House Impeachment Inquiry

[theprestige]

Senate impeachment rules would make it rather difficult for Mitch to avoid a trial once the House has voted for impeachment. But those rules also permit the Senate to overrule the Chief Justice. Mitch is likely to use that power to limit the scope and duration of the trial.

Huh. According to these rules, except for a few very specific ceremonial acts, the person presiding over the trial can't issue any orders or commands about the trial without prior approval from the Senate as such. The way I read it, McConnell can't kill the trial on his own, but if he can convince a majority of Senators to do so, the president of the Senate is required to go along with this, and cannot countermand it.

 

[Marcus]

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.

I seem to be out of free articles, could you copy and paste an excerpt or two?

 

[theprestige]

I seem to be out of free articles, could you copy and paste an excerpt or two?

This blog has several excerpts, along with some commentary:

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2019/09/trumps-getting-impeached-i-defy-you-to.html

 

[DallasDad]

Question for the Constitutional scholars amongst us: Assume that the House impeaches and the Senate convicts, and Trump is dumped from office in late 2019 or early 2020. Is there anything to prevent him from continuing to campaign and winning a second term?

 

[acbytesla]

I don't believe she's jeopardizing anything. I believe she's playing the same savvy game of "advance Nancy Pelosi's political career" that she's been playing for most of her adult life. If she's stepping down in 2021, she's doing it because it's part of her plan. The plan she's not going to jeopardize for Donald Trump.

That said, I suspect that her decision to pursue impeachment is motivated not by some savvy calculation that now is the time, but rather a groundswell of demand from her fellow Democrats that she can no longer resist without jeopardizing her plan.

"The die is cast" is, I think, an expression of resignation on her part. To me it suggests that she thinks it's probably not going to work, but they've gone too far to turn back now. She's spent the past few months trying very hard not to cross the Rubicon. But now that the crossing has been made, she recognizes that the only way out is forward and through, and make the best of it.

Maybe. The real point is sometimes you have to go to war whether you want to or not. Trump gave her no choice because of his treasonous acts. There's a difference between cautious and savvy and feckless and weak.

Trump has declared war against America and what it stands for. We can lie down and allow the nation to devolve into authoritarian rule or fight for free and fair elections and the rule of law as opposed to the rule of man.

Which do you choose?

 

[theprestige]

Question for the Constitutional scholars amongst us: Assume that the House impeaches and the Senate convicts, and Trump is dumped from office in late 2019 or early 2020. Is there anything to prevent him from continuing to campaign and winning a second term?

My understanding is that a vote to remove is not a vote for disqualification, but the Senate has the authority to include a vote for disqualification in their deliberations. Presumably the Senate would vote to remove and vote to disqualify as a matter of course in most impeachments.

The case of Senator Blount is interesting because the Senate had already removed him from office under the normal constitutional authority and rules of the Senate. But that authority doesn't include disqualifying him - for that they needed an impeachment.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Question for the Constitutional scholars amongst us: Assume that the House impeaches and the Senate convicts, and Trump is dumped from office in late 2019 or early 2020. Is there anything to prevent him from continuing to campaign and winning a second term?

not as far as I know - there is basically no way to remove the passive voting right.

The BTK killer could run for President and get elected, even if he might have to govern from prison.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe. The real point is sometimes you have to go to war whether you want to or not. Trump gave her no choice because of his treasonous acts. There's a difference between cautious and savvy and feckless and weak.

Trump has declared war against America and what it stands for. We can lie down and allow the nation to devolve into authoritarian rule or fight for free and fair elections and the rule of law as opposed to the rule of man.

Which do you choose?

I choose to reject your hyperbole out of hand.

But while you're here: Can the President of the Senate order the start date of an impeachment trial?

 

[acbytesla]

Huh. According to these rules, except for a few very specific ceremonial acts, the person presiding over the trial can't issue any orders or commands about the trial without prior approval from the Senate as such. The way I read it, McConnell can't kill the trial on his own, but if he can convince a majority of Senators to do so, the president of the Senate is required to go along with this, and cannot countermand it.

Senate Impeachment rules are their rules, not the Constitution's rules.

 

[theprestige]

not as far as I know - there is basically no way to remove the passive voting right.

The BTK killer could run for President and get elected, even if he might have to govern from prison.

This is not exactly true. People who are disqualified from holding office cannot hold office regardless of how many votes they get. Greta Thunberg could win the 2020 election by a write-in landslide, and she still wouldn't get to be president.

And from what I can tell, a legitimate impeachment trial can result in the disqualification of the accused from holding elected office.

 

[acbytesla]

Trump has declared war against America and what it stands for. We can lie down and allow the nation to devolve into authoritarian rule or fight for free and fair elections and the rule of law as opposed to the rule of man.

Which do you choose?

I choose to reject your hyperbole out of hand.

So Prestige votes for the cult of personality. Fixing elections and foreign interference. Just as I thought.

 

[psionl0]

Senate impeachment rules would make it rather difficult for Mitch to avoid a trial once the House has voted for impeachment. But those rules also permit the Senate to overrule the Chief Justice. Mitch is likely to use that power to limit the scope and duration of the trial.

That's the point. Handing impeachment over to the Senate puts the whole thing into Republcian hands. They will have an entire year to spin the story into one of desperation by the Democrats who fear an open election in 2020. They might even be able to make Trumps silly rantings about "fake news" seem credible.

Maybe Nancy Pelosi was snookered and has no option but to press ahead. But I am not convinced that this will get the Democrats the votes that they crave.

 

[TragicMonkey]

That's the point. Handing impeachment over to the Senate puts the whole thing into Republcian hands. They will have an entire year to spin the story into one of desperation by the Democrats who fear an open election in 2020. They might even be able to make Trumps silly rantings about "fake news" seem credible.

Maybe Nancy Pelosi was snookered and has no option but to press ahead. But I am not convinced that this will get the Democrats the votes that they crave.

So what? The goal is to remove a dangerous idiot from the office he currently desecrates, not to ensure the next one after his immediate replacement is a Democrat. Speaking as a rather liberal citizen I would gladly accept a different Republican winning in 2020 if that was the price to remove Trump now. He's a dangerous criminal idiot and his shenanigans have crossed the line into extremely serious waters. He must be stopped.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You think Democrats in the Senate can't produce evidence?

 

[acbytesla]

That's the point. Handing impeachment over to the Senate puts the whole thing into Republcian hands. They will have an entire year to spin the story into one of desperation by the Democrats who fear an open election in 2020. They might even be able to make Trumps silly rantings about "fake news" seem credible.

Maybe Nancy Pelosi was snookered and has no option but to press ahead. But I am not convinced that this will get the Democrats the votes that they crave.

Maybe, maybe not. It's almost impossible to tell. But spinning what Trump did with Ukraine is a tall order. There is no real question what happened. Denying it is absurd as Trump and Rudy owned up to it.

The question for the American people is does it mean anything? Do they want Presidents in the future using their power to get other nations to help keep them in power? Prestige doesn't seem to mind, so maybe.

 

[tyr_13]

Having the impeachment quickly has the advantages, such as making the pressure on Trump more acute, increasing the likelihood of him being more blatantly evil such as his recent threatening witnesses with death.

It also means if he is not removed from office he has more time to do more illegal/abuse of power actions with regards to the next election.

 

[theprestige]

You think Democrats in the Senate can't produce evidence?

That is my current thinking, yes. The way I read the sections on impeachment, the only two factions that can produce evidence during the trial are the House managers conducting the prosecution, and the accused conducting their defense. Senator are restricted to hearing the evidence and casting a vote.

But I could be wrong. It's entirely possible that there's some rule or convention that allows Senators to bring evidence at some point in the trial. Let me know if you happen to find out either way.

 

[psionl0]

So what? The goal is to remove a dangerous idiot from the office he currently desecrates, not to ensure the next one after his immediate replacement is a Democrat.

Even if that noble goal was their aim, an impeachment trial in the Senate is not going to achieve this. It could even enhance Trumps chances at the next election.

 

[varwoche]

Everything Nancy Pelosi has done, since roughly 1981, has been precision-engineered by Nancy Pelosi, for the sole purpose of putting Nancy Pelosi where she is today. You think she's going to jeopardize all of that over Donald Trump? I don't.

People like to say this sort of thing about politicians. Often time they are right. Some people even think this is true by definition -- they dismiss all politicians this way.

Based on human nature, I'm pretty sure that most (all?) politicians are driven by a mixture of motivations. But since we can't read minds, we must look at their actions and see if they align with their words. That's what counts. If this thread was about Pelosi, I'd ask for specific evidence that she's any more self-interested than any other high achieving pol. Lacking said evidence, ho hum and a half.

 

[theprestige]

People like to say this sort of thing about politicians. Often time they are right. Some people even think this is true by definition -- they dismiss all politicians this way.

Based on human nature, I'm pretty sure that most (all?) politicians are driven by a mixture of motivations. But since we can't read minds, we must look at their actions and see if they align with their words. That's what counts. If this thread was about Pelosi, I'd ask for specific evidence that she's any more self-interested than any other high achieving pol. Lacking said evidence, ho hum and a half.

These are all good points. I don't disagree with your conclusion.