Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
The leverage is McConnell wants this out of the way before campaign season starts.
Click to expand...

Does he, though? What difference does it really make?

He does not want a trial going on months from now.
Click to expand...

Which is just more incentive to squash it utterly, no?

How is sending the Articles to the Senate to let McConnell snuff it out like Barr did the Mueller report OK?
Click to expand...

It's not going to be okay whatever happens. It'll get, at most, 2 or 3 weeks in the Senate with no witnesses called, and then Trump will be acquitted. It might even last less than a day, with an immediate motion to dismiss, supported by a Republican majority.

Pelosi withholding the Articles doesn't do anything to change that. It just gives a boost to the Republican narratives that this isn't a fair process and that the Democrats' case is so weak that they don't even want to bring it to trial.
 
Ziggurat said:
Oh, I’ve considered it. But that doesn’t fit the facts.
Click to expand...

How about the fact that it was widely supposed on both sides that an impeachment would almost certainly end with Trump's vindication, and hence be to the Dems' detriment in the upcoming election? Undertaking an exercise in spite of it being known to be likely harmful to one's team is at least indicative of some more noble goal than selfish benefit.

What, no room to consider this as having the tiniest smidgen of a chance at being a factor? It's got to be purely cynical, partisan politics in all things at all times? Might some projection of your own color your reasoning?
 
Why is it a good idea for Pelosi to slow the transfer of the Articles?

Because, at the very least, she can force McConnell to put the ground rules of the Senate Trial in writing - he can change them afterwards, but at least he will have to commit once.
This is undoubtedly in her power, as she is under no obligation to send the House Managers unless there are established rules.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
But he'd be left with Pence who would win the primary because no one else is running. And Pence has less of a chance than Trump.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that?

There’s certainly a block of loyal Republicans that are thoroughly disgusted with Trump, and would jump on the opportunity to vote for someone with positions more in line with traditional Republican ideology.

I don’t care for Pence overall, but think he’d at least be a stabilizing force. Though I’m promising right now I will not vote for any Republican now that I’ve seen the depths they’ve sunk to in support of Trump.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
Why is it a good idea for Pelosi to slow the transfer of the Articles?

Because, at the very least, she can force McConnell to put the ground rules of the Senate Trial in writing - he can change them afterwards, but at least he will have to commit once.
This is undoubtedly in her power, as she is under no obligation to send the House Managers unless there are established rules.
Click to expand...
Why does this force McConnell to put the rules in writing?

Also, aren't the senate rules already a matter of record?

Also, senate rules are determined by a vote of the senate. McConnell can't just write down his rules, nor can he just change them later. Both those things are Senate votes.

Also, what practical advantage does Pelosi actually gain, if the Senate votes one set of rules now, and then votes a different set of rules later?
 
theprestige said:
Also, what practical advantage does Pelosi actually gain, if the Senate votes one set of rules now, and then votes a different set of rules later?
Click to expand...

In one word, “time”.

Time to accumulate additional evidence and consolidate the charges and evidence. Time to prepare the case. Time for Trump to tweet incriminating tweets and Giuliani to keep running around the world and running his mouth, and maybe get indicted himself. Time for various witnesses to reconsider their stances on ignoring subpoenas. In other words, time to breathe and regroup.

The Republicans will spin it to their advantage, of course. But if the articles were sent right over to the Senate to have Trump acquitted in a day or two trial sans witnesses, you darn well know they’d spin that to their advantage as well.

I still think the Democrats have played this poorly all along by leaving out crimes that had their elements much more clearly defined than what they went with. But from where they are right now, I see no additional damage from this delay.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Why does this force McConnell to put the rules in writing?

Also, aren't the senate rules already a matter of record?

Also, senate rules are determined by a vote of the senate. McConnell can't just write down his rules, nor can he just change them later. Both those things are Senate votes.

Also, what practical advantage does Pelosi actually gain, if the Senate votes one set of rules now, and then votes a different set of rules later?
Click to expand...

The Rules are up for debate.
McConnell could declare that the Clinton rules are in effect, but he hasn't done so.
Pelosi insisting on the Rules being clear is neither unreasonable nor unprecedented. So McConnell refusing would be seen as another sign that he doubts Trump would survive a fair trial, and would make campaigning against GOP senators easier.

The advantage is slim, but it's more than anyone thought of only a week ago.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
In one word, “time”.

Time to accumulate additional evidence and consolidate the charges and evidence. Time to prepare the case. Time for Trump to tweet incriminating tweets and Giuliani to keep running around the world and running his mouth, and maybe get indicted himself. Time for various witnesses to reconsider their stances on ignoring subpoenas. In other words, time to breathe and regroup.

The Republicans will spin it to their advantage, of course. But if the articles were sent right over to the Senate to have Trump acquitted in a day or two trial sans witnesses, you darn well know they’d spin that to their advantage as well.

I still think the Democrats have played this poorly all along by leaving out crimes that had their elements much more clearly defined than what they went with. But from where they are right now, I see no additional damage from this delay.
Click to expand...

Pelosi already had all the time in the world. She could have extended the investigation in the house. She could have extended the inquiry in the house. She could have waited for the subpoena question to be decided by the courts. Once you've voted on articles, though you're ready to go to trial. To get that far, and make a point of getting there quickly, and then to say, "oh, we're not ready yet"?
 
Fast Eddie B said:
In one word, “time”.

Time to accumulate additional evidence and consolidate the charges and evidence. Time to prepare the case. Time for Trump to tweet incriminating tweets and Giuliani to keep running around the world and running his mouth, and maybe get indicted himself. Time for various witnesses to reconsider their stances on ignoring subpoenas. In other words, time to breathe and regroup.
Click to expand...

This is a good point, actually. The impeachment part of the process happened very quickly, and it was supposed that the reason for that was that the issue under consideration was time sensitive, given that it was about interference in the upcoming election. And now the process is deliberately being slowed down.

If the point is to delay in order to accumulate additional evidence, then why not do that during the impeachment stage? And is time suddenly no longer an issue?

Makes even less sense to me.
 
Lurch said:
How about the fact that it was widely supposed on both sides that an impeachment would almost certainly end with Trump's vindication, and hence be to the Dems' detriment in the upcoming election? Undertaking an exercise in spite of it being known to be likely harmful to one's team is at least indicative of some more noble goal than selfish benefit.
Click to expand...

Well, no. It may be to a politician's advantage to have his party do well overall, but it's to his disadvantage to do badly personally. Most Congressmen and Congresswomen are in pretty safe seats. Their biggest threat is not the opposition party, it's being primaried by their own party. And the Democratic base really, really wanted impeachment. So on an individual level for a lot of them, it may be better to pursue impeachment even if it's a net negative for the party as a whole.

Guess what the common factor is among Democrats who voted against impeachment?

What, no room to consider this as having the tiniest smidgen of a chance at being a factor?
Click to expand...

Like I said, I already considered it. And I came to a conclusion.
 
Ziggurat said:
Oh, I’ve considered it. But that doesn’t fit the facts.
Click to expand...

The hell it doesn't. That you have your head in the sand and refuse to deal with the facts demonstrate your desire not to deal with them.

Trump appointed EU Ambassor Sondland testified everyone was in on it. Any of those people could have appeared before the House and refuted it. But none of them did. Not Mulvaney, not Pence, not Pompeo, not Giuliani, not Barr, not Trump. If the GOP really want to clear Trump, why don't they want these people to testify? Is it because they know that even they couldn't clear the President?

Now you can play these silly little games and whine that the Democrats were unfair because they only wanted to hear from witnesses that were involved in "Giuliani's drug deal" and ignore witnesses that weren't. I listened to hours and hours of Republican Congress critters asking questions. And hardly a single question dealt with the facts.

So here we are. Trump has been impeached. Nothing will ever change that.And it looks like if these people are barred from testifying, Trump will never be acquitted.
 
acbytesla said:
So here we are. Trump has been impeached. Nothing will ever change that.And it looks like if these people are barred from testifying, Trump will never be acquitted.
Click to expand...

So was Bill Clinton and he left office as popular as ever, had he been on his 1st term instead of 2nd would have skated to re-election, and his... "branding" for lack of a better term was so untarnished his wife was able to run for President after having a successful political career of her own.

It will never change, but it will also never matter if he's not convicted. It will be a historical footnote at best.

This will not, inherently, hurt Trump anymore then it did Clinton.

Less so because everyone's mind is already made up. All this is doing is making the narrative stronger for people who already believe it.

This whole "Ah you'll never wash out that Scarlet A we've put on you!" narrative from the Dems is rather eye rolling.
 
Last edited:
I can't see why Pelosi should send the articles to the Senate. If the People won't get a fair trial, I see no reason to send the articles for a kangaroo court acquittal. Let's just leave him impeached.
 
No one was disputing the facts in the Clinton case - not so here.
This seems to help Trump in the short term, but in the long run, this will hurt him more.
With Clinton, there was a clear 'over and done'.
Here, we have a 'tip of the iceberg'.

If Republicans just came out and condemned the Abuse, but refused to convict and ask for a Censure instead, Trump and the GOP could move on from this.
But as it stands, Trump, Pence and anyone in the current Cabinet and White House is exactly one Democratic Senate away from being impeached.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
The point isn't that she's fighting, it's that what she's doing is counter-productive. Democrats gain nothing by this and Republicans lose nothing. Democrats, OTOH, do lose something and the Republicans gain something. Strengthening your opponent's position while weakening your own is a bad strategy.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating this over and over. Yet, you're guessing like everyone else. I think you're 100 percent wrong about your conclusions. The Democrats could lose and the Republicans could lose. I think hammering home Trump's corruption and the GOP's brazen hand waving it away a winner for the Democrats and a loser for the Republicans. Pelosi is doing exactly what she should be doing.
 
I'm curious about the terminology and not sure how to look it up.
So, currently Trump is Impeached by the House.
If the Senate agrees, he's Impeached. Or is there another, higher term?
If the Senate does not, what is the term? It doesn't erase the Impeachment.
 
alfaniner said:
I'm curious about the terminology and not sure how to look it up.
So, currently Trump is Impeached by the House.
If the Senate agrees, he's Impeached. Or is there another, higher term?
If the Senate does not, what is the term? It doesn't erase the Impeachment.
Click to expand...

Think of impeachment like an indictment by a grand jury. The House impeached (indicted) Trump. The Senate is supposed to hold a trial at the end of which they vote to whether or not to remove Trump from office. The House impeaches the Senate removes.
 
Belz... said:
I guess I'm a moron, too. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Sign me up.

When the experts on TV are unsure how the roles will work, it's a bit much to demonstrate such supreme confidence.

I don't think it means what you think it means, though. He presides over the trial, but that doesn't mean his ruling act as if SCOTUS made the ruling.
Click to expand...
In addition -- he's not going to override the 5th amendment. And I can't imagine he would override claims of executive privilege. If one side or the other chose to press something, I suspect it would go to the courts. But seeing as we're in uncharted territory, I'm sure as hell not going to call someone a moron for having a different take.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom