• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is the narrow impeachment a tactical mistake by Democrats?

Pope130 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh I have faith there will be fresh issues, maybe not enough to act on, but if the Trump stonewalling stops, there may be fresh new evidence. Hell, maybe it's exculpatory. I'm probably relying too heavily on a criminal trial analogy, but in a criminal trial I don't think new witnesses would be ignored because it came up late. And as you said, it may make the "obstruction of Congress" a stronger argument. Any other scenario and you're rewarding Trump's stonewalling. I just don't picture the House throwing up its hands and declining to depose Pompeo, Bolton, Guiliani, Mulvaney etc.

ETA: And I'm not asking them to hold up the current articles. I'm just not clear why people think this is their one shot at getting action out of the House. They can get plenty through the House. This fall's process was quite efficient, IMO.
 
Last edited:
I've said it in other threads, so it bears repeating - I think it's a good strategy, on the whole, because the Senate is so partisan. The only way Trump will be convicted is if the Republican Senators come to believe that supporting him is more damaging to their careers/income than not supporting him. And the only way that will happen is if there's significant public support for conviction.

Therefore the best strategy is to make the message as clear and as concise as possible. The more Articles there are, the less inclined people will be to listen to what they are. The more difficult to understand, the less likely people will be to care about them.

So instead you just bring two easily understood Articles.

I do agree with the above, though, that the obstruction of Congress Article is a hard sell because it wasn't challenged in court. The Democrats may be right on this point, but "technically correct" isn't going to win them the case. I'm even doubtful this Article would get past a non-partisan Senate.

I think perhaps that obstruction/perjury relating to Mueller might have been a better move. But, then, I'm not a constitutional lawyer.
 
It's probably the right tactic. Have one or two main charges.

Imagine a bank robber. You could charge him with a hundred and one different things: illegal parking, driving without due care and attention, driving without insurance/licence/MOT, taking and driving away, wilful damage to the bank door, causing a public disturbance, demanding with menaces, possession of an offensive weapon in a pubic place, possession of a firearm without a licence, failing to obey the instructions of a police officer, firing a gun in a public place, theft of bank property, etcetera etcetera.

Given the tight resources and limited time of most courts/hearing panels/committees, just name the main charge (armed robbery/criminal damage) and leave he others as a footnote on the sheet.

Trump's charge could run and run and end up looking like a vendetta against him so charge him with Ukraine abuse of office and election interference and have done with it.
 
The Republicans don't care about following the rules, they want to win. (I imagine that most dems do as well, but they still seem to believe that following the rules will be the best way to do that). A failed impeachment will make the Democrats look weak and a successful one will play into the right's victim narrative and increase Republican support. The only people happy with the outcome will be those who wouldn't have voted for Trump anyway.

You're not going to get rid of this brand of politics by playing by the rules harder. The Democrats need a candidate who can convince people their policies are what they need.
 
d4m10n said:
Russian active measures deliberately targeted voters in key swing states, which come to think of it is yet another argument for abolishing electors in favor of a national popular vote.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the rural states will be delighted. Or rather, they'll make sure the EC remains.
 
Trump can't benefit from this much. All the 40% that still would vote for him will dig in, and will never change their minds. But the rest of the voters can be affected by this. perhaps even the Senate Republican will get a lot of bad press for finally giving him a slap on the wrist for a clear quid pro quo.

Trump will continue all his attempts to undo government and undo Obama through 2020, so he will never gain much in the independent voter group.

The impeachment would be slightly more effective in the fall of 2020, but it is still effective to say "but Ukraine..." in the election cycle all year, in the way Trump hammered in "but her emails" month after month. Comey put the final nail in the coffin. perhaps we can find another Ukraine nail by next November?
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
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?
Click to expand...

they have ignored plenty until now why expect a sudden change?
 
Minoosh said:
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?
Click to expand...
For the same reason that explains everything else about everything they've done: to continue helping and protecting Trump.
 
Pope130 said:
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.
Click to expand...


I disagree. I think that including the obstruction charge puts Republicans in an awkward position. If they vote against the charge, which Trump is unquestionably guilty of, then they are establishing a precedent for presidents to avoid cooperating with congressional hearings of any type, which can be exploited by future Democratic presidents as well as by future Republican presidents. And they would also be diminishing their own power.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I do agree with the above, though, that the obstruction of Congress Article is a hard sell because it wasn't challenged in court. The Democrats may be right on this point, but "technically correct" isn't going to win them the case. I'm even doubtful this Article would get past a non-partisan Senate.

I think perhaps that obstruction/perjury relating to Mueller might have been a better move. But, then, I'm not a constitutional lawyer.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that a Congressional obstruction charge needs to be pressed in court? The question is does the President have the right to stonewall Congress regarding foreign policy information? Not whether such obstruction is criminal.
 
Minoosh said:
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.
Click to expand...

Read the second paragraph of my OP.

The American people have been programmed to have the attention span of a gnat.
 
Minoosh said:
Yes, get that done by Christmas and they've done their part.

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.
Click to expand...

The problem, again, is that the public will perceive any future rounds of charges through the lens of "I thought we already dealt with this."

The average American of 2019 cannot think sophisticatedly. This is the hashtag/meme culture's greatest flaw.
 
acbytesla said:
What makes you think that a Congressional obstruction charge needs to be pressed in court? The question is does the President have the right to stonewall Congress regarding foreign policy information? Not whether such obstruction is criminal.
Click to expand...

Because it's the court's role to resolve legal disputes between the other two branches. If the Legislative says the Executive has to comply, and the Executive says they don't, it's up to the Judiciary to resolve the question. Or, if the Judiciary recuses, then it's an impasse and the question is resolved in favor of whichever branch benefits from the impasse - the Executive, in this case.

Or, if the claimant declines to petition the Judiciary for resolution, then again the question is resolved by impasse, benefiting the Executive.

Basically, the moment the Executive contested the subpoenas, the House had a few options:

- Press the matter in court...
... Either confirming their authority to subpoena the Executive, or...
... Confirming that they have no such authority

OR

- Press the matter in court...
... But the court recuses, thus establishing de facto that the Executive can ignore Legislative subpoenas

OR

- Decline to press the matter in court...
... thus establishing de facto that the Executive can ignore Legislative subpoenas; AND
... leaving the door open to continue pushing the narrative that the Executive is obstructing the Legislative in some way, even though this question has not actually been properly answered.

I think the House Democrats' biggest fear is that they take this to court, and the court either recuses, or else affirms the Executive's constitutional theory. That would close the door on Executive subpoenas forever.
 
It’s *already in court*, isn’t it? I’m not very familiar with the formal structure of the subpoena fight, but couldn’t it turn out that the court upholds at least some of the requests for documents/testimony?

Well, what then? The House declines to even depose them? That would be dumb. It would reward the stonewalling.

I’ve been told why I’m being strategically thick. Short attention span etc. But what should the House do if they get get a chance to depose Pompeo, Bolton and whoever else?

Yes the public has a short attention span. Get the current articles out. Give the public a break. But don’t ignore future evidence. That would be insane IMO.

Wish someone could answer this for me in a procedural sense, not just question the strategy.
 
theprestige said:
Because it's the court's role to resolve legal disputes between the other two branches. If the Legislative says the Executive has to comply, and the Executive says they don't, it's up to the Judiciary to resolve the question. Or, if the Judiciary recuses, then it's an impasse and the question is resolved in favor of whichever branch benefits from the impasse - the Executive, in this case.

Or, if the claimant declines to petition the Judiciary for resolution, then again the question is resolved by impasse, benefiting the Executive.

Basically, the moment the Executive contested the subpoenas, the House had a few options:

- Press the matter in court...
... Either confirming their authority to subpoena the Executive, or...
... Confirming that they have no such authority

OR

- Press the matter in court...
... But the court recuses, thus establishing de facto that the Executive can ignore Legislative subpoenas

OR

- Decline to press the matter in court...
... thus establishing de facto that the Executive can ignore Legislative subpoenas; AND
... leaving the door open to continue pushing the narrative that the Executive is obstructing the Legislative in some way, even though this question has not actually been properly answered.

I think the House Democrats' biggest fear is that they take this to court, and the court either recuses, or else affirms the Executive's constitutional theory. That would close the door on Executive subpoenas forever.
Click to expand...

Where do you get these ideas? Certainly not from the United States Constitution or am I wrong? I challenge you to provide a citation. Guess what Prestige, you can't. Because it is not there.

Judicial Review is nowhere in the Constitution. It was established by precedence. The court made a ruling in Marbury v Madison and was not challenged by it. And it has assumed that role ever since.

In the same way precedence has established that Congress has implied duties of oversight that goes back 230 years.

The Constitution specifically states that the House (not the court) has sole power of impeachment. If the House decides that stonewalling its oversight responsibilities is obstruction of that authority, it has every right, no duty to make that an article of impeachment. Does it not? And if you disagree, why?

My question to you, is do you believe it is a proper use of Executive power to obstruct Congress from knowing the facts about military aid to a foreign power?
 
Last edited:
I think it could come about that Bolton might be voluntarily deposed. I can’t believe the House wouldn’t want to hear what he has to say. If that day comes, the public will probably get interested again. But even if they don’t (they will) that shouldn’t stop the House from asking him. They have good principled reasons to look at new evidence. Not everything has to rivet the public to be worth doing.
 
Minoosh said:
It’s *already in court*, isn’t it? I’m not very familiar with the formal structure of the subpoena fight, but couldn’t it turn out that the court upholds at least some of the requests for documents/testimony?

Well, what then? The House declines to even depose them? That would be dumb. It would reward the stonewalling.

I’ve been told why I’m being strategically thick. Short attention span etc. But what should the House do if they get get a chance to depose Pompeo, Bolton and whoever else?

Yes the public has a short attention span. Get the current articles out. Give the public a break. But don’t ignore future evidence. That would be insane IMO.

Wish someone could answer this for me in a procedural sense, not just question the strategy.
Click to expand...


The issue is not yet "in court". If the House sends articles of impeachment up the Senate will sit as a court. In treating this as similar to a conventional court case, the Intelligence committee can be seen as the police investigator who finds and develops evidence, the Judiciary Committee as the DA who frames the case and decides if it can be prosecuted, and the House as the Grand Jury who decides whether to send the charges to trial.

As theprestige just explained, the Judiciary decides disputes between the other two branches. The Intelligence Committee could have gone to court to enforce their subpoenas, but decided not to. One can speculate why they so decided, I suspect a significant reason is the time constraint of wanting to get this out before the end of the year.
 
acbytesla said:
The Constitution specifically states that the House (not the court) has sole power of impeachment. If the House decides that stonewalling its oversight responsibilities is obstruction of that authority, it has every right, no duty to make that an article of impeachment. Does it not? And if you disagree, why?
Click to expand...

I agree.

My position has always been that impeachment is a political process, that depends only and entirely on the political will of the Legislature to remove the President from office. They could impeach him for allegedly eating a ham sandwich, without subpoenaing a single witness, without presenting a single shred of evidence, if that's what they wanted to do.

They could impeach him for not complying with a subpoena, if that's what they wanted to do.

But that doesn't mean that the president is legally or constitutionally required to comply with Congressional subpoenas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom