“Send not to know for whom the Barr toils…”
OK, I’m Donne here…
Room. Now. And don’t you dare show your face again until you are well and truly sorry and apologize to everyone here at the party.
This is what Slate says:
Nonetheless, because congressional legislative authority is not unlimited, there will be occasions on which separation of powers principles limit congressional investigative authority. One tricky area is the criminal justice system. On the one hand, the Supreme Court has held that Congress may properly investigate the operations of the Justice Department, including whether the department and its officers properly exercised their prosecutorial authority in particular cases. On the other hand, the court has also held that Congress cannot inquire into purely private affairs unrelated to legislation, nor substitute its proceedings for criminal law enforcement that the Constitution assigns to the executive and judicial branches.
That said, none of these limitations on congressional oversight authority apply to impeachment, an express constitutional power conferred exclusively on Congress and unreviewable by any court. Particularly where the subject of an impeachment inquiry is the president, and the conduct at issue is alleged interference with criminal investigative processes, there is no plausible constitutional ground upon which any executive agency can decline to provide Congress information it deems relevant.
So it sounds as though by calling it an impeachment proceeding they get flexibility not available to them under ordinary investigations.
In theory, this is probably true, but in reality, it’ll end up in the Courts and get litigated for a while. Only 29% of Americans favor impeachment right now. I understand that this was true in early 1973, but we live in different times now. For one thing, there were a handful of major news networks with limited broadcast time who turned the hearings into must-see TV. Today the media are fragmented. It’s very easy for people to simply not watch the hearings or to watch the news coverage they agree with – or simply get their digests from social media. I suspect that a rather low percentage of people will change their minds of the president based on any scandalous information that comes to light. Even the people who voted for him know he’s a wannabe gangster scumbag, but he’s their scumbag.
I think progressives need to understand that it is very unlikely that new sets of facts are going to persuade anyone to renounce their support for Mango Mussolini. Almost everything about this investigation is baked into the cake at this point. I know we want desperately to believe that this isn’t the case, and I would actually love being proven wrong, but I doubt that I am unfortunately. The only thing that will push Trump out of office is the perception that he is no longer an effective president (i.e. an economic downturn).
Loss of territory might move the needle, too.
North Korea is flexing its missile might over the Pacific, and Vlad would like to take possession of Alaskan oil fields. If it became known that Donald rolled over on sovereignty of Guam or Prudhoe Bay, that might bother some of his fans.
Hm. OK then, there’s definitely some value in investigations performed under the auspices of impeachment. I am not exactly clear on what would be needed to invoke those particular powers before an actual impeachment vote. But I’d love for Pelosi to show us.
Pelosi and I are of a like mind – and we’re 1000% right.
In case you’re an obnoxious Bernie Bro reading this, I’d point out that Bernie didn’t accomplish shit and that Pelosi was the one who delivered the rare Trump defeat. So when she agrees with what I’ve been posting all along, consider it validation.
Seriously? What’s he going to do? Barricade himself in the oval office? Slide executive orders under the door when his phone and computer are disconnected?
Pelosi was one of the case studies for Trump Derangement Syndrome and it’s looking more and more like she needs her meds adjusted.
I doubt they could even find those places on a map.
She means that Trump will contend that narrow election victories for democrats aren’t valid results; that he’ll contest close election results, claim the elections were “rigged”, and whip up his supporters into a frenzy. And she’s not wrong for worrying about that because he’s already hinted that this is exactly what he would do.
That little bit at the end of a campaign where the loser makes the congratulatory phone call and accepts the results of an election is actually extremely important. It reaffirms the validity of the results, regardless of which side you’re on. In one of his debates with Hillary Clinton, Trump refused to commit to accepting the results of the election, which was an absolutely disgusting thing for a candidate of this magnitude to say, or refuse to say. There is every indication that he would be willing to contest the results of the election considering that an election loss threatens his freedom.
I know you said President Trump, but it sounds like you’re writing about whats-her-face Abrams from Georgia.
He’ll do all that anyway. Pelosi should drop that one.
It’s pretty apparent she has a legitimate reason to not be a good sport, considering the guy running for the governorship was also the current secretary of state and who put 53000 vote registrations on hold, most of which were for candidates likely to support Abrams. But that’s not really news to you; your side ‘won’ so it doesn’t matter. :rolleyes:
Her point is that it’s important for Democrats to focus on the election issues. Impeachment could dominate the headlines, which is one thing if the president’s popularity among his supporters craters. But when only 29% of the people support impeachment, it’s clear that this is not the issue to campaign on.
Look at Trump’s behavior. He’s basically taunting the Democrats, almost as if he wants to be impeached, and that’s probably because he views it as working to his advantage. The Democrats are better off attacking republicans on issues that resonate with working class Americans and staying focused on that.
At this point, with all the damming evidence and admission to obstruction of justice on national TV, I don’t think there is any way that Trump will be imprisoned. Just can’t do it to a former President. Can’t even impeach the piece of shit.
He will, I hope, have to sit in a court room for the rest of his life while NY and other states show the world what a crook he is.
Trump will of course start the Trump channel once he is removed. It will make FOX ‘News’ look fair and balanced. His idiot supporters will eat it up. IMHO, this was his plan all along, but Russia did too good of a job and actually got the fucker elected.
Quite correct. But they can understand ‘what was US land now belongs to another nation.’ They would try to rationalize it. But it would bother them, nonetheless.
Why are you assuming that anyone would be on the other side of a barricaded door? Or that anyone would disconnect Trump’s phone or computer?
Trump has control of the US Marshals and of the Secret Service. Why would they do anything to displease him, so long as the payoffs are impressive enough? And they’ll have Congressional Republicans saying ‘yes, this is perfectly lawful, Trump must remain in office until he ascends to sit on the right hand of God, because Democrats are evil terrorists and so we can’t hold elections.’
There’s nothing to prevent any of that. So long as the big-money donors are happy with Trump, Republicans in Congress will support pretty much anything. Constitution? What Constitution?
If everything had played out the same except Trump was a Democrat, would the Republicans be calling for impeachment right now?
Not right now, no. They’d have been calling for impeachment before he’d finished being sworn in.
I agree but let’s also have faith that he’s a total fucking moron and it will fail spectacularly. So… there’s that at least. Assuming he has time to gold-plate his name on some cameras in between all his state cases.
I tend towards the view that impeachment shouldn’t be done for political reasons, and so it should also follow that it should not be not done for political reasons. If a president merits impeachment, then they should be impeached, and I’m not sure there’s any president in US history more deserving of impeachment than Trump. I think the precedent set by not impeaching is potentially too significant for the future of US democracy to not do it. Republicans in the Senate will surely vote against his removal from office, but let that go on the record as a stain against them that will echo in history, just as the mark of impeachment will ever be on Donald Trump.
Here’s a list of federal officials that have been impeached. Trump should be on it.