Mitch McConnell is openly conspiring with Trump on Impeachment

ChristianProgressive said:
In the case of Impeachment, it IS a trial. And the "jury" and the "court" are supposed to be neutral and put the good of the nation first.
Click to expand...

I disagree. At no time do they lose their role as representative. If being impartial is against the interest of their constituents, then being impartial would violate their duty.
 
This is a shocking development for all those that believed that the Republican leader of the majority Republican house is not going to be impartial when bringing impeachment hearings against the republican president.

Shocking, I tells ya.
 
It's hard to say exactly when it started, but we're living in the era of the imperial presidency. It's inconceivable that Republicans would ever impeach one of their own, and I really doubt that Democrats would at this point either. It's hard to imagine either party getting a super-majority in the Senate, so the impeachment power is essentially neutralized.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
It's hard to say exactly when it started, but we're living in the era of the imperial presidency. It's inconceivable that Republicans would ever impeach one of their own, and I really doubt that Democrats would at this point either. It's hard to imagine either party getting a super-majority in the Senate, so the impeachment power is essentially neutralized.
Click to expand...


I've been saying for some time that impeachment is a practical impossibility and, to all intents and purposes, not something that actually exists in the US system.
 
3point14 said:
I've been saying for some time that impeachment is a practical impossibility and, to all intents and purposes, not something that actually exists in the US system.
Click to expand...

It's probably been true for a while, but there really hasn't been a test case to fully demonstrate it until Trump.

Trump's abuse of the office is exactly what the Founders had in mind when the included impeachment as a remedy.
 
"I said I was coordinating with the White House. We want to make sure President Pence's transition is smooth."

A fantasy, I know.
 
3point14 said:
I've been saying for some time that impeachment is a practical impossibility and, to all intents and purposes, not something that actually exists in the US system.
Click to expand...

The way Impeachment is setup currently ensures it's only an option in scenarios where it could never practically work.

25th Amendment is pretty much the same way. The only possible non-insane scenarios it would be invokable in are the exact scenarios where it's certain within a statistical rounding error to not happen.

Essentially impeachment is only an option in scenarios where normal checks and balances would already be working so it's not necessary. If there's enough people in Congress to agree to impeach a President then that same Congress is already keeping him in check. Likewise a Congress the lets a President get away with anything to the point we have to consider impeaching them, well then they would not impeach them.

Not least of all because no Congress wants to answer the "Why did you let it get this bad?" question.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
It isn't a court room. Senators are supposed to be partial.
Click to expand...


BobTheCoward said:
I disagree. At no time do they lose their role as representative. If being impartial is against the interest of their constituents, then being impartial would violate their duty.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting take. I completely disagree with it, and I suspect I'm not the only one.

Senators aren't supposed to blindly rubber-stamp whatever their constituents want. They're supposed to intelligently represent their constituents. That includes gathering the facts, considering the facts, voting their conscience, and not simply basing their votes on what will get them re-elected.

That kind of thinking is exactly what is wrong with the USA today. It's certainly not the way the Republicans in Congress acted during the Watergate hearings.

How things have changed. :(
 
Brainiac said:
That's an interesting take. I completely disagree with it, and I suspect I'm not the only one.

Senators aren't supposed to blindly rubber-stamp whatever their constituents want. They're supposed to intelligently represent their constituents. That includes gathering the facts, considering the facts, voting their conscience, and not simply basing their votes on what will get them re-elected.

That kind of thinking is exactly what is wrong with the USA today. It's certainly not the way the Republicans in Congress acted during the Watergate hearings.

How things have changed. :(
Click to expand...

But that still doesn't describe impartiality.


ETA: I also don't understand what voting your conscience means in a representative role. How are you so egotistical that you would think your moral position is superior to the moral position you perceive of the people who voted for you? If you have such low regard for the why are you wishing to represent them?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
But that still doesn't describe impartiality.


ETA: I also don't understand what voting your conscience means in a representative role. How are you so egotistical that you would think your moral position is superior to the moral position you perceive of the people who voted for you? If you have such low regard for the why are you wishing to represent them?
Click to expand...

You and I clearly have different ideas about what representative government means.
 
An impeachment is an impeachment. It's its own metaphor. Any language we use that isn't specifically tailored to it is going to be imprecise at best.

It's a trial but also sort of a trial but not. It's a political decision but also sort of not. It's a legal thing but also sort of not.

And we've only had 4(ish) of these things in the country's history, Congress has some pretty wide latitude to tailor the exact specifics of the nuts and bolts of the process to each scenario, and they all happened under wildly different social/political environments so I don't think we can really start "Impeachment Trend Data Mining" at this point.
 
Last edited:
Suddenly said:
There is specific direct precedent from the Clinton impeachment that the Senate are not jurors.

ETA: The Tom Harkin objection

https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/15/impeachment.objection/
Click to expand...


Posting that article isn't really an effective argument that the Senate isn't a jury. The decision was that the Senate is the entire court, not JUST the jury.

"I object to the use and the continued use of the word jurors," Harkin said in the first vocal objection of the trial. He spoke up during the final opening statement of the night by Rep. Bob Barr (R-Georgia).

Rehnquist ruled in Harkin's favor. "The senator from Iowa's objection is well taken," the chief justice said. "The Senate is not simply a jury, it is a court in this case. Therefore counsel should refrain from referring to senators as jurors."
Click to expand...
 
Armitage72 said:
"I said I was coordinating with the White House. We want to make sure President Pence's transition is smooth."

A fantasy, I know.
Click to expand...

I know you're joking but I suspect McConnell considers Pence incompetent. Ironic considering Trump actually is incompetent.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I disagree. At no time do they lose their role as representative. If being impartial is against the interest of their constituents, then being impartial would violate their duty.
Click to expand...

They take one oath - what oath is that? I'm sure you can tell me.

The interests of their constituents is a political calculation. Most Senators and Representatives don't even know what the interests of their constituents are.
 
I was appalled to see that snippet on the news this morning. The branches are supposed to be separate but equal, and here McConnell says right out that he is working with the White House. This would be just as wrong if he were a Democrat trying to work out a deal.
 
JoeMorgue said:
An impeachment is an impeachment. It's its own metaphor. Any language we use that isn't specifically tailored to it is going to be imprecise at best.

It's a trail but also sort of a trial but not. It's a political decision but also sort of not. It's a legal thing but also sort of not.

And we've only had 4(ish) of these things in the country's history, Congress has some pretty wide latitude to tailor the exact specifics of the nuts and bolts of the process to each scenario, and they all happened under wildly different social/political environments so I don't think we can really start "Impeachment Trend Data Mining" at this point.
Click to expand...

I fully expect this will be the last attempt at impeachment ever. The rules will be changed to prevent the possibility from arising again.
 
Yeah Bob, spare us the "We can't do anything about Trump because we had a sudden onset case of the morals" argument.

Politicians who play even the cleanest version of politics that's possible doing the whole "Oh noes... I can't do that because of my... *pause for dramatic effect* MORAL DUTY.... *cough*that I've completely ignored multiple times for reasons far less important then this.*cough*" can take the longest walk the can manage off the shortest pier they can find.

I don't buy it when the Democrats/Their Supporters do the whole "Oh we could beat Trump... but that would mean fighting dirty and no we can't do that we're just too pure and innocent" when... they've certainly done it before for less important reasons and I don't buy any version of it from the Republicans or their hangers on either.
 
Last edited:
slyjoe said:
They take one oath - what oath is that? I'm sure you can tell me.

The interests of their constituents is a political calculation. Most Senators and Representatives don't even know what the interests of their constituents are.
Click to expand...

and I'm describing how one fulfills that oath
 
BobTheCoward said:
and I'm describing how one fulfills that oath
Click to expand...

Well, you failed.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

If the interests of constituents are against the Constitution, these reps are supposed to support the Constitution.
 
slyjoe said:
Well, you failed.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

If the interests of constituents are against the Constitution, these reps are supposed to support the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I agree. In the event that the constituents are trying to get the representative to certify the electoral vote for a person who is 32 years old, they shouldn't do it. But the vast majority of issues are not Constitutional issues. And being a jerk during an impeachment certainly doesn't violate the Constitution.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Yeah Bob, spare us the "We can't do anything about Trump because we had a sudden onset case of the morals" argument.

Politicians who play even the cleanest version of politics that's possible doing the whole "Oh noes... I can't do that because of my... *pause for dramatic effect* MORAL DUTY.... *cough*that I've completely ignored multiple times for reasons far less important then this.*cough*" can take the longest walk the can manage off the shortest pier they can find.

I don't buy it when the Democrats/Their Supporters do the whole "Oh we could beat Trump... but that would mean fighting dirty and no we can't do that we're just too pure and innocent" when... they've certainly done it before for less important reasons and I don't buy any version of it from the Republicans or their hangers on either.
Click to expand...

In my statements about voting one's conscience, that is coming from a position of my dislike of the US Constitution specifically and representative democracy in general.

So my statement is a pox on everyone and not a recommendation.
 
BobTheCoward said:
In my statements about voting one's conscience, that is coming from a position of my dislike of the US Constitution specifically and representative democracy in general.

So my statement is a pox on everyone and not a recommendation.
Click to expand...

Oh so it's nonsense that has nothing to do with what anyone is talking about.
 
theprestige said:
You're predicting a constitutional amendment that takes impeachment off the table?
Click to expand...

No, just the addition of a bunch of murky procedural rules that will make the question never arise. Like how abortion is legal in every state but nearly impossible in many due to additional laws to death-by-a-thousand-cuts it.
 
I can half seriously actually see them try to codify in some manner the whole "You can't impeach a President without evidence, but you aren't allowed to investigate the President to get that evidence without proof he's guilty" thing that's been a core of their defense.
 
Hold on, leeme go through my "things I been telling y'all" file...

Ah! *clears throat*

"The single worst politician for America today isn't Dolt 45, it's Mitch McConnell."

Now lemme just put this away to use next time anyone acts surprised by what he does.
 
Mumbles said:
Hold on, leeme go through my "things I been telling y'all" file...

Ah! *clears throat*

"The single worst politician for America today isn't Dolt 45, it's Mitch McConnell."

Now lemme just put this away to use next time anyone acts surprised by what he does.
Click to expand...

Salvatore Maroni : Look, take it up with the Joker. He killed your woman. He made you... like this.

Harvey Dent: The Joker's just a mad dog. I want whoever let him off the leash
 
JoeMorgue said:
I can half seriously actually see them try to codify in some manner the whole "You can't impeach a President without evidence, but you aren't allowed to investigate the President to get that evidence without proof he's guilty" thing that's been a core of their defense.
Click to expand...

Other than being harmful and practically encouraging crime, what is wrong with that?

There are some impractical elements of our justice system. For example, killing witnesses kinda works. I don't know if the fifth amendment has passed rigorous cost benefit analysis.
 
alfaniner said:
I was appalled to see that snippet on the news this morning. The branches are supposed to be separate but equal, and here McConnell says right out that he is working with the White House. This would be just as wrong if he were a Democrat trying to work out a deal.
Click to expand...

FFS. The branches are separate but equal in authority. In theory. It's a weird-ass legal theory that is hopefully true, but has never been fully explored or tested (hence the controversy over the Executive contesting Legislative subpoenas).

It is *not* a theory proscribing communication and cooperation between the branches.

Under the actual separate-but-equal theory, only the Legislature has the authority to prohibit one of its members from talking to the president. And only the Executive has the authority to decide whether or not to talk to a senator when they ask.
 
Mumbles said:
Hold on, leeme go through my "things I been telling y'all" file...

Ah! *clears throat*

"The single worst politician for America today isn't Dolt 45, it's Mitch McConnell."

Now lemme just put this away to use next time anyone acts surprised by what he does.
Click to expand...

McConnell reminds me of Scrooge. Scrooge doesn't do the things people dislike rich people for. He doesn't buy politicians or live in extravagance. He is a miser.

Why does McConnell do it? Fame? He isn't on TV as much as he could be. Power? He doesn't seem to have that strong of a political agenda. Money? He would make more in the private sector.
 
I have come to the conclusion that Impeachment is a deeply flawed method for a check on power on the President, precisely because it tries to turn a legislative body into a judicial one: this undermines the credibility of such a process.
Impeachment should be up to the Supreme Court, and the threshold should be high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom