# Impeachment proceedings...will they happen? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 19, 2019, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795 "2019-04-19T23:08:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/281 "2019-04-26T22:46:37Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > The entire point of this discussion is “vote to impeach NOW” versus _don’t._ > > But many have claimed that this vote MUST take place as soon as possible. Many? Who has claimed there must be a vote as soon as possible without accompanying hearings and investigations? Can you name one? > [@](#): > > You seem to be assuming that Roberts would decide what hearings would be held and when and how long and who will testify. > > Nope. That’s all under McConnell’s purview. Roberts will merely preside. McConnell has the power to decide whether to change the Senate rules to have the trial at all. He could do that, and it would cost Republicans mightily. Once the trial starts, it’s really not his ballgame anymore. It seems like you’re determined to make me wear down your imaginary concept of the process while walking back what you actually said, so let’s save ourselves both the time and agree that the impeachment process is risky for all parties involved. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/282 "2019-04-26T22:54:21Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > I mistyped 1972 vs 1974 a couple of times, but to clear up: > Feburary 7, 1973 - Senate Res 60 establishes its Watergate investigation committee > May 17, 1973 - Hearings begin for that committee. > February 6, 1974 - US House res 803 passes, granting HJC authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach. > May 9, 1974 - US House begins formal impeachment proceedings. > July 27-30 - Impeachment articles passed. > > You’re correct in suggesting the Senate performed a broad investigation of its own, one that likely provided the House with information it needed. > > However, as far as the actual _impeachment process_, the Senate never got involved at all. The house roughly a 5-month process including 2 months of hearings in which they considered some evidence from the Senate committee, as well as developed or collected some of their own evidence. > > The takeaway here is that the House impeachment process isn’t just a vote. The House has broad authority to hold its own hearings and appoint its own select investigative committees (as they did on Iran-Contra). Thank you for the clarification and patience with my confusion. I was 15 in early 1973 when the Senate hearings began. I paid attention but didn’t grasp the finer points of Senate and/or House committees as regards who was doing what. I just remembered Senate hearings on impeachment. It’s not like we have a broad body of impeachment proceedings from which to draw experience. There’s Watergate, and there’s Whitewater. Each matter was handled in its own way. Neither is particularly instructive for what we’re dealing with today. I have been trying to puzzle out why Pelosi has chosen what appears to be an unpopular track. My best guess: She does not want to cede the ground of impeachment to the Senate, where they can hold competing “impeachment” hearings while she simultaneously conducts “oversight” hearings. Once she loses control of the process, there is no coming back from her choice. I am positive McConnell has some nasty trick up his sleeve to circumvent an honest impeachment/removal process. I suspect Pelosi is aware he does, too. And perhaps that explains her choices. I wanted Trump impeached on the day he walked into the Oval Office because I believe he was already in violation of his oath of office. But I think I understand why Pelosi wishes to do it as she is doing. So long as there is ultimately a vote to impeach, I’m ok with waiting longer and having as many hearings in the House as can be stuffed into the available time. I don’t care what they call those hearings. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/283 "2019-04-26T23:04:21Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > I am positive McConnell has some nasty trick up his sleeve to circumvent an honest impeachment/removal process. I suspect Pelosi is aware he does, too. And perhaps that explains her choices. On this we agree. There are the rules, and then there are the other rules. But rules are rules. > [@](#): > > So long as there is ultimately a vote to impeach, I’m ok with waiting longer and having as many hearings in the House as can be stuffed into the available time. I don’t care what they call those hearings. Yeah, right now what I’m thinking is an HJC select committee on the comprehensive misdeeds of the President, to include collusion, emoluments, and ongoing foreign influence, followed by impeachment hearings, followed by an impeachment vote. And then… McConnell could simply decline to deliberate on the articles, but I don’t think he’d go that far. It would go to trial, which of course he’d sabotage and sandbag. Odds are he’d secure an acquittal, though I don’t think that’s a slam-dunk. But in this entire process, we’d see more evidence of Trump’s criminality, and of the GOP complicity in abetting the same. This would enter into electoral calculations in 2020. Some would think the Republicans would be better off trying 2020 with a relatively unscathed Pence. I don’t know. There are too many variables to reckon with. But I feel like the scenario I laid out above is the Democrats’ only chance of achieving some accountability and control and sanity over the executive branch. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/284 "2019-04-26T23:13:35Z")
> [@poster](#): > > If there really is stuff in there, it seems this is the time to strike…no? 😕 > [@poster](#): > > Even though the Senate almost certainly won’t convict, we should still impeach. The fact that they won’t do the right thing is no excuse for us to not do the right thing. > [@poster](#): > > Hearings shouldn’t take but a week (I know it will take much longer, but fuck him. Have a vote in the morning, impeach the stupid fuck and get back to business) > [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Many? Who has claimed there must be a vote as soon as possible without accompanying hearings and investigations? Can you name one? I could. I chose a few posts from the first 20 of this long thread, expression the ‘impeach now, so what about hearings’ idea. But I removed the names, as the point isn’t to call anyone out. (Well, _my_ point isn’t, anyway.) Have some of those people come around to the idea that ‘extensive hearings should be held FIRST, then talk about impeachment’…? Yes, they have. As of today, there’s still a lot of pressure all over social media for House members to IMPEACH NOW and hearings be damned. I continue to believe that’s a mistake. > [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > McConnell has the power to decide whether to change the Senate rules to have the trial at all. He could do that, and it would cost Republicans mightily. Once the trial starts, it’s really not his ballgame anymore. You’re just wrong about this. McConnell is the decision-maker; Roberts would merely be a non-voting presiding officer. Why not do some reading to educate yourself? Here’s an official 1986 govinfo document, that shows how wrong you are about the idea that the Chief Justice will be deciding how the “ballgame” is organized, conducted, and carried out: [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-99sdoc33/html/CDOC-99sdoc33.htm](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-99sdoc33/html/CDOC-99sdoc33.htm) Also of interest: a scholarly work from 1999 (relating to Bill Clinton’s trial, of course): [https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2074&context=hlr](https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2074&context=hlr) It would be a good idea for you to get some knowledge under your belt. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/285 "2019-04-26T23:17:51Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Here’s an official 1986 govinfo document, that shows how wrong you are about the idea that the Chief Justice will be deciding how the “ballgame” is organized, conducted, and carried out: > > [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-99sdoc33/html/CDOC-99sdoc33.htm](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-99sdoc33/html/CDOC-99sdoc33.htm) It so happens that your document consists of the senate rules, which is the same thing that I posted, which doesn’t support anything you’re saying. > [@](#): > > Also of interest: a scholarly work You didn’t read this and you aren’t characterizing how it supports your position. If you have an argument please make it. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/286 "2019-04-26T23:19:14Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > It’s nice that you believe that, but Article 1 Section 3 of the US Constitution says you’re wrong. When the Senate takes up articles of impeachment, it is an adversarial **trial** presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Not a one-sided softball hearing controlled by Mitch McConnell. Democrats will be represented by their impeachment managers who will be hitting very hard. > > Now granted… it does end up effectively being a jury trial by a partial jury. But not many Republicans are going to feel comfortable sitting there getting hammered on national TV and responding with weak softballs. > We agree that acquittal is possible (though I’m not as convinced it will be a cakewalk). But the thing we really can’t predict is how the landscape will be shifted by unfiltered exposure of Trump’s shenanigans by House investigations, hearings, and the Senate trial. It will surely bring out a ton of damaging information even if he gets acquitted, but I think you may underestimate how positions can shift as this information comes out. > It would be helpful if you’d talk about the actual process instead of what you imagine it is. It’s on Wikipedia. Here’s the actual process: Mitch McConnell is a brutal partisan, and it’s his senate - his alone. There will be no trial. None. He won’t have it. ---
**Author:** ![UnwittingAmericans](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d9b06d/32.png) [@UnwittingAmericans](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UnwittingAmericans)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/287 "2019-04-26T23:19:58Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > But I think I understand why Pelosi wishes to do it as she is doing. > > So long as there is ultimately a vote to impeach, I’m ok with waiting longer and having as many hearings in the House as can be stuffed into the available time. I don’t care what they call those hearings. She’ll figure out how to land the plane, lol. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/288 "2019-04-26T23:23:19Z")
> [@UnwittingAmericans](#): > > She’ll figure out how to land the plane, lol. God. Like we needed one… more… traitor in Mueller’s investigation. I’m still swallowing my gorge over that one. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2019, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/289 "2019-04-27T00:01:49Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > I could. I chose a few posts from the first 20 of this long thread, expression the ‘impeach now, so what about hearings’ idea. But I removed the names, as the point isn’t to call anyone out. (Well, _my_ point isn’t, anyway.) > > Have some of those people come around to the idea that ‘extensive hearings should be held FIRST, then talk about impeachment’…? Yes, they have. > > As of today, there’s still a lot of pressure all over social media for House members to IMPEACH NOW and hearings be damned. I continue to believe that’s a mistake. …for fucks sakes. “IMPEACH NOW” does not mean “hearings be damned.” Hearings are part of the process. Calling for impeachment means calling for hearings. “IMPEACH NOW” does not mean “this vote MUST take place as soon as possible”. Even the framing “IMPEACH NOW” is a gross mischaracterization of the position held by people like Warren, AOC and co. You cited only a single poster, not many posters, who fit the characterization of your statement, and that person was clearly being hyperbolic. You are hearing one thing but imagining another. > [@](#): > > It would be a good idea for you to get some knowledge under your belt. Says the person who only realised how impeachment works a couple of days ago. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2019, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/290 "2019-04-27T00:02:49Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > It so happens that your document consists of the senate rules, which is the same thing that I posted, which doesn’t support anything you’re saying. If you were to read it, you’d find that it does. > [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > You didn’t read this Wrong again. It’s fascinating to see the ‘anti-impeachment’ argument from someone who clearly feels that the entire question of impeachment is inappropriate in the case of the particular president being accused of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Those trying to argue that Trump is totally innocent of same, do not _remotely_ have grounds for their position comparable to the grounds detailed by the Hofstra Law Review author (Michael J. Gerhardt). Gerhardt concentrated much of his argument on the (in his view) overreaching powers granted the Independent Counsel. As has often been remarked in recent months, the demise of the I.C. Act that occurred as a result of a widespread alarm about those powers, had the unfortunate effect of leaving Mueller’s investigation overly vulnerable to interference. The most telling portion of that article for the question of your misconception about how the trial would work, > [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > McConnell has the power to decide whether to change the Senate rules to have the trial at all. … **Once the trial starts, it’s really not his ballgame anymore**. …occurs in part III, “THE POSSIBLE LESSONS OF PRESIDENT CLINTON’S IMPEACHMENT AND ACQUITTAL” (all-caps in the article; bolding in previous quote mine.) Look at the discussion of the question of Senators voting on a ‘finding of fact’ that begins about page 378 (there is some useful information on ‘censure’ as a tool beginning two pages earlier). In the recounting of how and why and who was deciding on such a vote, there is no mention of Rhenquist. Why not? If he was—as you claim—in charge, shouldn’t the account detail his decisions and rulings on these trial matters? According to you, once the trial starts, it’s not the Senate Majority Leader’s ballgame anymore. Or as you wrote earlier: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible > … When the Senate takes up articles of impeachment, it is an adversarial trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Not a one-sided softball hearing controlled by Mitch McConnell. … Again, this fantasy of yours, that Roberts, not McConnell, would be the decision-maker, is simply wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2019, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/291 "2019-04-27T00:10:35Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …for fucks sakes. “IMPEACH NOW” does not mean “hearings be damned.” Hearings are part of the process. Calling for impeachment means calling for hearings. “IMPEACH NOW” does not mean “this vote MUST take place as soon as possible”. Even the framing “IMPEACH NOW” is a gross mischaracterization of the position held by people like Warren, AOC and co. You cited only a single poster, not many posters, who fit the characterization of your statement, and that person was clearly being hyperbolic. > You are hearing one thing but imagining another. > Says the person who only realised how impeachment works a couple of days ago. Your post demonstrates the weakness of your position. An improvement would surely result if you would read the posts to which you reply. For example: > [@Sherrerd](#): > > …Have some of those people come around to the idea that ‘extensive hearings should be held FIRST, then talk about impeachment’…? Yes, they have. > > As of today, there’s still a lot of pressure all over social media for House members to IMPEACH NOW and hearings be damned. I continue to believe that’s a mistake. Your claims are contradicted by this post, which apparently you didn’t read. Or perhaps ‘understanding’ was your roadblock. In any case, you are making no headway with putting across your side of the argument. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2019, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/292 "2019-04-27T00:10:43Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Again, this fantasy of yours, that Roberts, not McConnell, would be the decision-maker, is simply wrong. …from your first cite: > [@cite 1](#): > > When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. From your second cite: > [@cite 2](#): > > The Constitution also says that when a President is impeached, the > Chief Justice shall preside over his trial in the Senate. Are you quibbling over the distinction between “preside” and “decision-maker?” ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2019, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/293 "2019-04-27T00:21:33Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Your post demonstrates the weakness of your position. …your inability to post a proper rebuttal demonstrates the weakness of your position. For example: > [@](#): > > An improvement would surely result if you would read the posts to which you reply. For example: > > Your claims are contradicted by this post, which apparently you didn’t read. Or perhaps ‘understanding’ was your roadblock. In any case, you are making no headway with putting across your side of the argument. That post has nothing to do with your original claim which you were asked for evidence for. That original claim was: > [@Sherrerd](#): > > But many have claimed that this vote MUST take place as soon as possible, otherwise terrible consequences will ensue. This isn’t even broadly accurate. Its a strawman piled on top of strawmen because you can’t be bothered debating what people actually say. And this? > [@Sherrerd](#): > > Have some of those people come around to the idea that ‘extensive hearings should be held FIRST, then talk about impeachment’…? Yes, they have. Except people haven’t “come around to this.” Unlike you people advocating for impeachment actually know what impeachment means. Unlike you they know that extensive hearings are held first. > [@](#): > > As of today, there’s still a lot of pressure all over social media for House members to IMPEACH NOW and hearings be damned. I continue to believe that’s a mistake. I’ll say it again: you are mischaracterizing what people like Warren and AOC are arguing. My claim is \*\*not \*\*contradicted by that post. The first part of that post was a “bait and switch”, the second part of that post was what my post was directly rebutting. Its absurd to claim the rebuttal contradicted the post it was addressing, even if you disagree with the rebuttal. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2019, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/294 "2019-04-27T00:22:40Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > The most telling portion of that article for the question of your misconception about how the trial would work, … is a portion that you’re not going to quote or cite, just like the rest of the text you’re alluding to, because you know you’re wrong and you need to bang the table. Go ahead, bang on. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2019, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/295 "2019-04-27T00:27:16Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Even though the Senate almost certainly won’t convict, we should still impeach. The fact that they won’t do the right thing is no excuse for us to not do the right thing. Good point. It can, has been, and will continue to be argued that “the right thing” is to annihilate the Republican Party, and that the “wrong thing” is to take an ultimately futile action that will result in a reinvigorated Republican Party. The question seems to be “which of those two conditions will be advanced by impeachment?” ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2019, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/296 "2019-04-27T00:48:44Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > If you believe in Kendzior because you believe that “hearings are the best way of informing the people on what the White House has done” then why bother with an impeachment process? The House will be holding hearings on Trump every week from now until next November. All the information that even the most avid partisan (or swayable undecided) could ever want will come out. > > It just won’t be called impeachment. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Impeachment gets Republicans to take a stand regarding the president in a way that hearings don’t. I strongly suspect that some Republicans–Romney, I’m looking at you–will vote in favor of impeachment, and good for them. > > Those that defend the president’s behavior? Let them run on that record. > > Bear in mind that the revelations aren’t over. There are over a dozen cases referred to other jurisdictions. If the ball gets rolling now, it’s gonna pick up more shit along the way. Well, you have a point, if the Pubbies can be relied upon to keep their traps shut and not step in front of the nearest microphone to “rebut” anything that comes out of the hearings. whatever dribbles out of their cakeholes in those “rebuttals” will be useful fodder in the campaigns against them. Do YOU think they’ll be able to keep their traps shut? 'cos I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2019, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/297 "2019-04-27T00:52:03Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …I believe in Kendzior because, like her, \*\*I believe that the “GOP has been hijacked by a transnational crime syndicate masquerading as a government”. \*\* I also believe that there are very few “good options” available. I think that if in her opinion impeachment is the best option available out of all the bad options then it would be silly to simply dismiss her opinion out of hand. I was on the side of “not impeach” until very recently. But I kept an open mind. Problem is, impeachment is a tool that is effective when the target actually IS a government. When it’s a transnational crime syndicate? Not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2019, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/298 "2019-04-27T00:53:35Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Problem is, impeachment is a tool that is effective when the target actually IS a government. When it’s a transnational crime syndicate? Not so much. …why not? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2019, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/299 "2019-04-27T00:58:57Z")
> [@Oly](#): > > You are right: No one will pay much attention to congressional hearings. An impeachment trial is a congressional hearing, so no one will pay much attention to it either. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Nice conflation, but no. In 1974, people paid attention to the House Judiciary Committee debates over impeachment. And back then, people were no more likely to pay attention to normal House hearings than they are today. Oh? How many channels could _your_ TV tune into in 1974? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2019, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/300 "2019-04-27T01:00:30Z")
> [@SOJA](#): > > Depends, can we also annul his fake marriage to Melanie and send that golddigger back home? Probably not; she has an anchor baby now… :dubious: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795.md?page=16)