House Impeachment Inquiry

[Minoosh]

Once it gets into the Senate, it will become a Republican controlled agenda - unless the Dems manage to regain control at the next election. All the more reason to delay an actual impeachment vote until after the elections.

Doesn't that assume that the House will receive no information about additional offenses? Does submitting a list to the Senate mean nothing can be added to the list? Trump doesn't even seem to know when he's doing something questionable. I don't see any reason to believe he *won't* keeping giving the House more ammunition.

 

[Minoosh]

She's stepping down as Speaker in 2022. She's not actually ending her political career. According to this article, it actually looks like stepping down as speaker is in fact a career move. The House Democrats would like a younger face in that role. So they've agreed to re-elect her as Speaker in this term, in exchange for her agreeing to go back to being a regular Rep after that. Career-wise, this is a lot more savvy than digging in her heels and trying to hang onto the office of Speaker, and antagonizing her party in the process.

Good. I'm glad to see a Democrat thinking strategically.

 

[applecorped]

Which magic powers are you using to arrive at this certain knowledge of the future? The Akashic Record? Time travel? Molybdomancy? Please say it's molybdomancy, it's so picturesque a practice and a real shame it's dying out!

Hilary in a landslide!

Oh hubris, you've done it again!

 

[Trebuchet]

(I'm assuming you were joking about this, but I'll treat it like a serious idea for a second)...

Nice to think about, but I don't think it would work that way.

I don't think there's anything that allows Trump and Pence to be impeached simultaneously. So if Trump gets thrown out, Pence becomes president. But he gets to pick a new vice president (subject to confirmation), and that person becomes the new second-in-line.

Not sure what happens though if, in a Pence-as president solution, who becomes the next in line if Pence has selected a vice president but they have not been confirmed. Is there an 'acting' vice president status? Does the U.S. effectively lack a vice president until the confirmation? Could they impeach/convict Trump, then turn around and impeach a president pence the next day before he can pick a VP?

We were fortunate in 1974 that Spiro Agnew got forced out first. He was a garden-variety grifter. We won't be so lucky with Pence.

 

[phiwum]

Pelosi had the wisdom to be patient, knowing that with Trump, the prefect case for impeachment would come along.
And it did.
It was inevitable with Trump.

I thought she was playing it too safe, but she was just playing the long game. If she can get an Impeachment Vote before Christmas, that would be ideal.

This is hardly the perfect case.

The perfect case would be something so egregious that no reasonable person could doubt that Trump did it and that he should be removed for that reason. In this case, his supporters can deny that there was a quid pro quo and claim there's nothing wrong with trying to bring Biden to account for his nefarious deeds.

Whether his supporters count as reasonable persons is a matter for debate, I presume, but I want something so clear cut that even Hannity would feel shame when rising to Trump's defense. Perhaps there is no such thing.

 

[phiwum]

The Washington Post publishes a delusional fantasy about how impeachment is playing among the deplorables:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...y-you-convince-anyone-this-cursed-truck-stop/

This is what progressives actually believe.

No, that's what one columnist who specializes in hyperbole for the sake of humor writes. I don't care for her columns.

 

[theprestige]

No, that's what one columnist who specializes in hyperbole for the sake of humor writes. I don't care for her columns.

One columnist, who wrote a delusional fantasy, which was published by the Washington Post. Your "no" at the beginning implies a contradiction where none exists.

 

[phiwum]

One columnist, who wrote a delusional fantasy, which was published by the Washington Post. Your "no" at the beginning implies a contradiction where none exists.

It was a condescending article. I didn't bother to finish it. (The blog post with commentary starts out pretty badly too, with a comment that real folks don't use clocks on the wall to tell the time in a dream-sequence column.)

She's a regular columnist for the Post. The editors there evidently like her column. They also like Hugh Hewitt's and Marc Thiesen's columns. The presence in the Post doesn't mean this is what progressives believe.

Honestly, you're being silly now if you're seriously suggesting that this column is representative of progressive thought simply because it's in the Post.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If it were all going to happen now, and probably in the next few weeks at least, I believe the result would be Trump out of office. The only question is whether Pelosi can succeed in her quest to protect him by delaying & bogging it down long enough for the current mood to fade into "if it were important they'd just do it so this must all just be for show".

What? Protect who, Trump? Your post is confusing.

The GOP talking point: pretend the House is supposed to vote right away to proceed and the Senate takes it from there. That would quash the whole thing which is why GOP legislators are claiming Pelosi did this on her own and the House needed to vote on it.

The investigation starts in the House. That is where the evidence is collected. That is where the specific charges and evidence are laid out. Only then does it go to the Senate for trial.

Psion made a related accusation that the current House investigation was really only intended to make Trump look bad for the election. Apparently he believes this is nothing but bad press, as if there isn't really a crime here.

Now the idiot Chuck Todd (on TV now) is claiming it's too close to the election to start an impeachment process. WTF is that? Then he went on to say they needed to rush it to get it done before the election? Why?


It says something that people are speculating all sorts of things about the impeachment and there is no consistent prediction or claim of Pelosi's plans.


And everyone has forgotten Mueller spelled out 4 clear cases of obstruction of justice that Barr and Trump successfully quashed. Those are still sitting there to be written up in the impeachment charges.

How about the investigation takes as long as it takes, forget all the speculative motives to speed it up or slow it down? There is more evidence hinted at that needs to be uncovered. For one, more of Trump's calls have been hidden away. They need a court to see those transcripts and decide which ones can stay privileged and which need to be outed. Remember, the court ruled against Nixon keeping his tapes private.

Betcha the Trump team is scrubbing any incriminating files as we speak.

 

[Lurch]

What? Protect who, Trump? Your post is confusing.

The GOP talking point: pretend the House is supposed to vote right away to proceed and the Senate takes it from there. That would quash the whole thing which is why GOP legislators are claiming Pelosi did this on her own and the House needed to vote on it.

The investigation starts in the House. That is where the evidence is collected. That is where the specific charges and evidence are laid out. Only then does it go to the Senate for trial.

Psion made a related accusation that the current House investigation was really only intended to make Trump look bad for the election. Apparently he believes this is nothing but bad press, as if there isn't really a crime here.

Now the idiot Chuck Todd (on TV now) is claiming it's too close to the election to start an impeachment process. WTF is that? Then he went on to say they needed to rush it to get it done before the election? Why?


It says something that people are speculating all sorts of things about the impeachment and there is no consistent prediction or claim of Pelosi's plans.


And everyone has forgotten Mueller spelled out 4 clear cases of obstruction of justice that Barr and Trump successfully quashed. Those are still sitting there to be written up in the impeachment charges.

How about the investigation takes as long as it takes, forget all the speculative motives to speed it up or slow it down? There is more evidence hinted at that needs to be uncovered. For one, more of Trump's calls have been hidden away. They need a court to see those transcripts and decide which ones can stay privileged and which need to be outed. Remember, the court ruled against Nixon keeping his tapes private.

Betcha the Trump team is scrubbing any incriminating files as we speak.

Yesterday I heard a report that, upon learning that there were additional phone transcripts squirrelled away in that secure computer system, House Intel issued an order for the preservation of evidence. If any scrubbing were to be found out, new crimes would be committed.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yesterday I heard a report that, upon learning that there were additional phone transcripts squirrelled away in that secure computer system, House Intel issued an order for the preservation of evidence. If any scrubbing were to be found out, new crimes would be committed.

Reminder: this is the Trump WH we're talking about.

 

[Segnosaur]

Yesterday I heard a report that, upon learning that there were additional phone transcripts squirrelled away in that secure computer system, House Intel issued an order for the preservation of evidence. If any scrubbing were to be found out, new crimes would be committed.

Actually, deleting the phone records would probably also be a violation of the presidential records act, which requires archiving all documents and other materials that the president creates or receives.

Of course, given the fact that Trump has been known to eat stuff that he's received, it wouldn't be surprising that he doesn't care too much about following the law.

 

[acbytesla]

I think the Dems know they won't get a convicntion.
What they are hoping for is that the evidence against Trump is so strong that they can take the case to the voter that ,basically, Trump is guilty as hell and got off because of a fixed jury.

Yep, I agree with this. The idea is just to expose just how corrupt this government is during the house hearings. Lay the case out before the American people. Let them decide. If the Senate refuses to do its job then the electorate will know EXACTLY who to blame.

 

[CORed]

(I'm assuming you were joking about this, but I'll treat it like a serious idea for a second)...

Nice to think about, but I don't think it would work that way.

I don't think there's anything that allows Trump and Pence to be impeached simultaneously. So if Trump gets thrown out, Pence becomes president. But he gets to pick a new vice president (subject to confirmation), and that person becomes the new second-in-line.

Not sure what happens though if, in a Pence-as president solution, who becomes the next in line if Pence has selected a vice president but they have not been confirmed. Is there an 'acting' vice president status? Does the U.S. effectively lack a vice president until the confirmation? Could they impeach/convict Trump, then turn around and impeach a president pence the next day before he can pick a VP?

The office of vice president remains vacant until the replacement is confirmed. Pelosi (assuming she's still Speaker of the House) will be the successor until the replacement vice president is confirmed.

Prior to the passage of the 25th amendment, the vice presidency remained vacant until the next presidential election if the vice president or president died or resigned. Two vice presidents have been replaced via the appointment process of the 25th amendment. Spiro Agnew resigned in 1973 after allegations of bribery and tax evasion while he was governor of Maryland surfaced (he pleaded guilty to tax evasion). Gerald Ford was appointed vice president, and became president when Richard Nixon resigned due to the Watergate scandal. Nelson Rockefeller was appointed to replace Gerald Ford as vice president.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yep, I agree with this. The idea is just to expose just how corrupt this government is during the house hearings. Lay the case out before the American people. Let them decide. If the Senate refuses to do its job then the electorate will know EXACTLY who to blame.

But then if that's the case they're wasting a whole bunch of time and drama on something that they can simply CAMPAIGN on, all the while doing NOTHING to push their policies and SELL them... this IS going to backfire on them

 

[acbytesla]

But then if that's the case they're wasting a whole bunch of time and drama on something that they can simply CAMPAIGN on, all the while doing NOTHING to push their policies and SELL them... this IS going to backfire on them

No, they can't. Formal impeachment process allows them to investigate more thoroughly and gives them wider powers. Joe Blow candidate cannot subpoena Pompeo or Barr or anyone for that matter.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The Washington Post publishes a delusional fantasy about how impeachment is playing among the deplorables:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...y-you-convince-anyone-this-cursed-truck-stop/

This is what progressives actually believe.

Did you actually read the column? If so, how did you miss that it was written entirely tongue in cheek?

Did you check the Author's Biography? If so, how did you miss that she writes "a lighter take on the news and opinions of the day."

That she won the National Press Club Angele Gingras Award for Humor Writing 2016 and was included in Rolling Stone's Fifty Funniest People Right Now.

If you haven't figured it out yet, the column is Satire.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yep, I agree with this. The idea is just to expose just how corrupt this government is during the house hearings. Lay the case out before the American people. Let them decide. If the Senate refuses to do its job then the electorate will know EXACTLY who to blame.

It's a whole year away.

I think this point is continuing to be overlooked here when people remain static in the conviction the Senate will not vote to impeach.

They won't if they see the voters remain on their side. But if they are up for reelection and their offices are flooded with calls and messages that Trump is a crook, there's a very good chance enough GOP Senators will jump from that sinking ship to save their own seats.

And the GOP is going to have quite the dilemma if Trump stays in the race and it looks certain he will lose. They might want a last minute candidate like Ryan to jump in. You have to dump Trump to let that happen.

 

[varwoche]

None of us know how this will play out with voters. If you're confident one way or the other, you're indulging in wishful thinking.

It's WAY too soon to tell. But so far, most polls show uptick in support for impeachment.

And some of that anti-impeach comes from Democrats who oppose Trump but think it's bad strategy.

 

[acbytesla]

It's a whole year away.

I think this point is continuing to be overlooked here when people remain static in the conviction the Senate will not vote to impeach.

They won't if they see the voters remain on their side. But if they are up for reelection and their offices are flooded with calls and messages that Trump is a crook, there's a very good chance enough GOP Senators will jump from that sinking ship to save their own seats.

And the GOP is going to have quite the dilemma if Trump stays in the race and it looks certain he will lose. They might want a last minute candidate like Ryan to jump in. You have to dump Trump to let that happen.

Right now the Republican response seems to be "what's the big deal?" As if withholding aid to pressure a foreign government to go after political opponent is not a big deal. Its amazing that so many are trying to do that with a straight face.

Trump doesn't actually care about curtailing corruption abroad except when it might involve a political opponent. Especially when it's one he's terrified of. Especially one who in every poll beats him handily.

If people can't see this, they are
1.not paying attention
2. Stupid as a post
Or
3. So biased they cannot bring themselves to be intellectually honest.