I am not a lawyer, but for a layperson I have a pretty good understanding of the political and legal system of the U.S. I would appreciate a more expert take on this idea, though.
So, predictably Trumo got off on a (nearly) party-line vote. It did raise some eyebrows that the Senate opted to not hear additional witnesses or admit additional documentary evidence. Obviously, POTUS faces no legal consequences for the charges and this would seem to embolden him. However, couldn’t it be that this has greatly weakened the presidency? Even his next term, if it comes to that?
Let’s say, hypothetically that Trump loses the popular vote (again) and is installed by the electoral college (again), but that the senate flips to democratic control, while retaining the House. Now, the Dems don’t want him in office so they vote to impeach him. Previously, the White House resisted efforts to acquire documents and witnesses, so the evidence was arguably shaky, but they impeached him anyway. Once before the senate for trial, the Dems were stymied in their attempts to get more evidence by a vote to block additional witnesses. But, if the Dems were in control . . . couldn’t they just vote against hearing any witnesses or admitting any other evidence before voting to remove? It seems ridiculous to hold a trial with no witnesses or evidence, but now it’s been done. Wouldn’t the events of this January set a legal framework for arguing, “if you can block damning evidence, then we can block exculpatory evidence”? If the senate can vote to retain a president after “evidence-less” proceedings, can’t they vote to remove one? (Especially the same one?)
At first blush, this seems horrible to me. But, when I think about it . . . parliamentary governments may make a vote of “no confidence” in an executive. While the explicit mechanism doesn’t exist in the same form in the U.S., wouldn’t this effectively function in the same way? It also has the additional benefit of making an end run around the electoral college. All the reps and senators in congress are voted in by the people, not the electoral college (or a congressional analog). This makes governance more democratic (political concept not the party).
I think that if the United States existed only of the House, Senate, SCOTUS and the Executive Branch then playing high stakes poker when it comes to politics would be an interesting experiment to try out…but it doesn’t, does it?
By the way, Republicans (and a small handful of Democrats) voted they way they did out of a fear of what would happen to them if they opposed Trump. Please explain why they would go the opposite direction and vote against him? There is no line in the sand when it comes to Trump any more…and I doubt there ever really was.
I don’t think there’s a realistic scenario where the Democrats get 67 Senate seats, which is what it takes to impeach and remove. For that matter, it’s hard to see a realistic scenario where the Democrats take control of the Senate while losing the presidency in 2020 (although I suppose it might happen in the 2022 midterms). They would need a net gain of four seats to do that with a Republican vice-president, and at least two of those would have to be in states that voted for Trump in 2016; it seems really unlikely that this could happen without also flipping several states at the presidential level.
OTOH, one reasonably plausible silver-lining scenario is that people get as annoyed at their Republican senators for voting for acquittal as they are with Trump, enabling Democrats to flip the Senate and the presidency in 2020. Cory Gardner was probably doomed anyway, but Collins and McSally might have taken some real damage.
There is no silver lining. House Democrats handed an authoritarian world leader a victory.
You could say, that if Trump hadn’t been impeached, more progressive Americans would now be planning to vote for the Green Party. So maybe it would have been even worse if Pelosi blocked impeachment. But it’s still all bad.
The Democrats tried to do the best they could with the rules that were in place…and the Republicans basically said “Fuck The Rules!” because of their LOP and LOS(Love of Power and Lack of Spine).
Yeah, time will pass and things will calm down. Remember when nearly half the nation thought Sarah Palin was fit to be a national leader?
Nancy knew this wasn’t going to result in Trump’s removal. Her plan was to tie all of the GOP to Trump, because sure a sugar his legacy will not be a shiny one and they all want to stay in power for decades.
Shout out to Romney, though. A single voice of integrity, which I hope haunts the rest.
I think you are vastly overestimating the effect Trump’s impeachment will have on Republican voters. In fact, now that he has shown them that there is nothing that will happen to them if they take the low road, I predict that even more of them will vote for him.
Hypothetically, let’s say the Democrats take half of the Class 2 Senate seats currently held by Republicans (already, we’re in the magical land of Oz, but whatever), raising their total to 57 (including the 2 independents). Could enough of the 43 remaining Republicans (especially the Class 3 ones) be sufficiently cowed by this national rejection that if Trump (assuming he gets re-elected) gets re-impeached, they might decide to go along with it, lest they too get bounced in 2022?
The “win” was inevitable. Moscow Mitch loudly guaranteed it. No silver linings to be found here, sorry. Speaker Pelosi’s strategy indeed seems to firmly tie all GOPs to this POTUS who’ll they keep defending even as more evidence emerges. Hopefully this will matter in November, if state of emergency / martial law isn’t imposed first.
What, tyranny? I’m waiting for, “You’re paranoid! That can’t happen here!” Hope you’re right. If not, I’ll see ya in the [del]concentration camp[/del] protective detention facility.
He had nothing to lose but at least is likely not a foreign asset, unlike the rest of the GOP political cartel.
The Democrats handed Trump a big victory. Many or most of them understood that that’s what they were doing, but felt compelled to impeach by their oath of office.
I do NOT think the Dems did the best they could have. They should have set their goals lower (just a House censure resolution? or hearings on corruption with no rush to impeach) or higher (more charges, wait for witnesses).
They had subpoenaed witnesses who refused to appear. One TV lawyer said it would take TWO years to compel testimony (after haggling the first refusal all the way to Scotus, witnesses would have refused on other grounds, with delay of still another year). After TWO YEARS some of the witnesses, finally sat in the witness seat, would have just pled Fifth Amendment anyway.
(I do NOT understand the two-year delay. When there’s a political emergency for GOP — (Quick! Stop Florida from counting its votes, or Quick! Get our new gerrymander approved) — the Roberts-Kavanaugh team has no problem speeding up its docket. But for minor mundane emergencies — like a traitorous President giving away secrets to our enemies — no expedition is possible?)
Trump has committed lots and lots of crimes. The House should have taken its time to put them on display. Rushing out with a single crime, knowing it would be squished by Senate, was insane. And after this “acquittal” any further House investigations into Trump’s crimes will be denounced.
I don’t get all the wailing and gnashing of teeth. We all knew the outcome was inevitable, but the House did the right thing. Now the Republicans (other than Romney) have votes on record for being perfectly fine with Don The Con’s criminal behavior. They are married to this asshole come hell or high water. The Senate is now more in play than ever.
Name one state that Hillary won that the Dem nominee in 2020 will not. I don’t think there are any. But with no Hillary and no Jill Stein on the ballot, I can easily see the Dems taking back WI and MI and PA. AZ is now in play, FL is not a foregone conclusion. Instead of throwing in the towel and whining “Gee, woe is us! One state bought a phone app that didn’t work! We can’t possibly win now!” let’s remember the orangeanus has nearly nine months left to keep pissing people off.
On a practical level, the chances of the Dems getting control of the Senate are slim. The chances of them getting a 67-seat majority, keeping a majority in the House, but losing the White House, are indistinguishable from zero.
On a legal level, nothing has changed. A two-thirds majority in the Senate can remove a President based on any evidence, or no evidence. They don’t have to call witnesses, any more than they had to in the previous trial.
So, Trump is elected, he takes office on Jan. 20, on Jan.21 the House votes to impeach, they send over the articles to the Senate, the Senate sets up the trial, the first day of the trial the Senate Majority Leader calls for an immediate vote, 67 Ayes later Trump is out on his ear. (Pence is then President so the whole process would have to be repeated until it’s President Pelosi, but “high crimes and misdemeanors” means whatever Congress wants it to mean, so they can do that if they want as well.)
The Presidency isn’t any weaker or stronger than it ever was - it is still weaker than two-thirds of the Senate and a majority of the House.
Think of it the other way around - Sanders or Biden or Buttigieg is elected President, but the House flips back and the Senate is two-thirds Republican. Also highly unlikely, but a Democratic President is no better or worse off than Trump would be in your scenario.
If your prediction is true, then there was never anything the Democrats could have done that would have prevented a Trump win in the next election. If losing the impeachment vote in the Senate weakens their position, what does just rolling over and letting Trump get away without even being subject to that vote do to them? What would swing voters be thinking in November, when Dems are all running around complaining about all the shit Trump has pulled? “If he’s so bad, why did you guys do literally nothing to stop him?”
At the end of the day, a democracy only works as well as the voters let it work. If enough US voters can’t see the truth of Trump, then you’re doomed.
The only silver lining to Trump’s win is that Pence isn’t president. While Trump panders to the religious right, he doesn’t believe all their stuff. Pence would really like a fundamentalist Christian theocracy.
I appreciate the responses, but none of them are answers to my question. While very unlikely that the Dems would have a big enough majority to have the votes in the near future and also unlikely that there would be political will to remove a POTUS. But, if these were given, could the house impeach a president then senate remove without calling witnesses or documents?
The whole point of this is basically could the system subvert the electoral college and put citizens back in charge of who can be president? If we’re not allowed to choose the POTUS, with enough of a mandate from the public (via choosing our senators/reps) we can at least throw out whoever the EC foists upon us. (I am aware that this would require a greater majority of the nation be dem [or whatever party] than exists now. A closely divided public wouldn’t work).
I agree. This was the most realistic outcome for the impeachment. The Republicans have now tied themselves to Trump; they can pretend he’s an individual aberration in an otherwise good organization.
Hopefully that means the voters will get rid of Trump and a lot of other Republicans in November. The Democrats will take over and start fixing the country. The Republicans will have a timeout and can think about the consequences for the mistakes they’ve made.
There is an argument to be made that, for practical reasons, the US government may be moving towards something like a Parliamentary system. Bipartisanship, when politics have become a national sport, is verboten and governance becomes impossible. The only solution, from a practical standpoint is to abuse your majority and enact policy without anything like broad agreement.
If this was a purposeful effort and included changes to the Constitution, I wouldn’t care too much.
As it is, we’re effectively just ignoring the Constitution. That sets a horrible precedent and has effectively left either the President the puppet of Congress or made him completely immune to them.
Parliamentary systems were designed to be Parliament systems. Ours was not. The rules don’t work right for it to work well.
I also don’t think that a Parliamentary system is as good as a well-designed Presidential system. It’s better to correct the holes in our system than to go Parliamentary.