Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-07-2019, 12:22 AM
Dr. Conrad Shadowdale Dr. Conrad Shadowdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 29
Impeachment? Then, what?

It is perfectly clear that many of the Democrats in the House of Representatives — especially younger or more progressives members consider “impeachment of the President” a fairly high priority.

However, the odds of actually removing President Trump don’t seem great in the Senate.
Even if the President’s action approach the “high crimes/misdemeanors” threshold, the Republicans are unlikely to vote for removal from office.

Right?

So, what is the Democratic/Progressive end-game? Is this all about 2020?
__________________
Cheers!

Connie
  #2  
Old 01-07-2019, 12:58 AM
Tim R. Mortiss's Avatar
Tim R. Mortiss Tim R. Mortiss is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Lincoln Park, Chicago
Posts: 6,915
You are correct. Since the Senate is firmly in Republican hands, any impeachment by the House would be mere showboating. And of course virtue-signaling for their voters. But ultimately meaningless.

But..... an unintended consequence COULD be the normalization of the idea of ANY house impeaching ANY president in the future that they disagree with. Thus devaluing the entire concept of impeachment in the first place.
  #3  
Old 01-07-2019, 02:01 AM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 22,892
Moderator Action

This is more of a political issue than a factual question. It could probably go in GD, but since the OP specifically referenced the 2020 elections, let's give the elections forum a shot with this one.

Moving thread from GQ to Elections.
  #4  
Old 01-07-2019, 02:20 AM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,713
It is perfectly clear that the majority of the Democrats in the House of Representatives consider “impeachment of the President” a fairly unlikely event.

The more vocal new members of the House can grandstand all they want about this, but it is highly unlikely it will happen.

Speaker Pelosi knows good and well that passing articles of impeachment would be foolish in the extreme when conviction and removal by the Senate is impossible.

Mueller has signaled his investigation will continue for some months now. Any Democrat calling for impeachment at this point is simply trying to get air time on MSNBC.

Not gonna happen.

Last edited by Kolak of Twilo; 01-07-2019 at 02:21 AM.
  #5  
Old 01-07-2019, 04:22 AM
zoid's Avatar
zoid zoid is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago Il
Posts: 10,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim R. Mortiss View Post
You are correct. Since the Senate is firmly in Republican hands, any impeachment by the House would be mere showboating. And of course virtue-signaling for their voters. But ultimately meaningless.

But..... an unintended consequence COULD be the normalization of the idea of ANY house impeaching ANY president in the future that they disagree with. Thus devaluing the entire concept of impeachment in the first place.
The entire concept of impeachment has already been devalued by the Republicans who have clearly demonstrated they will never support it in the single case it is most appropriate because they are far more concerned about the welfare of their party than that of their constituents or the country.

And if by virtue signaling you mean demonstrating that SOMEONE is willing to stand up for what is moral then you are correct.

Last edited by zoid; 01-07-2019 at 04:23 AM.
  #6  
Old 01-07-2019, 08:15 AM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius DrFidelius is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,338
Then what?
Then we return to a government which can govern. We return to an executive who understands and appreciates the gravity of the office. We may be able to get back to believing that "both sides" do agree on what is best for America even is they disagree on the path to these goals.

Just getting that con msn out of office would be enough as a start.
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #7  
Old 01-07-2019, 08:55 AM
madmonk28 madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 11,887
It’s about rule of law and establishing that we are a functioning democracy. Police aren’t supposed to just just investigate the crimes they are sure they can get a conviction for. There is ample evidence that the president has committed crimes and continues to do so. Investigating and, if warranted impeaching him, will a) increase transparency into how this administration works; and b) force GOP senators to reckon with his crimes. If they still choose to do nothing, then that is information that voters can use when casting future ballots. The GOP is a party for old white people and younger voters will likely remember how the GOP is behaving now as they age and have to contend with the consequences of GOP “governance.”

Last edited by madmonk28; 01-07-2019 at 08:56 AM.
  #8  
Old 01-07-2019, 09:16 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,712
If the House of Representatives is not going to impeach Trump, then under what circumstances would it impeach anyone??

Yeah, I know, the Senate won't vote to convict and remove. But IMHO that shouldn't change the calculus. If impeaching and removing Donald Trump is the right thing to do, then the House should do its part, regardless of whether the Senate follows through.

Here's what I think should happen:

1) The appropriate House committees should investigate those particular questionable activities of the Trump Administration that fall within their purview.

2) As those investigations come to fruition, the House Judiciary Committee should determine which activities rise to the level of impeachable offenses. It should put together a bill of particulars supporting each article of impeachment to make a clear, unambiguous, and overwhelming case for impeachment under each article. If such a case can't be written for a particular article, that article should be rejected by the Committee.

3) Once the articles and bills of particulars are finalized, the Judiciary Committee should vote on those articles. Those that pass in committee should be voted on by the full House. Those that pass the House should be forwarded to the Senate.

4) Even if the Senate declines to hold an impeachment trial (the most likely possibility, IMHO, given Mitch), the bills of particulars are a matter of public record, summarizing the seriousness of Trump's offenses, and summarizing the supporting evidence of those offenses.

This is the endgame: a record of the seriousness of Trump's offenses that the Senate will have refused to act on. In 2020, any Dem challenger can remind the voters of just what Trump offenses the GOP incumbent felt it was appropriate to ignore.

ETA: Looks like madmonk28 said most of this first, and more concisely as well.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 01-07-2019 at 09:18 AM.
  #9  
Old 01-07-2019, 09:22 AM
madmonk28 madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 11,887
Yeah, but you used bullets. People always remember writing with bullets.
  #10  
Old 01-07-2019, 09:25 AM
Dinsdale Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17,547
I tend to think impeachment ought to be a pretty extreme - final measure. Not something pursued to make a political statement. Before I would support efforts towards impeachment, I would need to see more in the way of proof, than I've seen so far. We'll see what Mueller - or any future oversight investigation by the new Congress - uncovers. But lacking that, all we have is buyer's remorse over the country getting exactly the president they elected.

Even strategically, I disfavor impeachment absent a likelihood of conviction - which is presently lacking. But, that is not to say that I disfavor TALK about impeachment. I have so little respect for Trump, I think he will react so badly to criticism that it will further reduce both his and the GOP's stock. Which is a good thing. Distracting him with talk of impeachment, while pursuing more achievable goals.
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #11  
Old 01-07-2019, 09:33 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim R. Mortiss View Post
...
But..... an unintended consequence COULD be the normalization of the idea of ANY house impeaching ANY president in the future that they disagree with. Thus devaluing the entire concept of impeachment in the first place.
If we had an average president doing an average job and who was not suspected of anything suspicious, this would maybe apply.
  #12  
Old 01-07-2019, 09:37 AM
Dr. Conrad Shadowdale Dr. Conrad Shadowdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 29
As I recall, there have been impeachment resolutions introduced against every President since Reagan, so it has always been about showboating.

In years past, there have always been a small but dedicated group of representatives that sought to oust the President.

Today, more senior members (including the chairs of the various committees) seem to be pursuing it and they are supported and encouraged by newer, more progressive members.

If the Articles are approved in the House but no action taken in the Senate (as it now appears), is this just rallying the base on both sides?
__________________
Cheers!

Connie
  #13  
Old 01-07-2019, 10:56 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim R. Mortiss View Post
an unintended consequence COULD be the normalization of the idea of ANY house impeaching ANY president in the future that they disagree with. Thus devaluing the entire concept of impeachment in the first place.
Blowjob.

Just in case you forgot.
  #14  
Old 01-07-2019, 11:58 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 30,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Conrad Shadowdale View Post
Even if the President’s action approach the “high crimes/misdemeanors” threshold, the Republicans are unlikely to vote for removal from office.
Don't be so sure of that. If Trump goes after Jan 21st Pence has the possibility of 10 years as POTUS. And given Trump's age it would be all too easy for him to step down 'for medical reasons'. Pence would then provide him immunity from prosecution as part of the deal.
  #15  
Old 01-07-2019, 12:07 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,027
The impeachment of President Clinton showed that it is a powerful political weapon, even when the whole country knows in advance that removal by the Senate is highly unlikely. One can easily assert that "President George W. Bush" resulted from that impeachment. Under the circumstances, it seems likely that, if the leadership of the House Democrats decides that there is a political advantage to embarrassing the President, impeachment will occur.

It's sad, in a way, because if you recall the period of 1972-1974, it took a hell of a lot of effort just to move the House close to impeaching the one President who quite certainly deserved it. And that House was very solidly controlled by the Democrats, so it wasn't lack of political power that slowed the process down. Sadly, the view that impeachment itself should be a rare effort limited to clear cases of malfeasance has gone by the wayside.
  #16  
Old 01-07-2019, 12:17 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Don't be so sure of that. If Trump goes after Jan 21st Pence has the possibility of 10 years as POTUS. And given Trump's age it would be all too easy for him to step down 'for medical reasons'. Pence would then provide him immunity from prosecution as part of the deal.
I've been wrong before (very wrong in 2016) but I think you vastly overestimate the appeal of Mr. Pence. Yes, it's a "possibility" but not one anyone should bank on. Consider Gerald Ford (who had a lot more going for him than Pence)
  #17  
Old 01-07-2019, 12:19 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
The impeachment of President Clinton showed that it is a powerful political weapon, even when the whole country knows in advance that removal by the Senate is highly unlikely. One can easily assert that "President George W. Bush" resulted from that impeachment. Under the circumstances, it seems likely that, if the leadership of the House Democrats decides that there is a political advantage to embarrassing the President, impeachment will occur.

It's sad, in a way, because if you recall the period of 1972-1974, it took a hell of a lot of effort just to move the House close to impeaching the one President who quite certainly deserved it. And that House was very solidly controlled by the Democrats, so it wasn't lack of political power that slowed the process down. Sadly, the view that impeachment itself should be a rare effort limited to clear cases of malfeasance has gone by the wayside.
Considering Bill Clinton left office with about a 70% approval rating, I'm not sure this is terribly true. You can read off "perjury" and "obstruction of justice" statutes till you're blind, but the naked truth is, he was impeached over a blow job. President W happened, in part, because Gore spent so much time running away from Clinton. Bad call, Ripley, bad call.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #18  
Old 01-07-2019, 12:23 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Conrad Shadowdale View Post
It is perfectly clear that many of the Democrats in the House of Representatives — especially younger or more progressives members consider “impeachment of the President” a fairly high priority.

However, the odds of actually removing President Trump don’t seem great in the Senate.
Even if the President’s action approach the “high crimes/misdemeanors” threshold, the Republicans are unlikely to vote for removal from office.

Right?

So, what is the Democratic/Progressive end-game? Is this all about 2020?
The odds of an impeachment (equivalent to a grand jury) actually taking place is next to nil. However, you're asking people to assume that House agreed to hold an impeachment. The most likely result would be that the house fails to produce enough (any) evidence of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, and the process stops there. Assuming it's agreed that a trial should be held in the Senate, the odds of getting a conviction are nil, nada, zip, zero, bupkis. The process stops there.

Both political parties will attempt to use an impeachment as a lever against the other political party in the next general election. The voters would be pretty fed up with politics by then. Out with the old, and in with the new.
  #19  
Old 01-07-2019, 12:32 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
Considering Bill Clinton left office with about a 70% approval rating, I'm not sure this is terribly true. You can read off "perjury" and "obstruction of justice" statutes till you're blind, but the naked truth is, he was impeached over a blow job. President W happened, in part, because Gore spent so much time running away from Clinton. Bad call, Ripley, bad call.
If only Hillary had been more understanding. Bill wasn't impeached for a blow job. Bill was impeached for lying and getting caught trying to cover his tracks (hehehe, I said "cover his tracks"). It seems that Democrats like to associate Bill Clinton with blow jobs. (Maybe it's a Freudian thing?) Go figure.
  #20  
Old 01-07-2019, 12:44 PM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 19,873
It's encouraging to see you concede that "lying and getting caught trying to cover one's tracks" qualifies as high crimes and misdemeanors. Who knows, one day the same standard for impeachment may be applied to another chief executive with a similar profile?
  #21  
Old 01-07-2019, 12:46 PM
nelliebly nelliebly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
The impeachment of President Clinton showed that it is a powerful political weapon, even when the whole country knows in advance that removal by the Senate is highly unlikely. One can easily assert that "President George W. Bush" resulted from that impeachment. Under the circumstances, it seems likely that, if the leadership of the House Democrats decides that there is a political advantage to embarrassing the President, impeachment will occur.

It's sad, in a way, because if you recall the period of 1972-1974, it took a hell of a lot of effort just to move the House close to impeaching the one President who quite certainly deserved it. And that House was very solidly controlled by the Democrats, so it wasn't lack of political power that slowed the process down. Sadly, the view that impeachment itself should be a rare effort limited to clear cases of malfeasance has gone by the wayside.
A "powerful political weapon"? How so? Clinton's favorability rating rose during the impeachment hearings to a whopping 73%. In the 2000 election, the GOP maintained control of the House but lost seats in the Senate, retaining a majority only by VP Cheney's tie-breaking vote.
  #22  
Old 01-07-2019, 12:49 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,044
If Democrats vote to impeach, and the Senate doesn't vote to remove Trump from office, then do House Democrats try again (this time on different charges,) or just forget about it?
  #23  
Old 01-07-2019, 01:14 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If Democrats vote to impeach, and the Senate doesn't vote to remove Trump from office, then do House Democrats try again (this time on different charges,) or just forget about it?
The Democrats can't think of anything else. Of course they'll try again. And again. And again.
  #24  
Old 01-07-2019, 01:20 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,881
Pelosi won't even consider impeachment without conclusive evidence of law-breaking brought forward by investigators -- either Mueller's team or Congressional investigators. That may well happen, so we may still get impeachment... and in that case,Republicans may vote against impeachment in the face of conclusive evidence of law-breaking. But in such a case, the Democrats will have done their Constitutional (and moral) duty, and the Republicans will have shirked theirs.
  #25  
Old 01-07-2019, 01:21 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,045
Impeachment? Then, what?

Celebratory drinks! I'll buy.
  #26  
Old 01-07-2019, 01:24 PM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 30,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I've been wrong before (very wrong in 2016) but I think you vastly overestimate the appeal of Mr. Pence.
But it's got to be better than Trump, right? Right?

But let's extend this - have your tin-foil hat well seated! President Pence appoints Nikki Haley as VP. That alone would be very difficult for the Democrats to beat. But suppose Pence disappoints or also has (genuine this time) health issues? Then Haley can contest the next election as the sitting Vice President or President.
  #27  
Old 01-07-2019, 01:29 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,481
Remember that Pence lawyered up as fast as the rest of them when Mueller got started. Maybe he had a reason.
  #28  
Old 01-07-2019, 01:42 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
But it's got to be better than Trump, right? Right?

But let's extend this - have your tin-foil hat well seated! President Pence appoints Nikki Haley as VP. That alone would be very difficult for the Democrats to beat. But suppose Pence disappoints or also has (genuine this time) health issues? Then Haley can contest the next election as the sitting Vice President or President.
FWIW, it takes a majority vote of both houses of Congress to confirm a VP nominee under the 25th Amendment, per Section 2 of that amendment. So the Dems would have a say in who the new Veep is, if Pence became President due to Trump not finishing his term for whatever reason.

[Historical note: before the 25th Amendment, if the President died in office (or otherwise didn't finish his term, although that never happened pre-25th) and the VP became President, the VP office simply remained vacant for the rest of the Presidential term. LBJ had no VP until Jan. 20, 1965, Truman had no VP until Jan. 20, 1949, etc.]
  #29  
Old 01-07-2019, 01:46 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,712
Re Pence: his approval ratings in solidly red Indiana were in the toilet by the time he left office, so it's not just libruls that dislike him. If Trump resigned two weeks from now, Pence would be lucky to win one term of his own, let alone two.
  #30  
Old 01-07-2019, 01:46 PM
Ulfreida Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,232
Okay, say that Mueller DOES produce evidence that Trump knowingly and repeatedly committed felonies. What a crazy idea, no? But just imagine that he does. And then Pelosi moves for impeachment. And the House votes for impeachment. Then it goes to the Senate.

Are the Republicans going to refuse to impeach a president who clearly committed felonies? I'm absolutely sure they will, as there is no moral abyss to which they have yet refused to descend.

What happens then? How can he be brought to justice?

Really that is the question, isn't it? How can this criminal be brought to justice?
  #31  
Old 01-07-2019, 01:47 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Impeachment? Then, what?

Celebratory drinks! I'll buy.
Hell, yeah! A round for the house, on me!!
  #32  
Old 01-07-2019, 01:52 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
What happens then? How can he be brought to justice?
The usual way. Article 1, Section 2: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
  #33  
Old 01-07-2019, 02:01 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 14,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
But it's got to be better than Trump, right? Right?

But let's extend this - have your tin-foil hat well seated! President Pence appoints Nikki Haley as VP. That alone would be very difficult for the Democrats to beat. But suppose Pence disappoints or also has (genuine this time) health issues? Then Haley can contest the next election as the sitting Vice President or President.
Pence could never serve with a female VP. They could never be alone in a room together, for one thing. Mrs. Pence would have to have a desk next to Mike's in the Oval Office so she could chaperone all meetings with women staffers.
__________________
“Our government may at some time be in the hands of a bad man. When in the hands of a good man it is all well enough.” But “we ought to have our government so shaped that even when in the hands of a bad man we shall be safe.” Frederick Douglass
  #34  
Old 01-07-2019, 02:02 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
Are the Republicans going to refuse to impeach a president who clearly committed felonies? I'm absolutely sure they will, as there is no moral abyss to which they have yet refused to descend.
My expectation is, Mitch McConnell would call it a politically motivated act, no matter how solid the evidence, and refuse to hold an impeachment trial.

Two reasons why I think he'd do this:

1) To maintain the illusion that the impeachment was a strictly partisan attack; and
2) to protect his Senators from having to cast votes on the articles of impeachment. This would allow vulnerable Senators to fudge and dodge questions about impeachment, without having to be held accountable for specific votes.
Quote:
What happens then? How can he be brought to justice?

Really that is the question, isn't it? How can this criminal be brought to justice?
There's no jurisprudence behind "you can't indict a sitting President," just a tradition that it's something the Congress should address through impeachment and removal, and that indictment would be intruding on Congress' prerogative.

If the Senate literally refused to hold an impeachment trial, I think the sentiment for maintaining that tradition would break down. The notion that the President could use his office as a shield to protect himself from the consequences of criminal acts would be untenable, IMHO.
  #35  
Old 01-07-2019, 02:08 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If Democrats vote to impeach, and the Senate doesn't vote to remove Trump from office, then do House Democrats try again (this time on different charges,) or just forget about it?
I would expect the Dems to charge Trump at one time with all the articles of impeachment that they had sufficiently solid evidence for. If that was the case, then they would not try again unless major new evidence came along that either provided solid evidence of a new offense, or removed even the shadow of a doubt on one of the original articles.
  #36  
Old 01-07-2019, 02:11 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,481
It would also give permission, so to speak, for Mueller or any state's AG to go ahead with the criminal process. As you note, it's only DOJ policy not to indict a President, not in any way a Constitutional or legal requirement, and all the arguments against it are practical and political rather than legal.
  #37  
Old 01-07-2019, 02:12 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Conrad Shadowdale View Post
It is perfectly clear that many of the Democrats in the House of Representatives — especially younger or more progressives members consider “impeachment of the President” a fairly high priority.

However, the odds of actually removing President Trump don’t seem great in the Senate.
Even if the President’s action approach the “high crimes/misdemeanors” threshold, the Republicans are unlikely to vote for removal from office.

Right?

So, what is the Democratic/Progressive end-game? Is this all about 2020?
You seem to be asking about impeachment at this time with what we know now. If so, then there isn't an endgame...this is just grandstanding and probably directed mainly at the fervent faithful in the Democratic ranks that eat this stuff up.

However, if ACTUAL evidence is brought forward (and I think this is the year...I really think it's going to happen), then I think it will be a lot more meaningful. If the current investigations yield real hard data about collusion or illegal acts (or the president attempting to obstruct things) then I think impeachment would only be the beginning, and I could see the 'then, what?' being presidential (and maybe VP too) expulsion and criminal charges. It would be a huge blow to the Republicans either way...but if they attempt to stay in lock step when real charges come out I think it would be the end of them as one of the 2 major parties.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #38  
Old 01-07-2019, 02:17 PM
DigitalC DigitalC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 10,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Don't be so sure of that. If Trump goes after Jan 21st Pence has the possibility of 10 years as POTUS. And given Trump's age it would be all too easy for him to step down 'for medical reasons'. Pence would then provide him immunity from prosecution as part of the deal.
He can't get immunity from the decades of state crimes he is being investigated for.
  #39  
Old 01-07-2019, 02:23 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
However, if ACTUAL evidence is brought forward (and I think this is the year...I really think it's going to happen), then I think it will be a lot more meaningful.
That's it. Mueller's report is going to solidify everyone's views, either way. The Republicans will find a way to handwave any incidental or secondary criminal involvement by Individual-1, but placing him at the center of it will leave them no plausible excuse room.

Hmm, can the administration be charged under RICO?
  #40  
Old 01-07-2019, 02:24 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
The impeachment of President Clinton showed that it is a powerful political weapon, even when the whole country knows in advance that removal by the Senate is highly unlikely. One can easily assert that "President George W. Bush" resulted from that impeachment.
I concur.
Quote:
Under the circumstances, it seems likely that, if the leadership of the House Democrats decides that there is a political advantage to embarrassing the President, impeachment will occur.
I disagree. The Dems aren't going to impeach without damned solid evidence of serious crimes and/or abuses of power.
Quote:
It's sad, in a way, because if you recall the period of 1972-1974, it took a hell of a lot of effort just to move the House close to impeaching the one President who quite certainly deserved it.
One of the three Presidents who quite certainly deserved it - Nixon, Bush/Cheney as a package deal, and of course Trump.
Quote:
And that House was very solidly controlled by the Democrats, so it wasn't lack of political power that slowed the process down. Sadly, the view that impeachment itself should be a rare effort limited to clear cases of malfeasance has gone by the wayside.
I don't think the Dems have abandoned that notion, just the GOP. (As demonstrated not just by the bullshit Clinton impeachment, but by the frequent calls from the right for the impeachment of Obama, who was the squeakiest-clean President in my lifetime, which goes back to Ike.)

I was in college during the Watergate years, and as someone who paid rapt attention to the Ervin Committee hearings, the Cox/Jaworski investigation, and the House Judiciary Committee proceedings, I have to say that, at least IMHO, the publicly visible case against Trump right now is as strong as the case that the House Judiciary Committee actually voted on before the 'smoking gun' tape became public, and much clearer and easier to follow.
  #41  
Old 01-07-2019, 02:32 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
However, if ACTUAL evidence is brought forward (and I think this is the year...I really think it's going to happen), then I think it will be a lot more meaningful. If the current investigations yield real hard data about collusion or illegal acts (or the president attempting to obstruct things) then I think impeachment would only be the beginning, and I could see the 'then, what?' being presidential (and maybe VP too) expulsion and criminal charges. It would be a huge blow to the Republicans either way...but if they attempt to stay in lock step when real charges come out I think it would be the end of them as one of the 2 major parties.
I wish I believed that was so. I believe that under those circumstances, Mitch will block any action, and the Republicans will remain a viable party anyway - temporarily reduced in power, but no more than that.

May events prove that you're right and I'm wrong.
  #42  
Old 01-07-2019, 02:37 PM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I would expect the Dems to charge Trump at one time with all the articles of impeachment that they had sufficiently solid evidence for. If that was the case, then they would not try again unless major new evidence came along that either provided solid evidence of a new offense, or removed even the shadow of a doubt on one of the original articles.
Why would they want to put all their eggs in one basket? It's not like having a few more charges is likely to make the impeachment more likely.

Instead, I'd think they'll do like they do in cases like multiple murders- they'll impeach on one or two charges, and save the rest in case of a mistrial, procedural wonkiness, or just a jury of assholes. That way, if it fails, they can try again.
  #43  
Old 01-07-2019, 02:40 PM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,812
I don't believe that impeachment should be attempted prior to Congress getting a final report from Mueller and/or the House investigation turning up actionable offenses. It's my opinion that money laundering, racketeering, obstruction of justic, emolument violations, and improper quid pro quos with hostile nations will be shown to have occurred. If this happens, the House has the duty to impeach, regardless of the prevailing opinion of the Senate. Yes, we get talk of frivolous impeachment against every president. But that should not inoculate a real crook from impeachment and conviction. Now if the House impeaches and the Senate either ignores it or votes to acquit, then the Republican Senate will be held accountable.
  #44  
Old 01-07-2019, 02:43 PM
BigAppleBucky's Avatar
BigAppleBucky BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,335
It's going to take twenty, or more, Republican Senators to impeach Trump. Obviously cannot happen as things now stand.

My guess is that only about half the current Democratic House membership favors "impeach the MFer" at this time.

My second guess is that Mueller is going to find ten or fifteen charges Trump could be indicted on.

If Trump is smart, he'll work out a resignation deal where he is not prosecuted in exchange for resigning the presidency. (Remember Spiro Agnew?)

In that case Pence becomes president. What if he is also implicated? The GOP would absolutely block any successful impeachment action against him (because Pelosi) but would be happy to support his nominee for VEEP. (remember Rocky?) If the Democrats find that person to be reasonable, they'd go along with the nomination.

At that point Pence could resign under the same kind of deal as Agnew-Trump. The appointed VEEP (maybe Romney?) would then become prez and name another VEEP.
  #45  
Old 01-07-2019, 02:58 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I don't believe that impeachment should be attempted prior to Congress getting a final report from Mueller and/or the House investigation turning up actionable offenses. It's my opinion that money laundering, racketeering, obstruction of justic, emolument violations, and improper quid pro quos with hostile nations will be shown to have occurred. If this happens, the House has the duty to impeach, regardless of the prevailing opinion of the Senate. Yes, we get talk of frivolous impeachment against every president. But that should not inoculate a real crook from impeachment and conviction. Now if the House impeaches and the Senate either ignores it or votes to acquit, then the Republican Senate will be held accountable.
Absolutely. And I think that they throw the book at him (literally...I literally want to see a big ass book bounce off his orange haired head), not some sort of plea deal. We need to know, as a nation, that if a President steps out of line this far that someone is actually a check on that and willing to take him or her down all the way and send them to prison. While I think it would be painful for us as a nation, I also think it might go a long way towards healing the country of this cycle of partisan madness, as well as the insanity of putting this idiot in the White House in the first place.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #46  
Old 01-07-2019, 03:57 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky View Post
It's going to take twenty, or more, Republican Senators to impeach Trump. Obviously cannot happen as things now stand.

My guess is that only about half the current Democratic House membership favors "impeach the MFer" at this time.

My second guess is that Mueller is going to find ten or fifteen charges Trump could be indicted on.

If Trump is smart, he'll work out a resignation deal where he is not prosecuted in exchange for resigning the presidency. (Remember Spiro Agnew?)

In that case Pence becomes president. What if he is also implicated? The GOP would absolutely block any successful impeachment action against him (because Pelosi) but would be happy to support his nominee for VEEP. (remember Rocky?) If the Democrats find that person to be reasonable, they'd go along with the nomination.

At that point Pence could resign under the same kind of deal as Agnew-Trump. The appointed VEEP (maybe Romney?) would then become prez and name another VEEP.
I would point out that, unlike most presidential appointments, the appointment of a VP would need to pass the House as well and not merely the Senate.
  #47  
Old 01-07-2019, 04:08 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim R. Mortiss View Post
..

But..... an unintended consequence COULD be the normalization of the idea of ANY house impeaching ANY president in the future that they disagree with. Thus devaluing the entire concept of impeachment in the first place.
That already occured with Bill Clinton. But yeah, if the Dems did it , it would start a spiral.
  #48  
Old 01-07-2019, 04:12 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
If the House of Representatives is not going to impeach Trump, then under what circumstances would it impeach anyone??
...
Wait for Mueller to finish his investigation.
  #49  
Old 01-07-2019, 04:20 PM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
If we had an average president doing an average job and who was not suspected of anything suspicious, this would maybe apply.
So....Jimmy Carter?
  #50  
Old 01-07-2019, 04:34 PM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
That already occured with Bill Clinton. But yeah, if the Dems did it , it would start a spiral.
YEs and no. What I see is that the question is - what will the great mass of voters see as a valid reason to remove someone from office? This is the judgement the politicians have to make - how will it play in Peoria if I vote yea or nay or avoid the vote?

Break-and-enter, bugging an election opponent's office, and then escalating efforts to cover it up and obstruct prosecution of your minions and eventually yourself (best interpretation, a sense of misplaced loyalty to your people)? Yes.

Lying under oath in a matter irrelevant to the governance of the country? (NOT for blowjobs, for perjury)? Probably not.

So the question will be - what will they find on Trump? Much as I'd love to see him go I don't think the average voter thinks exceeding campaign laws is a reason to impeach. Nor do they think paying off your large-breasted side pieces is so bad. If they are going to find something that even the more level-headed republicans (at least 20 senators) are going to support, it would be something like proof of collusion ("He's a witch!") or serious financial shenanigans. Even then the proof would have to be more explicit than "he-said-he-said"; they'd need serious undeniable proof like recordings, that for example, he sat in on planning sessions for getting Russian intelligence or that he was negotiating Trump Tower Moscow while president or somethin (or a Golden Shower tape, maybe).

I'm skeptical that even serious weird details in his tax returns would result in impeachment.

I think the only way he's going is if he makes a slip so bad that everyone insists he get checked by a real doctor to assess his dementia.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017