I sincerely wish you’re right about all this, but I doubt it. Trump’s approval ratings have barely budged since he took office, despite the American public having had ample opportunities to “reject the verdict.” My concern is that little new will be revealed during a Senate trial, and most people won’t pay attention to the details – but everyone will know he was acquitted.
As has been stated upthread, the House making the case for impeachment is the best way to slowly, surely and unambiguously demonstrate how Trump has abused his office and cheated the American people, giving the Dem candidate a constant arsenal of evidence to level at him during the campaign. A Senate trial ending with acquittal risks throwing all that evidence into a dumpster while Trump crows about exoneration.
That may well be, but it will be CJ Roberts that calls that vote.
Hereare the Senate rules governing impeachment proceedings. Basically, VP Pence turns over the gavel to the Chief Justice until the end of impeachment, and the trial is the only business that is conducted for its duration. (Preemptive apologies if I misinterpreted something.)
The devil in these details is that all of these rules are Senate-approved, and can be amended or completely rewritten with approval of a simple majority. The fix, as it were, is not yet in, but I don’t trust McConnell or his cohort to not put their thumb on the scale. And Roberts, for all of his fretting about the Court’s legacy, cannot be trusted to hold an impartial trial, I fear.
As it stands, Saint Cad’s assessment looks accurate to me. For now.
House Dems to investigate Trump’s push to hold world summit at his resort - former White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush think what Trump is doing is illegal, unconstitutional and impeachable.
It seems that way to me. But then I was shocked that the GOP didn’t get on board with removing him after that May 2017 Oval Office meeting in which he handed the Russian Ambassador some substantial classified intel from one of our allies (Israel).
Stunningly, the Republicans were ‘fine’ with that.
So I expect they’ll shrug off the blow to US security represented by this Iran photo. What do they care, so long as they’re getting rich?
(The photo is “almost certainly an image from a classified satellite or drone” as the NPR piece put it. “You really risk giving away the way you know things…That allows people to adapt and hide how they carry out illicit activity.”) Trump Tweets Sensitive Surveillance Image Of Iran : NPR
It seems to me, and I hate to say it, that House Dems have developed the strategy of holding impotent investigations that will stretch well into next year and effectively run out the clock. But they sure do look interested, don’t they? Fuckers.
No kidding. I was thinking of starting a thread to keep track of all the panels and committees that are conducting investigations. They’re multiplying like the brooms in Disney’s Sorcerer’s Apprentice. I’m sure there will be another one soon on this classified picture that Donnie released to The World “because I CAN!” <Stomps foot!>
So it’s only worth doing if a win is guaranteed? That’s silly. Imagine telling a cop only to arrest those whose convictions are guaranteed. Or even a sports team- don’t play any games you might lose. Why should any politician run for office if a win isn’t guaranteed? Damn, dude.
The good news is that we’ll have, instead of pointless impeachment hearings, pointless House investigations that Trump and Co. refuse to participate in. And Democrats will go down in history as the people that were afraid to stand up to Trump. Big pat on the back for them.
It’s the same thing Democrats said after the Garland fuckery- although Dems really did have little recourse then. “We’ll show them with the next election!” How did the election after that work out for Democrats? Living for the next election is a crappy shackle to outfit oneself with. What Democrats are keeping their fingers crossed for is: No impeachement hearings, and a Trump loss next time. I say it’s a crappy way to go. The right thing is the right thing. Doing nothing and crossing fingers, I find, uninspiring and unadmirable.
Good thing the House Democrats are not “doing nothing,” then.
Whether the Dems call the hearings they already have on the schedule ‘impeachment’ or not, Trump and his enablers are not going to show up. And courts have already, despite no fanfare or brouhaha about Impeachment Underway, supported the House in its suits against the non-compliant. There will be more of that.
And, of course, arguably Nadler already crossed the “impeachment inquiry” line in late July:
Just because some in the base believe it will be cathartic and satisfying to have a big extravaganza, with House members calling press conferences to announce WE’RE IMPEACHING—and that’s a very questionable proposition—doesn’t mean it’s smart, or will be an effective way of getting rid of Trump.
It will be an effective way to stand up for what’s right. That’s it. It has little to do with gettimg rid of Trump, which it has almost no chance of doing. In the future, kids in school might astonishingly ask: “Golly, why didn’t anyone do anything” And the teacher will respond: “There was an election the following year, see, and Democrats were going to hold hearings and have investigations. They could hear the clock ticking and knew that if they only just waited…”
We creamed the GOP in the House, and did not quite as well as expected in the Senate.
What is the right thing?:rolleyes: Indicting someone just so he will officially and finally be declared innocent, so he can wave that around to his base? Why the FUCK is that the right thing? Why the FUCK should we reward that asshole with a second term, in exchange for a meaningless gesture?