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.
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.
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.
**Impeachment? Then, what?
**Celebratory drinks! I’ll buy.
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.
Remember that Pence lawyered up as fast as the rest of them when Mueller got started. Maybe he had a reason.
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.]
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.
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?
Hell, yeah! A round for the house, on me!! 
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.”
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.
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:
- To maintain the illusion that the impeachment was a strictly partisan attack; and
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He can’t get immunity from the decades of state crimes he is being investigated for.
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?
I concur.
I disagree. The Dems aren’t going to impeach without damned solid evidence of serious crimes and/or abuses of power.
One of the three Presidents who quite certainly deserved it - Nixon, Bush/Cheney as a package deal, and of course Trump.
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.