Max you are forgetting maybe the most important part of this whole process. Public opinion. The court of public opinion is very important in the impeachment process, as it is a political process at its core. The public is already turning against the president, and quickly. A Fox news poll, of all places, that was just released showed that 51% are now in favor of impeachment and removal from office. And this is all before any cooperation from the executive branch. A majority of voters already want him removed from office. Where do you think this number is going?
This obstruction is causing the public to turn against him and it’s happening very quickly. It is backfiring for him. If we cross 60% of the public that wants him removed from office and the GOP senators still vote to acquit, how do you think that affects their reelection odds and the odds for the Senate to stay in GOP hands. In our country the voters ultimately have the power and right now they are going hard against the president in a rapid fashion.
No. I’m saying that the process that exposes corruption should be fair, and if the process is unfair but the outcome is less corruption, the ends do not justify the means.
And if the other side refuses to cooperate then how can bipartisanship be achieved? Sounds like you are creating a conditional that can never be met, therefore impeachment can never happen. We might as well just toss the constitution in the garbage then at that point, since the president doesn’t need to abide by it.
You are arguing that no president can ever be held accountable unless his own party goes along with it. And we know how the GOP operates. Is this the country that you want to live in?
We could go way off topic on this, but I agree with your characterization when it comes to politics and power and we can agree to disagree on that subject.
Why are you letting Trump, who is the one facing impeachment remember, decide what is fair?
Do you let murder suspects decide what is fair and let them refuse to cooperate if the process doesn’t meet their definition of fair?
Trump will never admit that anything that goes against him is fair. You are creating an impossible conditional. That is the true end justifying the means going on here.
Maxl S., you know that deposition that Bill Clinton gave where he lied under oath about his marital infidelity? He lied. And was impeached for it. But he participated in the process. Were he to follow Trump’s model, he would stonewall. Is that the kind of bipartisanship you’re looking for?
This doesn’t have jack to do with bipartisanship, because the Republicans have no interest in participating in this impeachment process. The only reason they want in is to turn it into an attack on the Bidens, so why don’t you tell me how giving them an open invite to hijack the process will be to anyone’s advantage?
I can’t speak for the public, only myself. I never wanted Mr. Trump in office to begin with. But last I checked, my Representative actually takes a position on the House inquiry that I agree with. And one of my Senators takes a position on the whole impeachment business that I agree with, too.
Do you mean the administration continues to stonewall, or that House Republicans don’t join the subpoenas?
In the first case I would be against that, at least if they use a lack of bipartisanship (including the second case) as rationale.
Look, if the full House authorizes a committee to investigate the president, then bipartisanship or not, he has to comply with the subpoenas or invoke executive privilege or risk being impeached for obstruction. I would prefer bipartisanship, but that’s not legally necessary for impeachment.
But we haven’t established that authorization. Whether or not the committees have jurisdiction for the subpoenas they are currently handing out, is for the anybody to decide until the courts or the Senate rule on the matter (if they rule on the matter). Sure, you can impeach him for obstruction and let the Republican Senate decide whether the Democratic House actually exercised their power to subpoena the administration.
I’m curious as to what is “unfair” about the current process. The House has sufficient evidence that the President may have acted in a sufficiently egregious manner to warrant impeachment, and has launched an enquiry to investigate further. Various witnesses have been called. There’s nothing unfair about that. There is no indication that the House are somehow “making things up” (particularly as the President has openly admitted to the things he’s being investigated for). He is not (yet) on trial, and he has the right to legal representation every step of the way. That’s all entirely fair.
You know what isn’t fair? Letting him get away with refusing to comply with a legitimate legal process. Letting him direct others to disregard legally-issued subpoenas (an illegal act). Demanding that a legitimate legal enquiry deliberately hobble itself just because the parties being investigated are metaphorically stomping their feet and holding their breath until they turn blue. Those are “unfair” things - unfair to the House, the rule of law, the Constitution, and the American people who deserves at least a modicum of accountability in their elected leaders.
Hillary Clinton spent 11 hours in one day testifying before a hostile Republican-led Congressional committee. Is it fair that Trump won’t do the same just because he doesn’t wanna?
I think we disagree on the kind of “bipartisanship” I want to see in “Trump’s model”. The Clinton impeachment let ranking Republicans on the Judiciary committee call witnesses, ask questions, and issue subpoenas. That’s what I would prefer. It’s what I think is fair. It is not legally required for impeachment.
I think I may have muddied my own arguments by mixing that up with what I consider to be acceptable grounds for non-participation. Those grounds would be the lack of a House vote granting a committee with jurisdiction over the matter. My bad, sorry for the confusion.
This in particular is where I mixed up two arguments.
House Democrats shouldn’t try to put together a rock solid case without explicit authorization from the full House, because the president can just refuse to cooperate based on the apparent lack of authorization.
House Democrats shouldn’t try to impeach the president without the appearance of bipartisanship, because I want the appearance of bipartisanship.
And if the House Republicans refuse to cooperate in this inquiry and instead decide to pursue their own agenda, that is not bipartisanship, that is hijacking the process and simply working at odds with the majority. In what way is that bipartisanship?