House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Great Zaganza said:
Does he?
Trump is paranoid, after all. And Republicans will have to decide what will do more damage:.to themselves: being primaried or losing the election. Trump can't campaign against all defectors at the same time.
Click to expand...

You underestimate the power of high quality amphetamines. And fried chicken.
 
psionl0 said:
Why all this talk about the Senate? The house hasn't voted to impeach yet and from all appearances, it won't for some time. This is mostly about keeping Trump's impeachable offences in the front pages until well into the 2020 election in the hopes of draining votes away from Trump.

Once it gets into the Senate, it will become a Republican controlled agenda - unless the Dems manage to regain control at the next election. All the more reason to delay an actual impeachment vote until after the elections.
Click to expand...
Pelosi is pushing for impeachment by Thanksgiving. It seems pretty clear which way the house will vote, so the Senate will be the interesting part.
 
Marcus said:
Pelosi is pushing for impeachment by Thanksgiving. It seems pretty clear which way the house will vote, so the Senate will be the interesting part.
Click to expand...
If she is pushing for the whole thing to be handed to the Senate a year before the elections then Pelosi is an idiot.
 
Bouncing off of my assumption that Trump probably knows who the Whistleblower is by simple process of elimination, I wonder how long before he "leaks" it with a vague, backhanded "It would just be super if someone was to do something about this guy, totally not saying it should happen *wink wink*" threat to it.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Bouncing off of my assumption that Trump probably knows who the Whistleblower is by simple process of elimination, I wonder how long before he "leaks" with a vague, backhanded "It would just be super if someone was to do something about this guy, totally not saying it should happen *wink wink" threat to it.
Click to expand...

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"
Henry II
 
Pelosi's not stupid. She knows there's no chance of a conviction in the Senate and she knows that trying to drag it out all the way to the point it's fresh in people's minds for the election is impossible and risky. Given those two variables getting it done fast makes the most sense.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
If she is pushing for the whole thing to be handed to the Senate a year before the elections then Pelosi is an idiot.
Click to expand...

In that case, Mitch has two options: either get it over with as quickly as possible, or shelve it.
Both are problematic for him: either the Republicans go on record supporting impeachable offenses, or they look too scared to face the issue.
Both will make it easy for Democarts to campaign against them.
The only one who might profit is Trump - the GOP will get hurt either way.
 
psionl0 said:
If she is pushing for the whole thing to be handed to the Senate a year before the elections then Pelosi is an idiot.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's right. There's a real danger in dragging it out. For starters, the more it drags on the more it seems as if it's entirely for political gain. Also, it gives Republicans no wiggle room. The longer it goes on the less options the GOP has. Now at first glance that sounds good. But I think you want enough time were Republicans can vote to impeach and nominate someone else in 2020.

But then again, you may be right.
 
varwoche said:
Except she's not. She's a brilliant political operative. A downright stable genius.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Pelosi is of course the professional, but I still feel free to speculate that she messed up the timing on this one. Both House and Senate votes will have time to fade into memory before the election. But perhaps, as Belz says, she really is hiding the smoking gun that will convince Republicans to vote against him.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! What do you believe she is jeopardizing? You forget, she won't be Speaker in 2021. She agreed she would step down from her post as Speaker. Pelosi is 79 years old and will turn 81 a couple of months into the next term.
 
Marcus said:
Pelosi is of course the professional, but I still feel free to speculate that she messed up the timing on this one. Both House and Senate votes will have time to fade into memory before the election. But perhaps, as Belz says, she really is hiding the smoking gun that will convince Republicans to vote against him.
Click to expand...

Insane though the notion seems, perhaps the Democrats genuinely believe this Ukraine business is seriously bad in itself and the perpetrator should be removed ASAP before he can commit even more enormities, rather than wait around for strategic advantage in an election a year away? Is that within the realm of possibility?
 
Pelosi had the wisdom to be patient, knowing that with Trump, the prefect case for impeachment would come along.
And it did.
It was inevitable with Trump.

I thought she was playing it too safe, but she was just playing the long game. If she can get an Impeachment Vote before Christmas, that would be ideal.
 
acbytesla said:
Absolutely! What do you believe she is jeopardizing? You forget, she won't be Speaker in 2021. She agreed she would step down from her post as Speaker. Pelosi is 79 years old and will turn 81 a couple of months into the next term.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
In that case, Mitch has two options: either get it over with as quickly as possible, or shelve it.
Both are problematic for him: either the Republicans go on record supporting impeachable offenses, or they look too scared to face the issue.
Both will make it easy for Democarts to campaign against them.
The only one who might profit is Trump - the GOP will get hurt either way.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Insane though the notion seems, perhaps the Democrats genuinely believe this Ukraine business is seriously bad in itself and the perpetrator should be removed ASAP before he can commit even more enormities, rather than wait around for strategic advantage in an election a year away? Is that within the realm of possibility?
Click to expand...
Possible, but not likely. Perhaps she is rolling the dice, though, if impeachment doesn't work, she can go to Plan B to win the next election.
 
Kestrel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
DallasDad said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
DallasDad said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
acbytesla said:
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?
Click to expand...
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?
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

Senate Impeachment rules are their rules, not the Constitution's rules.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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?
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
I choose to reject your hyperbole out of hand.
Click to expand...
So Prestige votes for the cult of personality. Fixing elections and foreign interference. Just as I thought.
 
Kestrel said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
psionl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
psionl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
You think Democrats in the Senate can't produce evidence?
Click to expand...

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.
 
TragicMonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
varwoche said:
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.
Click to expand...

These are all good points. I don't disagree with your conclusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom