You do realize that this precedent goes for both sides going forward right? No more oversight means no more oversight in either direction.
Or are you all of a sudden going to have an epiphany about executive authority and oversight once a Democrat is elected president?
Yes! They do think this. They support what they call the doctrine of the Unitary Executive, which is just fancy Federalist Society Speak for “autocratic ruler of our choice.” I believe many former Trump voters will in fact sit this election out unless a progressive Democrat is nominated. Then they will come out and vote for Trump again. Remember, many of Trump’s supporters live in a Fox “News” alternate “reality,” which isn’t reality at all – but it allows them to believe that the impeachment efforts are based on partisanship and not the actual established facts.
It does, and that’s one of the main reasons that Dems went ahead with their efforts despite the election and all the challenges it will bring for their candidates. No doubt you remember this is the exact same tactic McConnell ran for the Merrick Garland vote theft. “It’s too close to the election! Let The People™ decide!” What they really mean is, “give us enough time to let the Russians work their magic.”
I don’t know. The GOP is already using that handwaving tactic, and it’s not working out so well. A majority in this country still want impeachment proceedings to occur. Saw a poll this morning that reflected 50% want to impeach and remove, while 43% believe impeachment is not justified. (Interesting correlation there between that figure and the number of people who take their news from Fox, no?)
Schiff made a point of saying that a bill of impeachable offenses was much like an indictment. If facts reveal further impeachable conduct by Trump before articles have been passed to the Senate, then the articles could be superseded with a new bill.
Judicial proceedings are slow and deliberate by design. I’d think hard before changing this function of the courts as having served us decently well for our entire history. In fact, the decision about deciding whether a subpoena is valid has far-reaching consequences throughout our system, both in terms of the respective powers of the legislative and executive branches as well as to what extent to draw the line on the very real concept of executive privilege (not blanket immunity, as Trump wrongly asserted). That’s why we get 120-page rulings to answer the questions.
I think the fundamental mistake made in 2016 is that the majority of the population was not really paying attention to the sharp focus on the goals of a segment of the citizenry as approached starting with Newt Gingrich, the Koch brothers, the Federalist Society, etc. These people are on a mission, willing to use scorched earth tactics, and we didn’t see it.
We did not appreciate that they would be willing to subvert our entire system of government and happily use Russian assistance to literally tear apart our every tradition and institution in furtherance of their autocratic dreams. This includes a heretofore unknown willingness to support a person obviously unqualified for the job and to ignore/commit any crime to ensure he keeps his useful idiot status. This is their moment. They are going to fight like hell. We must do the same, but with the adjunct requirement of working within the rule of law, which they will not.
Honestly, I don’t know if we end up as a western-style democracy at the end of it.
They will, but they don’t have the built-in war chest that Bloomberg brings. It’s handy when you can afford to buy a presidency – or at least try.
Fuck that. He could be impeached, removed, found guilty in court, sentenced to prison, appeal 85 times (losing each and every one of them), and still claim himself exonerated. And his base and a vast majority of the Republican party, will agree.
Sorry if this question has already been asked and answered… If so, just point me to the relevant posts.
Suppose the House votes to impeach, and the Senate fails to convict and remove. Now suppose Trump gets reelected, Dems retain the House, GOP retains the Senate. Is there any reason the House can’t attempt to impeach again, provided it’s not the same charges? Can they keep something in their back pocket that they could come after him for in his second term?
They could impeach him on new charges or even the exact same charges. There is no double jeopardy protection against impeachment but, under the conditions you describe, why would Democrats expect different results from a second impeachment?
I understand the Senate will not vote to convict and that the impeachment is just an exercise. My complaint is that the exercise has not gone far enough to reveal everything rotten that can be revealed about this administration.
There are two irrefutable counter-arguments to “let’s just let the election deal with this mess”:
One: Trump cheated in the 2016 election and is trying to cheat in 2020. Why should we let a tainted election determine his fate?
Two: The Founders could have easily written the impeachment clause to only apply to appointed officials, but they didn’t. They explicitly included the President, which means they didn’t care how soon the next election is. They want the bastard to be run out of town on a rail, now.
I wouldn’t expect any different results, but they could drag the next investigation out much longer, just keep hammering away.
This right here is what might be, for me, the most frustrating thing about this process. We have an independent judiciary as a bulwark against dictatorship, but the GOP has figured out how to abuse that system to defend Trump’s dictatorial practices. And isn’t this essentially Trump’s MO in business, too? Lie, cheat, break contracts and fight it in court until the other guy dies or runs out of money.
Funny thing is, Republicans like to piss and moan about frivolous tort cases that tie up corporate legal departments. But I guess IOKWARDI.
They are the loyal and honorable opposition of course.
Looks like Trump is throwing Rudy under the bus, in an interview with Bill O’Reilly:
Trump Denies Sending Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine for Biden Probe
Bill O’Reilly?? He has a job?
Surprised me, too!
I am really wondering what Bolton is hoping for.
Phenomenal book sales.
Mentions of Giuliani by Donald J. Trump during his July 25 call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine:
I know for a fact every republican in every government position will.
From Bumbershoot’s paywalled link:
I wonder if Rudy can hear the bus revving it’s engine.
Sorry about that. I was able to read it without paying but when I clicked it just now, at the bottom it said “Last of your three free articles”.
This one should be free:
Trump distances himself from Giuliani’s Ukraine efforts (CBS News)