House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Shrike said:
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.
Click to expand...
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").
 
JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, strategically it's really hard to know whether impreachment is a good idea or not.
 
psionl0 said:
Actually the constitution says no such thing. . . . There is no "duty" nor definition of "impeachment" nor standard of evidence specified.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
: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.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
: 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Great. And then what?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Craig4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
plague311 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Craig4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The Shrike said:
Precedent, then.
Click to expand...
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 Shrike said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
psionl0 said:
Precedent doesn't support your case.
Click to expand...
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.

psionl0 said:
And who decides if an offence rises to the level of impeachment? The House of Representatives.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Do you think the Benghazi hearings had "useful witnesses" ?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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

"Alice's testimony proves that Bob lied!"

"'Proves.'"
 
JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
theprestige said:
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?"
Click to expand...

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

theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...
"Prove", I think, is how that conversation would end. As in:

"Alice's testimony proves that Bob lied!"

"'Proves.'"
Click to expand...

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.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Did I miss the part explaining why that's a "very important technicality?"
Click to expand...
There was no explanation. Would you like one? I think Craig4 gives a good one:

Craig4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's a question of timing. Deciding that there's enough to impeach, but deferring the question of impeachment itself until a more politically-advantageous moment, is a very different decision from deciding to impeach right now.

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.
Click to expand...

TGZ and I were explicitly *not* discussing court cases, trials, and verdicts. As the post you quoted makes clear.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I don't see how first or second term matters. Care to explain?
Click to expand...

The Republicans didn't have to worry about handing Clinton a second term in 1998.

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.
Click to expand...

People keep talking like Trump supporters are some small fringe group we can quarantine.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Because it is the House, the only criterion for Proof is what a majority thinks.
Click to expand...

So the House majority votes a non-legislative resolution, finding that Alice's testimony "proves" Bob's lies. And then what? If it doesn't change the national conversation? If it doesn't resolve any larger controversy? If it doesn't peel votes? If it doesn't even indict Bob?

It's easy to have hearings. It's easy to proclaim "victory" according to some metric at the conclusion. It's a lot harder to make that conclusion stick, and change the larger national conversation, and move the needle in the next election.

Look at the Benghazi hearings. Or the Mueller hearings, for that matter.
 
We don't know what testimony would significantly change the voters' minds - or those of the Senators.
There is certainly enough in the Mueller report to impeach, objectively speaking, but perhaps not politically: Trump has set the bar so low that even ordering his staff to lie to Mueller doesn't surprise anyone.
But there is a very good chance that the bank subpoenas will show Trump involved in money laundering.
And that might be enough for most voters.
 
theprestige said:
It's a question of timing. Deciding that there's enough to impeach, but deferring the question of impeachment itself until a more politically-advantageous moment, is a very different decision from deciding to impeach right now.
Click to expand...

Yes, timing is an important strategic detail, but it wasn't clear what you were trying to say about a "technical" difference between your two choices. I'd say neither of them quite describes where we are now, which is "Do we know everything knowable about what appears to already be a dang good case for obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations, at the least?" For timing purposes, that threshold is easily achieved by adjusting the threshold.

TGZ and I were explicitly *not* discussing court cases, trials, and verdicts. As the post you quoted makes clear.
Click to expand...

True, but strangely irrelevant to the point. The "conversation" there may end with "proves" but the process ends with a decision by the "grand jury."
 
WilliamSeger said:
Yes, timing is an important strategic detail, but it wasn't clear what you were trying to say about a "technical" difference between your two choices. I'd say neither of them quite describes where we are now, which is "Do we know everything knowable about what appears to already be a dang good case for obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations, at the least?" For timing purposes, that threshold is easily achieved by adjusting the threshold.
Click to expand...
At this point I now officially have no idea what your quibble is. But at least you seem to have a reasonably good grasp of what I was saying, so I'm content to leave it here.



True, but strangely irrelevant to the point. The "conversation" there may end with "proves" but the process ends with a decision by the "grand jury."
Click to expand...
My bad. I accidentally went off on a tangent. Sorry for the confusion.
 
We don't even know what's going on with some of the other investigations. I think Mueller's being downplayed by the GOP and blown up by the Dem's.

It was good. Some decent soundbytes, Mueller confirmed that Trump wasn't innocent, and it actually got Trump to shut the **** up about it a little bit, I think.

That being said, I think the taxes will be just as damning, and hopefully more so. Mueller basically said that he didn't know if Trump and his idiots were smart enough to know they were breaking the law intentionally. Which, sadly, I kind of agree with. I think Trump was completely ignorant of how the law works up until he made his statement about taking help again and got his ass firmly handed to him from multiple people. Then he learned, 'Oh, I actually can't take information'. That caused him to backpedal.

When it comes to taxes I really and truly don't feel that defense will work. Sure, the Trump Tower meeting was sketchy, but you can feign ignorance. A few decades of tax fraud\evasion is not as easy to skate on. Those investigations also aren't being handled by the DOJ, they're being handled by the House.
 
It doesn't matter how many investigations are going on. The Constitution only provides two ways to remove a sitting President; the 25th Amendment and Conviction through Impeachment.

The 25th Amendment requires the The Vice President and a majority of the President's Cabinet and they're all a bunch of yes-men that Trump will fire at the first sign of resistance. We'd have better luck painting a fake tunnel on the side of a cliff in the desert and tricking Trump into running into it like the Roadrunner.

Impeachment requires 2/3rds majority in Senate. Newsflash the Dems don't have a 2/3rds majority in the Senate. You could maybe, maybe get a half dozen Republicans to jump aisle on the best day if Trump gets caught doing something like outrageous, we're talking Nixon's tapes time Clinton's blowjob times the Teapot Dome Scandal times a thousand. That's nowhere near enough. The vast majority of the Republicans will back up him up with no qualms, a few might make meaningless surface level rebukes but still support him, and Susan Collins of Maine will be "very, very concerned."
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
At this point I now officially have no idea what your quibble is. But at least you seem to have a reasonably good grasp of what I was saying, so I'm content to leave it here.
Click to expand...

When you said there was an important "technical difference" between your two choices, I thought you might mean, e.g. a difference in how they could proceed or what grand jury testimony a judge might grant them, etc. After you explained what you meant, my "quibble" is that the distinction you're making in your two choices is not really driving the process or the timing, so it's irrelevant.
 
JoeMorgue said:
It doesn't matter how many investigations are going on. The Constitution only two ways to remove a sitting President; the 25th Amendment and Conviction through Impeachment.

The 25th Amendment requires the President Cabinet and they're all a bunch of yes-men that Trump will fire at the first sign of resistance. We'd have better luck painting a fake tunnel on the side of a cliff in the desert and tricking Trump into running into it like the Roadrunner.

Impeachment requires 2/3rds majority in Congress. Newsflash the Dems don't have a 2/3rds majority in Congress.
Click to expand...

I assure you, a newsflash I didn't need at all.

That being said, you're entire post was a non sequitur from mine. All information I didn't need, nor added\detracted from my post in the slightest bit.

See, it DOES matter how many investigations are going. I'll tell you why.

Just because the Mueller investigation didn't bring about the damaging information that would lead to impeachment doesn't mean a different investigation can't\won't provide that information.

Now, yes, I understand you've perpetually screamed from the rooftops that any form of impeachment proceedings will hand Trump the White House OMGZ! But that isn't true at all. There's nothing to support that even a little bit.

If there's rampant tax fraud\evasion that is able to be proven through clear cut evidence, who knows what could happen? Even Fox hasn't been their standard, ass kissy selves. If more damaging information comes out it could be even worse for Trump. It might even turn a few heads that aren't turned now.

I digress though. Just for future reference, I don't really need newsflashes or anything. I'm good.
 
Last edited:
The Shrike said:
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.
Click to expand...
You still don't get it. The facts don't matter. The house isn't going to impeach because Trump's actions are so egregious that they warrant impeachment. They will only impeach if they think that it will increase the chances of getting a Democrat in the white house in 2020. The Senate would uphold impeachment for the same reason - if it wasn't Republican controlled.
 
psionl0 said:
You still don't get it.
Click to expand...
Two-way street, evidently.

I'm not predicting what House Dems will do, I'm suggesting the route they should take to pursue impeachment while minimizing backlash of partisanship. Seldom have modern Democrats spoken strongly enough about their core beliefs, and this has ceded the narrative to the GOP time and time again. This is, obviously, moot if the House lacks the votes to pursue impeachment.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
OK, that makes sense. Stretching it out until the 2020 election might still be a good strategy.
Click to expand...

It's the only strategy that isn't political suicide.

Option 1: Take the Presidency in 2020 and take on Trump when he's not the sitting President.

Option 2: Take a strong majority in the Senate and then impeach him.
 
Ultimately it's a political thing. It's not like a regular criminal case where you appeal to a higher authority and call on them to dispassionately judge the complaint on its merits.

Yes, that's part of it, but there's no higher authority than the federal government. Just the separation of highest authority in to separate, co-equal, and highly politicized branches.

Impeachment happens not when there is a crime to prosecute in the conventional sense, but when there is overwhelming public outcry demanding a political ouster. Public opinion on Trump, despite all his documented and alleged shenanigans, is still sharply split.

The Republican establishment would impeach in a heartbeat, if they thought it would energize Republican voters and increase their chances of picking up seats and staying in the Oval Office.

But Republican voters don't want Trump out of office that badly. And Democrats don't have the majority they need to override that public sentiment. So it's not going to happen.
 
This seems somewhat related to some of the discussion thus far generated: https://twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/status/1153680051268980737

Make no mistake, any voter who says "I don't want to vote for Trump again but I'll have to if the Democrats [fill in the blanks]..." is already planning to vote for Trump again. They are simply looking for a polite society excuse or a way to blame Democrats for it.

As @cornellbelcher has said a million times, the truly convertible, accessible voters are Obama 2008 and 2012 voters who declined to vote in 2016. If Dems get even a fraction of those voters to turn out in the key states like MI, WS and PA in 2020 they win.

Chasing and pandering to and begging people who have converted to Trumpism to please come back is a fool's errand, a waste of campaign resources and an insult to those who genuinely support Democratic goals but felt unheard or disaffected or were disenfranchised in 2016.

This "you'd better appeal to the Trump voter by not doing anything that upsets them or they'll vote for him again" shtick is the "dress pretty and don't burn the dinner and maybe he won't beat you anymore" of political punditry.
Click to expand...
 
theprestige said:
Ultimately it's a political thing. It's not like a regular criminal case where you appeal to a higher authority and call on them to dispassionately judge the complaint on its merits.

Yes, that's part of it, but there's no higher authority than the federal government. Just the separation of highest authority in to separate, co-equal, and highly politicized branches.

Impeachment happens not when there is a crime to prosecute in the conventional sense, but when there is overwhelming public outcry demanding a political ouster. Public opinion on Trump, despite all his documented and alleged shenanigans, is still sharply split.

The Republican establishment would impeach in a heartbeat, if they thought it would energize Republican voters and increase their chances of picking up seats and staying in the Oval Office.

But Republican voters don't want Trump out of office that badly. And Democrats don't have the majority they need to override that public sentiment. So it's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Trumps ratings are substantially worse than Nixon's were when impeachment started against him.

Except, as you point out, among the Republicans. And they don't even care that he openly threatened witnesses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom