House Impeachment Inquiry

[psionl0]

Still, the thing I keep coming back to – perhaps idealistically – is this: if there are grounds for impeachment, i.e., there is legitimate reason to believe that the Executive Branch is in any way compromised, then it is the Constitutional duty of Congress to impeach. Regardless of timing, polling, etc., the Constitution says that if x happens, y needs to follow.

Actually the constitution says no such thing. it simply says, "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment". There is no "duty" nor definition of "impeachment" nor standard of evidence specified.

Similarly, "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments". Again, no definition nor standard of proof is stated. Interestingly, The 5th amendment right against testifying against yourself does not apply because an impeachment case is not a "criminal case". Whether the Trump could be compelled to testify at an impeachment hearing would make for an interesting legal argument (I would say "not").

 

[Belz...]

I think it's imperative that the Dems either take the White House or make major gains in the Senate in 2020 or they are gonna impeach Trump all the way into a Dictatorship gift wrapped for him.

Yeah, strategically it's really hard to know whether impreachment is a good idea or not.

 

[The Shrike]

Actually the constitution says no such thing. . . . There is no "duty" nor definition of "impeachment" nor standard of evidence specified.

Precedent, then. I'm not typing into the teleprompter for them. The point is that they've sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, as has the President. If they think that the President has violated his oath then they are violating theirs if they take no action. Framing and owning the narrative like this is what they need to do so that all but the mouth-breathiest of knuckle-draggers will get that it's not a partisan hit-job.

For comparison, I thought the Clinton investigations were indeed a partisan hit-job but once he perjured himself I accepted that the ground was laid for impeachment.

 

[theprestige]

I dunno, you tell us, is perjury enough to impeach? : rolleyes :

How could you possibly have missed my point by such a large margin? I could fit an entire third term for President Trump, between what I said and what you got from it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Honestly, I see no need to bring Clinton into this.

It's not Clinton my posts are about. They are about hypocrisy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How could you possibly have missed my point by such a large margin? I could fit an entire third term for President Trump, between what I said and what you got from it.

This is your classic response, attack the person you are addressing. There's nothing in your post to respond to which is actually related to the thread.

 

[theprestige]

: rolleyes :

This is your classic response, attack the person you are addressing. There's nothing in your post to respond to which is actually related to the thread.

My post was directly related to the thread.

It's an impeachment inquiry. The question was, what kind of inquiry is it?

Is it a "do we have enough to impeach" inquiry?

Or is it a "shall we begin the impeachment process" inquiry?

I was pointing out those are two very different kinds of inquiry, with very different outcomes. You misunderstood this as some sort of opinion on how that first question should be answered. But in fact your interpretation is entirely beside the point I was actually making.

Also, you're attacking me for calling out your misunderstanding. What else am I supposed to do? Let your misunderstanding go unchallenged, because challenging it feels like a personal attack to you? And if it's gotta be a personal thing for you, then how am I supposed to feel about your classic response of misunderstanding pretty much every post I make?

Actually, I feel pretty good about that. I can't remember the last time I advanced an argument that you were able to refute with anything more than bluster, strawmen, and personalization.

Anyway, stop misunderstanding my posts all the time, and I'll stop calling it out all the time.

 

[tyr_13]

Great. And then what?

Well that would depend on a lot of factors, such as exactly what illegal acts he responds with, wouldn't it?

Maybe it peels off a couple of GOP Senators who have hard elections ahead, and that in turn changes many internal dynamics in that party. Maybe more and more leave the Republicans, making electoral gains larger. Maybe the reaction is so over the top that immediate actions are taken and widely supported. Maybe the GOP all double down, commit some illegal acts of their own, etc. Maybe they all go too far, expand voter suppression, encourage violence to more literally steal the election, and then we can say we didn't give them enough chance to avoid watering the tree of liberty.

Most likely it suppresses some Obama-Trump voter in the next election, without whom President Biff cannot win (assuming other factors stay the same).

This idea that nothing can really hurt Trump just isn't true. Demanding certainty just isn't a viable standard.

 

[Craig4]

Ideally, the Dems wouldn't start the proceedings until well into the campaigns. That way, the hearings generate news negative to Trump while he's running for reelection. They should run out of time before the floor vote so Trump can't get an up or down vote in the Senate until after the election is over. You get the benefit of lots of free negative coverage for Trump but deny him the acquittal in the Senate.

 

[plague311]

Ideally, the Dems wouldn't start the proceedings until well into the campaigns. That way, the hearings generate news negative to Trump while he's running for reelection. They should run out of time before the floor vote so Trump can't get an up or down vote in the Senate until after the election is over. You get the benefit of lots of free negative coverage for Trump but deny him the acquittal in the Senate.

The problem is with how complicated it is to time things out. Technically, if they start it now thinking Trump will drag it out, he could speed everything along and wrap it up. Trump is kind of in the driver's seat right now. Though he's entirely too stupid to realize it sometimes.

 

[Craig4]

The problem is with how complicated it is to time things out. Technically, if they start it now thinking Trump will drag it out, he could speed everything along and wrap it up. Trump is kind of in the driver's seat right now. Though he's entirely too stupid to realize it sometimes.

You can schedule the calling of witnesses to make the hearings match your political goals. If you know when the Republican National Convention will be, you could schedule your most damaging witness to such the air out of the news cycle.

 

[theprestige]

You can schedule the calling of witnesses to make the hearings match your political goals. If you know when the Republican National Convention will be, you could schedule your most damaging witness to such the air out of the news cycle.

Still need to call useful witnesses, though.

Robert Mueller just spent two and a half years calling exactly the kind of witnesses you'd expect to be hugely damaging to the GOP, and yet...

And then just last week, the Dems called Mueller as a witness, which should have been a slam dunk for them, and yet...

So, while yes, timing the testimony to coincide with other politically momentous events seems like a good strategy, you might be getting ahead of yourselves on this. Find the witnesses first, then plan the timing.

 

[Craig4]

Still need to call useful witnesses, though.

Robert Mueller just spent two and a half years calling exactly the kind of witnesses you'd expect to be hugely damaging to the GOP, and yet...

And then just last week, the Dems called Mueller as a witness, which should have been a slam dunk for them, and yet...

So, while yes, timing the testimony to coincide with other politically momentous events seems like a good strategy, you might be getting ahead of yourselves on this. Find the witnesses first, then plan the timing.

There are plenty of woman who have accused him of various degrees of sexual assault. There are the New York State Investigators who have looked into Cohen's dealings and the Trump organization. There might even be people still alive who investigated Trump's racial discrimination in rental housing. You could make this a real hatchet job.

 

[psionl0]

Precedent, then.

Precedent doesn't support your case. There have been instances in the past where the POTUS defied the SC and acted contrary to their rulings. Andrew Jackson did so when he disposessed the Cherokee from their land in northern Georgia. Abraham Lincoln did so when he suspended "habeas corpus".

You would think that these were a clear cut case for impeachment. But in both cases, the house did nothing and you don't have to guess which party was in control at the time. Even if the other party had control of the house, they probably wouldn't have wanted to set a "precedent" that stopped the POTUS from overriding the SC.

The point is that they've sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, as has the President. If they think that the President has violated his oath then they are violating theirs if they take no action.

And who decides if an offence rises to the level of impeachment? The House of Representatives. Should the house seek transgressors and vote to impeach them or should they wait until they get a complaint (like the courts)? That's up to the House of Representatives to decide.

Your problem is that you are arguing for political acts to be done for "moral" reasons. That doesn't wash.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Still need to call useful witnesses, though.

Robert Mueller just spent two and a half years calling exactly the kind of witnesses you'd expect to be hugely damaging to the GOP, and yet...

And then just last week, the Dems called Mueller as a witness, which should have been a slam dunk for them, and yet...

So, while yes, timing the testimony to coincide with other politically momentous events seems like a good strategy, you might be getting ahead of yourselves on this. Find the witnesses first, then plan the timing.

Do you think the Benghazi hearings had "useful witnesses" ?

but on point:
Mueller interviewed under seal - the house doesn't have to. Especially since they are not looking for a criminal conviction, unlike Mueller. It would be entirely sufficient to prove that Trump did things no President should ever do.

 

[The Shrike]

Precedent doesn't support your case.

Nonsense. Clinton was impeached for perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. There is a compelling to case to made that Trump is guilty of obstruction, including multiple examples of lying to investigators and to the American people. That doesn't even consider his seeking help from a foreign adversary in a quid pro quo, emoluments infractions, etc.

And who decides if an offence rises to the level of impeachment? The House of Representatives.

Correct. They've got at least as much justification to impeach Trump today as they had for Clinton. If perjury and obstruction were sufficient in 1998 to rise to the level of treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors, then that's the standard by which the House should act in 2019.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Clinton was impeached while his party was in power. Outcome he wasn't convicted and his approval rating went up. The same thing is going to happen if we impeach Trump before 2020.

The difference is we're talking about impeaching Trump while he's in his first time, while Clinton was in his second.

 

[theprestige]

Do you think the Benghazi hearings had "useful witnesses" ?

I'm agnostic. But the fact that they went nowhere and became a laughingstock suggests that Congressional hearings maybe aren't such great tool for proving stuff and winning political arguments.

but on point:
Mueller interviewed under seal - the house doesn't have to. Especially since they are not looking for a criminal conviction, unlike Mueller. It would be entirely sufficient to prove that Trump did things no President should ever do.

"Prove", I think, is how that conversation would end. As in:

"Alice's testimony proves that Bob lied!"

"'Proves.'"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Clinton was impeached while his party was in power. Outcome he wasn't convicted and his approval rating went up. The same thing is going to happen if we impeach Trump before 2020.

The difference is we're talking about impeaching Trump while he's in his first time, while Clinton was in his second.

I don't see how first or second term matters. Care to explain?

Also you can't compare the two impeachments. In Clinton's case a large segment of the population was sick of Starr by that time and thought lying about an affair was petty.

Only Trump loyalists feel similarly about Trump's case.

 

[WilliamSeger]

It's gonna be a very important technicality, though. "Do we have enough to impeach?" is a very different question from "shall we now impeach?"

Did I miss the part explaining why that's a "very important technicality?"

but on point:
Mueller interviewed under seal - the house doesn't have to. Especially since they are not looking for a criminal conviction, unlike Mueller. It would be entirely sufficient to prove that Trump did things no President should ever do.

"Prove", I think, is how that conversation would end. As in:

"Alice's testimony proves that Bob lied!"

"'Proves.'"

It doesn't end that way in court. No matter how much you'd like the "conversation" to end, a trial ends in a verdict.