are ended. So yes, if the question of impeachment is to remover an officeholder, their stepping down can short-circuit the process by rendering the core matter to be moot.
But since impeachment is to remove from office and bar from office, it's not moot.
Mootness means "there's nothing the court can do here" and that's not the case.
Lawyers would argue that "and" actually means that if one part of the matter is moot, the whole thing is. Hence why they said they need to refer to legal counsel.
They're fucking cowards. Don't expect any justice for the victims in civilian court, either.
If impeachment is about the removal of an officeholder, then yes, stepping down would end the process because it would be moot as he would not hold the office. And if ruling on banning him from running again is tied to impeachment, well - that's an oversight.
There's nothing saying impeachment is solely the removal of him from office. Their laws state that any investigation and impeachment trial can only result in the removal or expulsion from office. After that it's the courts.
Absolutely nothing says stepping down saves your ass from formally being removed or expelled after the fact. They're doing an old buddy a favor.
From your link:
Judgment in cases of
impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, or
removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any public
office of honor, trust, or profit under this state;
How can you remove someone from an office they no longer hold, or expell them from a body they no longer belong to? If the question at the heart of the matter is "should X hold position Y?", X stepping down from Y makes the question moot. That's the issue with trying to impeach someone who has left the position.
They didn’t remove him, he resigned.
You can still have a judgment saying he’s formally impeached and expelled from office after he’s resigned. Nothing in there says you can’t, you just can’t use it for anything else.
They let him off the hook on purpose.
Yes, he resigned - and in doing so made the core question of impeachment moot. You keep on saying "nothing in this one part of the law says anything about this" while ignoring the point that I have made that the legal system, as part of its basic foundation, requires that any legal case must have an issue that is live - and that includes impeachment, because of how it is framed as a legal process. I get that you want the Legislature to sanction him even though he is resigning - but that's not how the legal system works (and for good reason.)
Is this different than Trump’s (lol) 2nd impeachment
No, and it was those very issues of mootness that was why they had to basically speedrun it.
Hedgie the 2nd impeachment trial didn't occur until Trump was out of office. So no that's not why they had to "speedrun it". He was accused but not tried when on office.
Given that impeachment can include penalties beyond removal from office it is by definition not moot.
His second impeachment was in office, if he wasn't president impeaching him again was worthless. The second was the fallout over January 6th.
It seems hard to apply mootness to Presidential impeachment as a legal rule because the SC has clearly signaled that impeaching a president is a political process without any real legal standards. I don't know much about NY impeachment but seeing as its run by elected officials it sure smells similar.
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Plus he’s still in office, so the question most definitely isn’t moot. I don’t see any reason to let him pull a ‘you can’t fire me, I quit’.
Fuck Cuomo.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
While it'd be great to have an official ban on him running for office, the fact that he's stepping down, and has potentially pending criminal charges against him is good enough for now. I don't anticipate him trying to run for office again (and if he does he's fucked), especially since Hochul just came out saying she'd be running for Governor proper once she's finished out Cuomo's term, and the entire damn reason Hochul was his running mate and Lt. Governor was because Cuomo is generally shit on upstate. Literally it. She was basically insulated from the office otherwise, only really there to put out political fires for him.
He's done. Just because he's not Ultra-Super-Double-Donezo doesn't mean he's somehow going to hold office again.
While it'd be great to have an official ban on him running for office, the fact that he's stepping down, and has potentially pending criminal charges against him is good enough for now. I don't anticipate him trying to run for office again (and if he does he's fucked), especially since Hochul just came out saying she'd be running for Governor proper once she's finished out Cuomo's term, and the entire damn reason Hochul was his running mate and Lt. Governor was because Cuomo is generally shit on upstate. Literally it. She was basically insulated from the office otherwise, only really there to put out political fires for him.
He's done. Just because he's not Ultra-Super-Double-Donezo doesn't mean he's somehow going to hold office again.
The concern I've heard, isn't that he'll necessarily win, but that he might fuck things up, though I'm not sure if there are things being missed by those I've heard from (they're only a little politically engaged).
If primaries are open, there's the threat that Republicans will attempt to flood the Democratic primary with Cuomo votes.
If the preferential voting thing only applies to the city (ie, mayor), and not statewide, Cuomo running as an independent has the chance to proper fuck things, and depending on how he runs, could still fuck up the election.
While it'd be great to have an official ban on him running for office, the fact that he's stepping down, and has potentially pending criminal charges against him is good enough for now. I don't anticipate him trying to run for office again (and if he does he's fucked), especially since Hochul just came out saying she'd be running for Governor proper once she's finished out Cuomo's term, and the entire damn reason Hochul was his running mate and Lt. Governor was because Cuomo is generally shit on upstate. Literally it. She was basically insulated from the office otherwise, only really there to put out political fires for him.
He's done. Just because he's not Ultra-Super-Double-Donezo doesn't mean he's somehow going to hold office again.
The concern I've heard, isn't that he'll necessarily win, but that he might fuck things up, though I'm not sure if there are things being missed by those I've heard from (they're only a little politically engaged).
If primaries are open, there's the threat that Republicans will attempt to flood the Democratic primary with Cuomo votes.
If the preferential voting thing only applies to the city (ie, mayor), and not statewide, Cuomo running as an independent has the chance to proper fuck things, and depending on how he runs, could still fuck up the election.
How does Cuomo run again?
Who's going to fund him--Republicans? Most Democrats aren't going to throw away money on a Cuomo independent run so his only major source of income is going to be Republicans who hope he'll steal votes. Who's going to serve as his staff--Republicans? His own staff has already turned against him. What endorsements is he going to get? Everyone else holding major political office in New York has already turned against him, as have a ton of local officials and county Dem committees. What's his base? As pointed out above, a majority of Dems polled have said Cuomo should resign. His only source of votes are the Dems (and I guess Indies) who actively think he should've stayed in office, since wishy-washy undecideds are hardly going to vote en masse for a former governor running a long-shot independent campaign. But even in those cases, how many will want to vote for the guy who has no chance at winning?
I could see a Cuomo third party or independent run throwing a wrench in a close race. But New York is a state where Dems regularly win with 60% of the vote. 2022 will not be particularly close, even if Cuomo siphons 10% of the vote, even if a Biden midterm skews towards the GOP. That's all assuming Cuomo does decide to run, which is super unlikely. He's certainly vindictive, but trying to be a spoiler would be a great way to piss away what little good will he has left.
I think that, ideally, Cuomo should be impeached, convicted, and officially barred from holding future office. But it's honestly only a symbolic difference, so I understand why it wouldn't be a huge priority.
While it'd be great to have an official ban on him running for office, the fact that he's stepping down, and has potentially pending criminal charges against him is good enough for now. I don't anticipate him trying to run for office again (and if he does he's fucked), especially since Hochul just came out saying she'd be running for Governor proper once she's finished out Cuomo's term, and the entire damn reason Hochul was his running mate and Lt. Governor was because Cuomo is generally shit on upstate. Literally it. She was basically insulated from the office otherwise, only really there to put out political fires for him.
He's done. Just because he's not Ultra-Super-Double-Donezo doesn't mean he's somehow going to hold office again.
The concern I've heard, isn't that he'll necessarily win, but that he might fuck things up, though I'm not sure if there are things being missed by those I've heard from (they're only a little politically engaged).
If primaries are open, there's the threat that Republicans will attempt to flood the Democratic primary with Cuomo votes.
If the preferential voting thing only applies to the city (ie, mayor), and not statewide, Cuomo running as an independent has the chance to proper fuck things, and depending on how he runs, could still fuck up the election.
Yeah no, if he TRIES to run as an independent, he's gonna get so thoroughly fucked. The right wing hate his guts because after the initial missteps in the pandemic, he got his head screwed on straight and actually tried to tamp down on shit properly, so they view him as an ultra-authoritarian fuckbag. If he tries to run in the Democratic Primary, Hochul is going to eat his lunch because she's not a sex pest-- especially upstate, where again, Cuomo picked her as his running mate because upstate already hates his guts, left and right wing. The sex-pestness makes it so that he's even more radioactive upstate which is... Honestly pretty impressive in a fucked up way.
The Cuomo's are a brand, him resigning has everything to do with them salvaging it down the line, I doubt he'll burn more bridges for a spoiler campaign at this point
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited August 2021
Oh wait, I don't want this
Fencingsax on
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
edited August 2021
Does Cuomo have *any* serious and credible allies in the Democratic establishment left?
I'm serious.
No-Quarter on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Does Cuomo have *any* serious and credible allies in the Democratic establishment left?
I'm serious.
Ones willing to stick their necks out now, or ones that might try and help out on a rehabilitation tour…
The knives are out at the moment, but NY politics is the hot mess that let Cuomo happily work with Democrats that caucused with Republicans in order to prevent Democrats from implementing their (voter) preferred policies. So I wouldn’t be completely shocked if Cuomo attempts a comeback and isn’t immediately shut down.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Does Cuomo have *any* serious and credible allies in the Democratic establishment left?
I'm serious.
Ones willing to stick their necks out now, or ones that might try and help out on a rehabilitation tour…
The knives are out at the moment, but NY politics is the hot mess that let Cuomo happily work with Democrats that caucused with Republicans in order to prevent Democrats from implementing their (voter) preferred policies. So I wouldn’t be completely shocked if Cuomo attempts a comeback and isn’t immediately shut down.
Of those IDC folks that swung the Senate exactly one of them still holds elected office. Most of them were primaried out and one just retired last year after a failed House run.
I wouldn't go looking there for any kind of meaningful future support.
Does Cuomo have *any* serious and credible allies in the Democratic establishment left?
I'm serious.
Ones willing to stick their necks out now, or ones that might try and help out on a rehabilitation tour…
The knives are out at the moment, but NY politics is the hot mess that let Cuomo happily work with Democrats that caucused with Republicans in order to prevent Democrats from implementing their (voter) preferred policies. So I wouldn’t be completely shocked if Cuomo attempts a comeback and isn’t immediately shut down.
Of those IDC folks that swung the Senate exactly one of them still holds elected office. Most of them were primaried out and one just retired last year after a failed House run.
I wouldn't go looking there for any kind of meaningful future support.
Cuomo ran the same kind of playbook that his dad did for three terms except that 20 years later things had finally changed enough for it to burn him
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Does Cuomo have *any* serious and credible allies in the Democratic establishment left?
I'm serious.
Ones willing to stick their necks out now, or ones that might try and help out on a rehabilitation tour…
The knives are out at the moment, but NY politics is the hot mess that let Cuomo happily work with Democrats that caucused with Republicans in order to prevent Democrats from implementing their (voter) preferred policies. So I wouldn’t be completely shocked if Cuomo attempts a comeback and isn’t immediately shut down.
Of those IDC folks that swung the Senate exactly one of them still holds elected office. Most of them were primaried out and one just retired last year after a failed House run.
I wouldn't go looking there for any kind of meaningful future support.
Cuomo ran the same kind of playbook that his dad did for three terms except that 20 years later things had finally changed enough for it to burn him
Specifically Democratic attitudes towards sexual assault. This isn't the party turning on him for all the garbage he's done over the years, he's resigning because of one very specific form of garbage that he's done over the years.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Does Cuomo have *any* serious and credible allies in the Democratic establishment left?
I'm serious.
Ones willing to stick their necks out now, or ones that might try and help out on a rehabilitation tour…
The knives are out at the moment, but NY politics is the hot mess that let Cuomo happily work with Democrats that caucused with Republicans in order to prevent Democrats from implementing their (voter) preferred policies. So I wouldn’t be completely shocked if Cuomo attempts a comeback and isn’t immediately shut down.
Of those IDC folks that swung the Senate exactly one of them still holds elected office. Most of them were primaried out and one just retired last year after a failed House run.
I wouldn't go looking there for any kind of meaningful future support.
Cuomo ran the same kind of playbook that his dad did for three terms except that 20 years later things had finally changed enough for it to burn him
Specifically Democratic attitudes towards sexual assault. This isn't the party turning on him for all the garbage he's done over the years, he's resigning because of one very specific form of garbage that he's done over the years.
The other stuff he did over the years made the rest of the party not want to stick their necks out for him.
Posts
So as long as you quit before impeachment you can run again later? That seems like a poor outcome
No one said political systems had to be well designed. /stares meaningfully at US constitution
There's nothing in their laws saying he can avoid impeachment by stepping down.
Charles Lavine, the state Assembly Judiciary Committee Chair, said there would still be a purpose to impeach Cuomo: "there would be the opportunity in the court of impeachment to prohibit him from ever occupying statewide office."
They're fucking cowards. Don't expect any justice for the victims in civilian court, either.
If impeachment is about the removal of an officeholder, then yes, stepping down would end the process because it would be moot as he would not hold the office. And if ruling on banning him from running again is tied to impeachment, well - that's an oversight.
This is another problem with structuring a political process as a legal one - you have to play by the rules of the law, and one of those is the concept of mootness. What this means is that courts require that a court case has to have a matter that is "live" - that is, that it is relevant. If the matter is no longer relevant and is now moot, then legal processes to affect that matter are ended. So yes, if the question of impeachment is to remover an officeholder, their stepping down can short-circuit the process by rendering the core matter to be moot.
There's nothing saying impeachment is solely the removal of him from office. Their laws state that any investigation and impeachment trial can only result in the removal or expulsion from office. After that it's the courts.
Absolutely nothing says stepping down saves your ass from formally being removed or expelled after the fact. They're doing an old buddy a favor.
But since impeachment is to remove from office and bar from office, it's not moot.
Mootness means "there's nothing the court can do here" and that's not the case.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Lawyers would argue that "and" actually means that if one part of the matter is moot, the whole thing is. Hence why they said they need to refer to legal counsel.
From your link:
How can you remove someone from an office they no longer hold, or expell them from a body they no longer belong to? If the question at the heart of the matter is "should X hold position Y?", X stepping down from Y makes the question moot. That's the issue with trying to impeach someone who has left the position.
They didn’t remove him, he resigned.
You can still have a judgment saying he’s formally impeached and expelled from office after he’s resigned. Nothing in there says you can’t, you just can’t use it for anything else.
They let him off the hook on purpose.
Apparently not.
The party of "holding our own accountable" is letting a sexually abusing shoo-in for official expulsion from politics just fucking walk unabated.
Yes, he resigned - and in doing so made the core question of impeachment moot. You keep on saying "nothing in this one part of the law says anything about this" while ignoring the point that I have made that the legal system, as part of its basic foundation, requires that any legal case must have an issue that is live - and that includes impeachment, because of how it is framed as a legal process. I get that you want the Legislature to sanction him even though he is resigning - but that's not how the legal system works (and for good reason.)
No, and it was those very issues of mootness that was why they had to basically speedrun it.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Fuck him, if he didn't want to resign immediately, he dances on the knife edge.
I mean, what if when he resigned, instead of two weeks, it was effective October 2022?
How is having the judgment even after his exit to expell him from office moot?
You're advocating leaving the door open for him to come back in office and I can't for the life of me figure out why.
That's right.
They didn't even bother fucking trying.
Because I'm not going to fuck myself over because of blind hate. The requirement to have a live question in legal matters is a protection to prevent the abuse of the legal system. Again, I agree that this system is fucked up! But the answer is to fix the system, not to pretend that it does what you want when it doesn't. If you want the Legislature to have the power to ban people from public office without needing to remove them from it, then the law should be changed to do so.
I'm saying they've got it right now, while hes still in office, and several other people in NYC seem to feel the same way.
Assembly Judiciary Committee Chair Charles Lavine, a Democrat, said Heastie alone made the decision to suspend the impeachment investigation.
This does not sound like there was a blockage of the law, and even if there was he's still in office until the end of next week.
From your link:
So, okay - you use the ~10 days left to speedrun his impeachment. Better make sure that you dot every I and cross every T, because if you don't, he'll be able to use anything you fuck up to invalidate the ruling. Not to mention that Cuomo's got the ability to, at any point here, peace out and leave office immediately.
Yes.
Make an effort.
Legal experts have questions? There is a lack of precedent, so push for it until the questions are answered and precedent is made, or the laws get reworked.
Nobody even tried.
Hedgie the 2nd impeachment trial didn't occur until Trump was out of office. So no that's not why they had to "speedrun it". He was accused but not tried when on office.
Given that impeachment can include penalties beyond removal from office it is by definition not moot.
His second impeachment was in office, if he wasn't president impeaching him again was worthless. The second was the fallout over January 6th.
The trial didn't start untill the 25th. So.
Fuck Cuomo.
While it'd be great to have an official ban on him running for office, the fact that he's stepping down, and has potentially pending criminal charges against him is good enough for now. I don't anticipate him trying to run for office again (and if he does he's fucked), especially since Hochul just came out saying she'd be running for Governor proper once she's finished out Cuomo's term, and the entire damn reason Hochul was his running mate and Lt. Governor was because Cuomo is generally shit on upstate. Literally it. She was basically insulated from the office otherwise, only really there to put out political fires for him.
He's done. Just because he's not Ultra-Super-Double-Donezo doesn't mean he's somehow going to hold office again.
The concern I've heard, isn't that he'll necessarily win, but that he might fuck things up, though I'm not sure if there are things being missed by those I've heard from (they're only a little politically engaged).
If primaries are open, there's the threat that Republicans will attempt to flood the Democratic primary with Cuomo votes.
If the preferential voting thing only applies to the city (ie, mayor), and not statewide, Cuomo running as an independent has the chance to proper fuck things, and depending on how he runs, could still fuck up the election.
How does Cuomo run again?
Who's going to fund him--Republicans? Most Democrats aren't going to throw away money on a Cuomo independent run so his only major source of income is going to be Republicans who hope he'll steal votes. Who's going to serve as his staff--Republicans? His own staff has already turned against him. What endorsements is he going to get? Everyone else holding major political office in New York has already turned against him, as have a ton of local officials and county Dem committees. What's his base? As pointed out above, a majority of Dems polled have said Cuomo should resign. His only source of votes are the Dems (and I guess Indies) who actively think he should've stayed in office, since wishy-washy undecideds are hardly going to vote en masse for a former governor running a long-shot independent campaign. But even in those cases, how many will want to vote for the guy who has no chance at winning?
I could see a Cuomo third party or independent run throwing a wrench in a close race. But New York is a state where Dems regularly win with 60% of the vote. 2022 will not be particularly close, even if Cuomo siphons 10% of the vote, even if a Biden midterm skews towards the GOP. That's all assuming Cuomo does decide to run, which is super unlikely. He's certainly vindictive, but trying to be a spoiler would be a great way to piss away what little good will he has left.
I think that, ideally, Cuomo should be impeached, convicted, and officially barred from holding future office. But it's honestly only a symbolic difference, so I understand why it wouldn't be a huge priority.
Yeah no, if he TRIES to run as an independent, he's gonna get so thoroughly fucked. The right wing hate his guts because after the initial missteps in the pandemic, he got his head screwed on straight and actually tried to tamp down on shit properly, so they view him as an ultra-authoritarian fuckbag. If he tries to run in the Democratic Primary, Hochul is going to eat his lunch because she's not a sex pest-- especially upstate, where again, Cuomo picked her as his running mate because upstate already hates his guts, left and right wing. The sex-pestness makes it so that he's even more radioactive upstate which is... Honestly pretty impressive in a fucked up way.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I'm serious.
Depends on how much his family donates to their campaigns.
Ones willing to stick their necks out now, or ones that might try and help out on a rehabilitation tour…
The knives are out at the moment, but NY politics is the hot mess that let Cuomo happily work with Democrats that caucused with Republicans in order to prevent Democrats from implementing their (voter) preferred policies. So I wouldn’t be completely shocked if Cuomo attempts a comeback and isn’t immediately shut down.
Of those IDC folks that swung the Senate exactly one of them still holds elected office. Most of them were primaried out and one just retired last year after a failed House run.
I wouldn't go looking there for any kind of meaningful future support.
Cuomo ran the same kind of playbook that his dad did for three terms except that 20 years later things had finally changed enough for it to burn him
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Specifically Democratic attitudes towards sexual assault. This isn't the party turning on him for all the garbage he's done over the years, he's resigning because of one very specific form of garbage that he's done over the years.
The other stuff he did over the years made the rest of the party not want to stick their necks out for him.