# The House Judiciary Impeachment Case discussion thread. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 27, 2019, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697 "2019-07-27T00:58:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**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:** [July 29, 2019, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/41 "2019-07-29T03:09:27Z")
One problem that impeachment presents is how to define an impeachable offense. Moreover, when should a country really start the process of trying to use extra-democratic means to remove an office holder. Even if you have some current FBI or DoJ officials testifying that the president committed illegal acts, does it hold that we necessarily impeach? Is Congress obligated to impeach even when a majority of the American public is not really on board? Being able to make an argument for impeachment that satisfies a constitutional law professor is one thing, but what if the country isn’t bothered by the alleged criminality to want the president removed? This is the tempest that Democrats are sailing into: potentially removing a president without the consent of a clear majority of people. Hate Trump all you want, but I would be careful when handling these live wires. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2019, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/42 "2019-07-29T17:19:27Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > I think what the Democrats need is something like their own version of the Contract With America, which is what Newt Gingrich’s GOP came to town with in 1995. They need a marketing and sales pitch. I think that makes sense in a midterm election. But in a Presidential election, the party’s nominee will choose the message. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2019, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/43 "2019-07-29T17:45:31Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > This is the tempest that Democrats are sailing into: potentially removing a president without the consent of a clear majority of people. Hate Trump all you want, but I would be careful when handling these live wires. Funny that there isn’t a clear majority in favor of impeachment before anyone’s bothered to make the case for it. Who’d’a thunk? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > One problem that impeachment presents is how to define an impeachable offense. You don’t define one; you run prospective impeachable offenses up the flagpole and see who says, “fuck yeah, that’s impeachable.” Stuff like ten apparent instances of obstruction of justice, five of which have been shown to meet the standard for criminality? Fuck yeah. Children in cages taking care of babies in cages? Fuck yeah. > [@](#): > > Moreover, when should a country really start the process of trying to use extra-democratic means to remove an office holder. If anyone thinks they’re trying to remove Trump via impeachment, I think they’re deluded. But what’s extra-democratic about this? We’re a _representative_ democracy, which is the normal type of democracy for any group that’s too large to convene in a single room. And our elected _representatives_ would be initiating a procedure enshrined in our Constitution. Clearly there’s about 40% of the population that wouldn’t think Trump should be impeached if he had the Democratic Party HQ bulldozed. But you can bet that Democratic leaders will be paying attention to how it’s playing with the other 60% when they make their case: you may have noticed that while Republicans will cheerfully do whatever they want, regardless of popular opinion, Democrats get scared at the least hint of opposition. I am totally unworried that the Dems would schedule a vote on impeachment unless the winds of popular support were blowing their way. ---
**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:** [July 29, 2019, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/44 "2019-07-29T17:57:32Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > You don’t define one; you run prospective impeachable offenses up the flagpole and see who says, “fuck yeah, that’s impeachable.” Should congressional majorities always do this when the president is a member of the opposition party? Just run various charges up the flagpole and see who’s interested? > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Stuff like ten apparent instances of obstruction of justice, five of which have been shown to meet the standard for criminality? Fuck yeah. Children in cages taking care of babies in cages? Fuck yeah. If anyone thinks they’re trying to remove Trump via impeachment, I think they’re deluded. Nothing new we’re talking about. It’s not going to make Democrats more popular. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > But what’s extra-democratic about this? We’re a _representative_ democracy, which is the normal type of democracy for any group that’s too large to convene in a single room. And our elected _representatives_ would be initiating a procedure enshrined in our Constitution. Just because they can do it doesn’t mean they should. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2019, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/45 "2019-07-29T18:26:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Nothing new we’re talking about. It’s not going to make Democrats more popular. How can you know this? Upon what, _exactly_, do you base this? ---
**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:** [July 29, 2019, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/46 "2019-07-29T19:13:54Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > How can you know this? Upon what, _exactly_, do you base this? The last two years. Everything that has been raised as impeachment bait is essentially old news. I have no idea why people think that going from “oversight” to “impeachment” is going to suddenly make the public outraged when they could have been outraged by many of the things he said on the campaign trail in 2016. I’m not saying never impeach, but I wouldn’t bother unless it’s something we haven’t seen before. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2019, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/47 "2019-07-29T20:11:41Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > The last two years. > > Everything that has been raised as impeachment bait is essentially old news. I have no idea why people think that going from “oversight” to “impeachment” is going to suddenly make the public outraged when they could have been outraged by many of the things he said on the campaign trail in 2016. > > I’m not saying never impeach, but I wouldn’t bother unless it’s something we haven’t seen before. They saw things on the campaign trail, yes. This is not about the campaign trail. This is about impeachable offenses. I know what these are, that is, the ones Mueller listed in his report. I assume you do to. But what makes you think the average Democrat, or any other person for that matter, has? Why can’t it be that bluster doesn’t affect opinion that much, but possible, likely crimes, will? ---
**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:** [July 29, 2019, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/48 "2019-07-29T20:36:00Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > They saw things on the campaign trail, yes. This is not about the campaign trail. This is about impeachable offenses. I know what these are, that is, the ones Mueller listed in his report. I assume you do to. But what makes you think the average Democrat, or any other person for that matter, has? Why can’t it be that bluster doesn’t affect opinion that much, but possible, likely crimes, will? Christ, the guy basically admitted he has a penchant for groping women (a crime), which was later corroborated by scores of women. And did it matter? Nope - got elected by the country eyes wide open anyway. Hell, he admitted in an interview that he pushed Comey out because of “the Russia thing” - obstruction of justice, last I looked. We didn’t need Mueller for that. We didn’t need Mueller to establish that Trump is a criminal and a con man. I hate to say it, but people really and truly don’t care about that - not in 2019. They just…don’t. You do. I do. But the average American that ended up getting this guy elected does not. Viewers aren’t going to see “crimes” they’re going to see one party trying to weaken a president they don’t like, which is how they’ve been seeing it for the past 2 years. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2019, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/49 "2019-07-29T21:02:11Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Christ, the guy basically admitted he has a penchant for groping women (a crime), which was later corroborated by scores of women. And did it matter? Nope - got elected by the country eyes wide open anyway. Hell, he admitted in an interview that he pushed Comey out because of “the Russia thing” - obstruction of justice, last I looked. We didn’t need Mueller for that. There may be people, Democrats or otherwise, who aren’t aware of things as of now that would come out during an impeachment hearing and then trial. In fact, I’m sure there are. You know why? Because most people in the country aren’t like you and I, in that they don’t follow this shit in detail like we do, discuss it everyday, get different viewpoints, and then decide where we stand. I’d bet oh 80% of the American public has no idea who the fuck Mueller is. But here’s the thing: I don’t know if impeachment would help or hurt Trump. As I’ve said elsewhere though, I can see reasons to think it would and reasons to think it would not, and acknowledge each as a real possibility. You don’t seem to be open to this idea. > [@](#): > > We didn’t need Mueller to establish that Trump is a criminal and a con man. I hate to say it, but people really and truly don’t care about that - not in 2019. They just…don’t. You do. I do. But the average American that ended up getting this guy elected does not. > > Viewers aren’t going to see “crimes” they’re going to see one party trying to weaken a president they don’t like, which is how they’ve been seeing it for the past 2 years. This is a perfect example that I said why _exactly_. But, sorry, “they just don’t” doesn’t help when it comes to Dem voters. I know you said “who got him elected”. But Im talking about Dems,not them,. Not sure if you have brought up polls, but others have, so to respond to them and _maybe_ you, since I’ve thought about this for a while: I haven’t looked for any polls recently about if Democratic voters are for or against impeachment. If there is one out there that says not only that a large percentage are against it, but also _why they are against it_, and the reasons are along the lines of that they don’t think Trump deserves it and it would lessen their chances for voting for a Dem, that would support the idea. If on the other hand a major reason, for example, is because they’re sick of DC, don’t trust either side, and don’t want an impeachment to muck up their TV schedules or whatever, then that would not support it. A simple poll of Dems that says only that they are against it is pretty meaningless, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2019, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/50 "2019-07-29T21:21:20Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Should congressional majorities always do this when the president is a member of the opposition party? Just run various charges up the flagpole and see who’s interested? It certainly has to be one of the criteria. If after you’ve made your best case as the Judiciary Committee debates articles of impeachment, and only a minority think they’re important, then yeah, you should bag it. Just like the GOP should have in 1998, after they’d made the midterms a referendum on impeachment, and lost. > [@](#): > > Nothing new we’re talking about. It’s not going to make Democrats more popular. Of _course_ none of it’s new. Big fucking deal! The point is that while there’s _always_ some new Trump outrage, (ETA: the big stuff has gotten lost in the rest of the garbage, and) nobody’s bothered to say, “these are the ones that are beyond the pale, nobody who does these things should be allowed to continue as President. All that other stuff is bad, but someone can be a total shitheel and still be President. This is the stuff that goes way beyond that.” The impeachment process will do that. > [@](#): > > Just because they can do it doesn’t mean they should. You said it was “extra-democratic.” I explained why it wasn’t. I gather you concede the point, since this is in no way a rebuttal. ---
**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:** [July 29, 2019, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/51 "2019-07-29T21:31:20Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > You said it was “extra-democratic.” I explained why it wasn’t. I gather you concede the point, since this is in no way a rebuttal. It’s certainly within the parameters of the constitution and it’s part of the machinery of our republican form of government, but it can certainly be perceived by voters as extra-democratic, or reversing the outcome of an election. When Republicans attempted to remove Clinton from office, that was perceived as extra-democratic, which is also why the public didn’t like it and part of the reason Republicans lost seats in the 1998 elections and why Newt Gingrich lost his speakership. With any president you could probably find 30-40% of the country that didn’t like the candidate and would be willing to impeach him/her. But for the most part, most voters would rather remove a sitting president through elections. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2019, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/52 "2019-07-29T21:45:29Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > I have no idea why people think that going from “oversight” to “impeachment” is going to suddenly make the public outraged when they could have been outraged by many of the things he said on the campaign trail in 2016. 1. Has anyone even noticed the all-but-nonexistent ‘oversight’ any more than they’ve noticed all the waste-of-time ‘message bills’? 2. The point isn’t outrage, any more than it was in the case of Nixon’s impeachment. The point was then and is now: yes, this is very serious shit - too serious to just get mad over. Stuff like what Trump said about Baltimore the other day - yeah, that was stuff to get mad about, but was far from an impeachable offense. Remember when you knew you were in trouble with your parents when they yelled at you? And when you knew you were in far worse trouble when you’d done something bad, and they _didn’t_ yell at you, but just got really quietly serious when they sat you down? Or maybe your parents weren’t like that. But it’s kinda like that. Impeachment is when we get really quietly serious, because the stuff he’s done is past the point of yelling and outrage. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying never impeach, but I wouldn’t bother unless it’s something we haven’t seen before. All I can say is, I’m not impressed with your judgment. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2019, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/53 "2019-07-29T21:53:10Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > It’s certainly within the parameters of the constitution and it’s part of the machinery of our republican form of government, but it can certainly be perceived by voters as extra-democratic, or reversing the outcome of an election. When Republicans attempted to remove Clinton from office, that was perceived as extra-democratic, which is also why the public didn’t like it and part of the reason Republicans lost seats in the 1998 elections and why Newt Gingrich lost his speakership. I doubt very many voters thought about it in those terms. While technically the GOP was impeaching Clinton for obstruction of justice, for lying about a blowjob, they put most of their PR effort into making it all about sleazy sex. And most people didn’t think either the sleazy sex, or being cornered into lying about it, was reason for impeachment, that’s why the GOP lost seats. And Gingrich lost his speakership because he’d been making whoopee on the side as well, which would have undermined their case if they’d kept him. > [@](#): > > With any president you could probably find 30-40% of the country that didn’t like the candidate and would be willing to impeach him/her. But for the most part, most voters would rather remove a sitting president through elections. Well yeah. The point is, Trump isn’t a “for the most part” President. And don’t worry, they’ll still get the opportunity to remove him in 2020. ---
**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:** [July 29, 2019, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/54 "2019-07-29T22:14:10Z")
Ok. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2019, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/55 "2019-07-30T03:27:42Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Should congressional majorities always do this when the president is a member of the opposition party? Just run various charges up the flagpole and see who’s interested? > > Just because they can do it doesn’t mean they should. If they Can, yeah, maybe they should. For instance, Obama was widely despised by members of the GOP base. They would have been happy to be rid of him. But what would their representatives have charged him with? Smoking a joint in High School? Good luck with that impeachment. The Trump case is radically different. Trump is guilty, many times. ---
**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:** [July 30, 2019, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/56 "2019-07-30T22:57:10Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > If they Can, yeah, maybe they should. For instance, Obama was widely despised by members of the GOP base. They would have been happy to be rid of him. But what would their representatives have charged him with? Smoking a joint in High School? Good luck with that impeachment. > > The Trump case is radically different. Trump is guilty, many times. Trump is definitely more vulnerable both on the ‘possible actual crimes’ front and on the ‘violate various Constitutional provisions, such as the emoluments clause’ front. But that wouldn’t have stopped the GOP from voting to impeach Obama, had that been the norm (and had they a majority in the house). “Disrespect for our military” (saluting while holding a cup in his hand); “disrespect for the office of the Presidency” (due to wearing a tan suit); “failure to uphold his oath of office” (due to playing golf too many times)------these are only some of the possible charges that the Republicans might have set down as articles of impeachment. Ludicrously partisan? Ridiculously political? Of course. _Impeachment is an inherently political phenomenon._ It’s nothing to do with eternal truths or timeless expressions of Right and Wrong. It’s politics. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2019, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/57 "2019-07-30T23:17:11Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > That’s the problem with a so-called “big tent” party. It’s not really a cohesive group. It’s an alliance of factions united to profit from being in political control. “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.” Will Rogers ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/58 "2019-07-31T23:06:31Z")
> [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > Rep. Al Green’s impeachment vote was on the grounds of Trump’s bigotry/racism and attacks on the Democratic congresswomen. Green specifically said it was separate from any impeachment that might arise from the Mueller report. Interesting. You’ll remember that a similar charge\* was the first on the Senate voted on in the trial of Andrew Johnson and the House felt it was an assured conviction - but he was acquitted of the charge. So the standard is that being an ass towards Congress is not a high crime or misdemenor so please remember that Dems if Trump is acquitted of verbally attacking Congressmembers or Congress itself. \*The first charge voted on was disparaging Congress, not violating the Tenure of Office Act. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/59 "2019-07-31T23:23:13Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I doubt very many voters thought about it in those terms. While technically the GOP was impeaching Clinton for obstruction of justice, for lying about a blowjob, they put most of their PR effort into making it all about sleazy sex. And most people didn’t think either the sleazy sex, **or being cornered into lying about it** , was reason for impeachment, that’s why the GOP lost seats. Emphasis added Clinton was not “cornered” into lying. He **chose** to commit perjury and straight out [lied to the American people](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBe_guezGGc). ---
**Author:** ![Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b487fb/32.png) [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walken_After_Midnight)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2019, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/60 "2019-08-03T05:07:07Z")
Speaker Pelosi has [released a statement](https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/8219-2/) on the progress of the various House investigations. Here’s what the committees are up to: > [@](#): > > • Last week, Jerry Nadler, Chair of Judiciary, took a significant step when he filed a petition to obtain the grand jury testimony underlying the Mueller report, for the House to ‘have access to all the relevant facts and consider whether to exercise its full Article I powers, including a constitutional power of the utmost gravity — approval of articles of impeachment.’ > > • Elijah Cummings, Chair of Oversight and Reform, is winning in court in the Mazars case, seeking the President’s financial statements and reports prepared by his accountant to determine financial conflicts, violations of the Emoluments Clause, and the truthfulness of representations contained in the President’s statutorily required financial disclosure forms; > > • Maxine Waters, Chair of Financial Services and Adam Schiff, Chair of Intelligence are winning in court in the Deutsche Bank case, seeking the President’s bank account records to assist with the Committees’ investigation of unsafe banking practices, including money laundering, illicit transactions and foreign investments; > > • Richie Neal, Chair of Ways and Means, is pursuing the President’s tax returns to assist with the ongoing investigation of the IRS’s presidential tax audit program; > > • Eliot Engel, Chair of Foreign Affairs, on another front, is investigating the Russia connection with hearings seeking the facts from the Trump-Putin meetings; > > • In addition, last week, the House voted to reiterate its oversight authority, and ratified and affirmed the subpoenas already issued by the committees and any subpoenas to come. Responding to the subpoenas gives the President an opportunity to provide information that could exonerate him. If he has nothing to hide, he should cooperate with the subpoenas. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697.md?page=4)