Is the narrow impeachment a tactical mistake by Democrats?

[ChristianProgressive]

On the one hand, they don't want to be accused of tactical accusations in an election year so they stuck with the "safe" grounds (Ukraine scandal).

On the other hand, the principle of "strike while the iron is hot" seems to apply here. They are only going to get one shot at this, then the nature of the American attention span kicks in and it becomes "old news" not worthy of consideration (see Mueller Report).

 

[theprestige]

Betteridge's Law of Headlines.

On the other hand, you've been pretty busy spamming the forum with hilariously over the top sky is falling threads, so I think it's a safe bet that recent impeachment developemts have you on edge, and you're convinced the Dems are screwing this up somehow.

So my answer is a tentative Yes.

 

[Pope130]

Tactically, going with what they believe are their best charges, rather than wallpapering with everything they can think of, is probably the better play.

With a laundry list indictment the Republicans can start with the weakest charges, disprove them, and create an impression that all the charges are false.

That said, including Obstruction was probably a mistake. The White House turned down some requests and subpoenas, citing Executive Privilege. The House then had the option of going to court to enforce the subpoenas, which they elected not to do. The Courts are the proper venue for deciding issues of conflict between the Legislative and Executive branches.

 

[acbytesla]

Tactically, going with what they believe are their best charges, rather than wallpapering with everything they can think of, is probably the better play.

With a laundry list indictment the Republicans can start with the weakest charges, disprove them, and create an impression that all the charges are false.

That said, including Obstruction was probably a mistake. The White House turned down some requests and subpoenas, citing Executive Privilege. The House then had the option of going to court to enforce the subpoenas, which they elected not to do. The Courts are the proper venue for deciding issues of conflict between the Legislative and Executive branches.

I disagree with your final paragraph. There is NO JUSTIFICATION for a blanket order to government officials to stonewall Congress. None.

NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY HAS DONE THIS. This is obstruction pure and simple. Congress doesn't have to, nor should they have to wait for the courts. Also, there is nowhere in the Constitution that says courts have that role.

On the other hand, the Constitution says that the House has the sole power of impeachment. This responsibility would not have been assigned to the House without the ability to investigate.

 

[Craig4]

There are multiple mechanisms to deal with a despotic president. None of them though are intended to work instantly. Let's give it some time to play out. Courts have kept him in check so far, even THIS SCOTUS. Let's see what the voters do in 2020.

 

[d4m10n]

Let's see what the voters do in 2020.

You mean the electors, yeah?

 

[Stacyhs]

Tactically, going with what they believe are their best charges, rather than wallpapering with everything they can think of, is probably the better play.

With a laundry list indictment the Republicans can start with the weakest charges, disprove them, and create an impression that all the charges are false.

That I agree with. People have the attention span of gnats and get easily confused if there's too much to process. They just close down. Keep it simple and concentrate on that.

That said, including Obstruction was probably a mistake. The White House turned down some requests and subpoenas, citing Executive Privilege. The House then had the option of going to court to enforce the subpoenas, which they elected not to do. The Courts are the proper venue for deciding issues of conflict between the Legislative and Executive branches.

That I disagree with. Trump didn't just turn down some requests and subpoenas: he turned them all down. This, along with his orders for no one to testify, is obstructionism.

 

[Stacyhs]

You mean the electors, yeah?

Exactly. What the electors did and the voters did in 2016 were two different things.

 

[Pope130]

---snip---

That I disagree with. Trump didn't just turn down some requests and subpoenas: he turned them all down. This, along with his orders for no one to testify, is obstructionism.

We're talking political tactics here, not truth.

If in fact his blanket order to not respond to the House inquiry constituted Obstruction of Congress then the Committee would have been better off going to court to enforce the subpoenas. They could have had the spectacle of White House officials dragged in and questioned against there will (great theatre, that). They would, as well, have been able to go into the trial phase in the Senate with a court ruling that the President had in fact committed obstruction.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

On the other hand, the Constitution says that the House shas the sole power of impeachment. This responsibility would not have been assigned to the House without the ability to investigate.

So much of the Constitution is essentially based on the "honor system". The Founding Fathers never anticipated an entire political party would more or less simultaneously turn Traitor in the pursuit of power.

 

[acbytesla]

We're talking political tactics here, not truth.

If in fact his blanket order to not respond to the House inquiry constituted Obstruction of Congress then the Committee would have been better off going to court to enforce the subpoenas. They could have had the spectacle of White House officials dragged in and questioned against there will (great theatre, that). They would, as well, have been able to go into the trial phase in the Senate with a court ruling that the President had in fact committed obstruction.

What's to prevent the courts from taking 6 months to decide? Nothing. And no White House officials would have been dragged anywhere. No spectacle. Just a long drawn out process.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Let's see what the voters do in 2020.

Assumes honest elections, which we know we don't have at the presidential level.

 

[Stacyhs]

We're talking political tactics here, not truth.

If in fact his blanket order to not respond to the House inquiry constituted Obstruction of Congress then the Committee would have been better off going to court to enforce the subpoenas. They could have had the spectacle of White House officials dragged in and questioned against there will (great theatre, that). They would, as well, have been able to go into the trial phase in the Senate with a court ruling that the President had in fact committed obstruction.

What's to prevent the courts from taking 6 months to decide? Nothing. And no White House officials would have been dragged anywhere. No spectacle. Just a long drawn out process.

This has been the classic Trump/GOP reaction to the subpoenas: drag it through the courts in an effort to stall as long as possible...hopefully until after the next election.

 

[Minoosh]

On the one hand, they don't want to be accused of tactical accusations in an election year so they stuck with the "safe" grounds (Ukraine scandal).

On the other hand, the principle of "strike while the iron is hot" seems to apply here. They are only going to get one shot at this, then the nature of the American attention span kicks in and it becomes "old news" not worthy of consideration (see Mueller Report).

I don't see any reason to believe that the House gets only one shot at this. If Trump commits a flagrant felony between now and next November, are they going to ignore it? Why would they?

If the courts decide that administration officials have to honor subpoenas, it seems logical to reconvene the House proceedings in order to hear their testimony or look at documents. Unless there's a way to shoehorn that evidence into a Senate trial. I really don't know the mechanics.

It didn't take long to heat up the iron the first time.

 

[acbytesla]

This has been the classic Trump/GOP reaction to the subpoenas: drag it through the courts in an effort to stall as long as possible...hopefully until after the next election.

Pelosi addressed why they weren't interested in waiting. That Trump was still plotting to steal another election using foreign interference. Waiting until after he stole the 2020 elction was not an option.

 

[Minoosh]

We're talking political tactics here, not truth.

If in fact his blanket order to not respond to the House inquiry constituted Obstruction of Congress then the Committee would have been better off going to court to enforce the subpoenas. They could have had the spectacle of White House officials dragged in and questioned against there will (great theatre, that). They would, as well, have been able to go into the trial phase in the Senate with a court ruling that the President had in fact committed obstruction.

They can still do that, can't they? It seems to me they almost have to. The press is not going to lose interest all of a sudden.

 

[Pope130]

They can still do that, can't they? It seems to me they almost have to. The press is not going to lose interest all of a sudden.

The investigation part is done. The Judiciary Committee has it now. When they finish marking up the articles it will go to the House for debate and an up or down vote.

It's possible the House will send it back to the Intel Committee, and they could then call more witnesses, wait for them to refuse to comply, then go to court. The Speaker seems to be motivated to get this out soon, so I wouldn't expect that to happen.

 

[Bob001]

Tactically, going with what they believe are their best charges, rather than wallpapering with everything they can think of, is probably the better play.

With a laundry list indictment the Republicans can start with the weakest charges, disprove them, and create an impression that all the charges are false.

That said, including Obstruction was probably a mistake. The White House turned down some requests and subpoenas, citing Executive Privilege. The House then had the option of going to court to enforce the subpoenas, which they elected not to do. The Courts are the proper venue for deciding issues of conflict between the Legislative and Executive branches.

That might be a fair argument if the White House had generally complied, and objected to providing some specific documents or witnesses. But they refused to cooperate entirely. They rejected all subpoenas, refused to provide all requested documents, and prohibited all requested witnesses from testifying. That's what used to be called stonewalling, and it is plainly obstruction.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...nt-investigation-letter-constitutional-crisis

I think the Dems should have included a third article for obstruction of justice. The Mueller report identified ten specific occasions when the Trump refused to comply with the investigation's lawful requests. That should have been enough for Congress to add it.

 

[Minoosh]

The investigation part is done. The Judiciary Committee has it now. When they finish marking up the articles it will go to the House for debate and an up or down vote.

Yes, get that done by Christmas and they've done their part.

It's possible the House will send it back to the Intel Committee, and they could then call more witnesses, wait for them to refuse to comply, then go to court. The Speaker seems to be motivated to get this out soon, so I wouldn't expect that to happen.

You still get the articles of impeachment out quickly. They go to the Senate. Should the House then ignore all future evidence?

Honestly asking, I don't know. I'm just saying that I'm not sure all future investigation is off the table.

 

[Pope130]

---snip---Honestly asking, I don't know. I'm just saying that I'm not sure all future investigation is off the table.

Yes the Intelligence Committee could investigate more, either at the request of the House, as part of the current impeachment process, or by opening a new investigation. Realistically though, without some fresh issue this is their one shot at getting anything out of the House.