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