The Shampeachement Follies

[TheDeamon]

As i look at that blurb again this morning, I'm doing a double-take and wondering what is up with that statistic from his internal polling.

24% of Democratic Primary Voters feel he deserves to be re-elected to Congress, yet 28% of them feel he deserves to be the Democratic Nominee. 

So 4% of Democrats in his district think he should be their nominee for the House, but that he shouldn't win the general election? Weird.

Reference please

Direct quote from the politico article I cited in the post immediately above that.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/14/jeff-van-drew-change-parties-085036

[TheDeamon]

One can simultaneously loathe Trump and consider the impeachment case against him a fragging joke.

John Adams coming to the legal defense of the Soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. The Voltaire attribution, or the original mission of the ACLU all broadly fall into the purview of reasons why people would be reaching for the brakes in regards to the Democratic Impeachment train.

I think Andrew Johnson was the most loathesome son of a bitch to ever hold office, but you can’t impeach a president for dismissing his own cabinet member.

I'm still amazed that the Democrats think that "Obstruction of Congress" has legs as an impeachable offense when they didn't even give the courts time to weigh in on Executive Privilege as it relates to their subpoenas. But then, I guess that was what their panel of legal experts giving testimony was all about. Who needs judges when you can call in legal experts who share your partisan slant on things?

[Crunch]

If Van Drew voted to impeach Trump, 69 percent would be more likely to back him in next year's election and 22 percent would be less likely.

This part of the poll is interesting. 22% of democrats would be less likely to vote for Van Drew if he supports impeachment. That’s a lot, it really highlights how unpopular this impeachment is even among a base that is supposed to be a lock to support it.

[NobleHunter]

One can simultaneously loathe Trump and consider the impeachment case against him a fragging joke.

I think Andrew Johnson was the most loathesome son of a bitch to ever hold office, but you can’t impeach a president for dismissing his own cabinet member.

Even if he took a bribe to fire the person in question? The point is to give Congress the ability to remove a President that misuses his powers where Congress can't otherwise exercise oversight.

[Pete at Home]

if it were an actual bribe, rather than information arguably relevant to performance of his duties, then that question would not be pure sophistry more worthy of Crunch than of you, oh noble hunter.

[NobleHunter]

It answers to criticisms of the impeachment efforts that imply, when they do not state outright, that since authority over foreign affairs is given to the Executive branch, Congress can't impeach the President for it or at least have any of the information they need to decide if impeachment is warranted. 

So while dismissing a Cabinet member is entirely within the President's prerogative, if he exercises it inappropriately, Congress can impeach him for it. Likewise, the President can conduct foreign affairs, if he does so inappropriately, Congress can impeach him for it.

[TheDeamon]

It answers to criticisms of the impeachment efforts that imply, when they do not state outright, that since authority over foreign affairs is given to the Executive branch, Congress can't impeach the President for it or at least have any of the information they need to decide if impeachment is warranted. 

So while dismissing a Cabinet member is entirely within the President's prerogative, if he exercises it inappropriately, Congress can impeach him for it. Likewise, the President can conduct foreign affairs, if he does so inappropriately, Congress can impeach him for it.

Uh, have you seen our commentary regarding "Obstruction of Congress" in this thread? They can impeach, but many things take time to play out. The Democrats decided they wanted this open and closed in just a handful of months, because they evidently see the impeachment hearing to be about eliminating a 2020 Presidential opponent, as I wouldn't be surprised if there is polling data to suggest that they have better odds against Pence than they do against Trump.

Compare this to the Watergate break-in and initial "Deep Throat" leak, in June of 1972,
A Senate investigation on the matter that starts in mid-May of 1973,
by mid-October the VP Spiro Agnew resigns due to corruption charges while Governor of Maryland. Just using the Senate hearings as a starting point, we're still in September on that timeline.
Ford is nominated as new VP.
October 20, 1973 the "Saturday Night Massacre" occurs.
November 17, 1973 Ford confirmed as new VP
And then I more blatantly theft from wiki rather than cherry-picking events and editing them slightly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Watergate_scandal

January 28, 1974: Nixon campaign aide Herbert Porter pleads guilty to perjury.
February 25, 1974: Nixon personal counsel Herbert Kalmbach pleads guilty to two charges of illegal campaign activities.
March 1, 1974: In an indictment against seven former presidential aides, delivered to Judge Sirica together with a sealed briefcase intended for the House Committee on the Judiciary, Nixon is named as an unindicted co-conspirator.
March 4, 1974: The "Watergate Seven" (Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Colson, Gordon C. Strachan, Robert Mardian, and Kenneth Parkinson) are formally indicted.
March 18, 1974: Judge Sirica orders the grand jury's sealed report to be sent to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
April 5, 1974: Dwight Chapin convicted of lying to a grand jury.
April 7, 1974: Ed Reinecke, Republican lieutenant governor of California, indicted on three charges of perjury before the Senate committee.
April 16, 1974: Special Prosecutor Jaworski issues a subpoena for 64 White House tapes.
April 30, 1974: White House releases edited transcripts of the Nixon tapes, but the House Judiciary Committee insists the actual tapes must be turned over.
May 9, 1974: Impeachment hearings begin before the House Judiciary Committee.
June 15, 1974: Woodward and Bernstein's book All the President's Men is published by Simon & Schuster (ISBN 0-671-21781-X).
July 24, 1974: United States v. Nixon decided: Nixon is ordered to give up tapes to investigators.
Congress moves to impeach Nixon.
-July 27 to July 30, 1974: House Judiciary Committee passes Articles of Impeachment.
-Early August 1974: A previously unknown tape from June 23, 1972 (recorded a few days after the break-in) documenting Nixon and Haldeman formulating a plan to block investigations is released. This recording later became known as the "Smoking Gun".
-Key Republican Senators tell Nixon that enough votes exist to convict him.
August 8, 1974: Nixon delivers his resignation speech in front of a nationally televised audience.
August 9, 1974: Nixon resigns from office. Gerald Ford becomes president.
September 8, 1974: President Ford ends the investigations by granting Nixon a pardon.

And in that quote block we Have March 1(unindicted co-conspirator for Nixon), or April 16th/30th for the Special Prosecutor and Congressional ask for the Watergate tapes. May 9th you have impeachment proceedings start, but it isn't until July 24th that SCotUS settles the tape dispute(going with the end of August start for Trump's stuff, that gives an equivalent of about mid-January, or points in time about now, or at the end of November. Now we can question why SCotUS seems to be so "comparatively slow" in handling the Trump Admins actions this time around, but people need to remember that the Trump admin doesn't control the Judicial Branch, so that part of things operates outside any timeline that either Congress or the Executive Branch can claim to control.

If Nixon isn't enough to compare against, I guess we could compare to the Whitewater investigation and the Ken Starr report:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_controversy
Vince Foster's death occurs in July 1993.
April 22, 1994 - Hillary Clinton holds a press conference announcing she no longer objects to calling a special council to investigate Whitewater.

May 1994, Fiske issued a grand jury subpoena to the President and his wife for all documents relating to Madison Guaranty, with a deadline of 30 days. They were reported as missing by the Clintons. Almost two years later, the subpoenaed billing records of the Rose Law Firm were discovered in the Clintons' private residence in the White House, with fingerprints of Hillary Clinton, among others.
...
In August 1994, Kenneth Starr[30] was appointed by a three-judge panel to continue the Whitewater investigation, replacing Robert B. Fiske, who had been specially appointed by the attorney general, prior to the re-enactment of the Independent Counsel law. Fiske was replaced because he had been chosen and appointed by Janet Reno, Clinton's attorney general, creating a conflict of interest.
...
Starr drafted an impeachment referral to the House of Representatives in the fall of 1997, alleging that there was "substantial and credible evidence" that Bill Clinton had committed perjury regarding Hale's allegations.
...
By April 1998, diverted to some degree by the burgeoning Lewinsky scandal, Starr's investigations in Arkansas were winding down, with his Little Rock grand jury about to expire.[19] Hubbell, Jim Guy Tucker, and Susan McDougal had all refused to cooperate with Starr. Tucker and McDougal were later pardoned by President Clinton. When the Arkansas grand jury did conclude its work in May 1998, after 30 months in panel, it came up with only a contempt indictment against Susan McDougal.

Wow, if only Trump and company were held to the same standard, we might hear something in about 3 years? Heck, even Watergate itself took nearly 2 years to play itself out in full. But hey, the Democrats have found sufficient evidence this time that they're going to get the job done in 4 to 5 months.

[Ouija Nightmare]

Wow, if only Trump and company were held to the same standard, we might hear something in about 3 years? Heck, even Watergate itself took nearly 2 years to play itself out in full. But hey, the Democrats have found sufficient evidence this time that they're going to get the job done in 4 to 5 months.

So you’re suggesting that they should drag it out longer with the strategy of what? Unifying America and breaking down partisanship?

[yossarian22c]

Wow, if only Trump and company were held to the same standard, we might hear something in about 3 years? Heck, even Watergate itself took nearly 2 years to play itself out in full. But hey, the Democrats have found sufficient evidence this time that they're going to get the job done in 4 to 5 months.

So you’re suggesting that they should drag it out longer with the strategy of what? Unifying America and breaking down partisanship?

The real argument for waiting is allowing as least the DC circuit, if not the full supreme court to uphold the subpoenas before charging him with obstruction of congress on that count. I'm sympathetic to the democrats but I didn't agree with that strategic decision. Wait and get the information or wait until the white house is defying congress and at a minimum the DC circuit before proceeding with impeachment.

[TheDeamon]

Wow, if only Trump and company were held to the same standard, we might hear something in about 3 years? Heck, even Watergate itself took nearly 2 years to play itself out in full. But hey, the Democrats have found sufficient evidence this time that they're going to get the job done in 4 to 5 months.

So you’re suggesting that they should drag it out longer with the strategy of what? Unifying America and breaking down partisanship?

By the standard the Dems are employing right now, the Clintons losing certain documents for 2 years would be an impeachable "obstruction" charge.

[Pete at Home]

Wow, if only Trump and company were held to the same standard, we might hear something in about 3 years? Heck, even Watergate itself took nearly 2 years to play itself out in full. But hey, the Democrats have found sufficient evidence this time that they're going to get the job done in 4 to 5 months.

So you’re suggesting that they should drag it out longer with the strategy of what? Unifying America and breaking down partisanship?

For the “strategy” of keeping the bloody law.

[yossarian22c]

The real argument for waiting is allowing as least the DC circuit, if not the full supreme court to uphold the subpoenas before charging him with obstruction of congress on that count. I'm sympathetic to the democrats but I didn't agree with that strategic decision. Wait and get the information or wait until the white house is defying congress and at a minimum the DC circuit before proceeding with impeachment.

This is even crazier when you look at their prospects for winning those cases. The DC circuit recently ruled that Don McGahn would have to show up to testify. I feel like there is even a stronger case for having the officials testify as part of the Ukraine matter, so not waiting the 1-2 months for the DC circuit even if you weren't going to wait another couple months for the SC seems insane to me. Have the democrats out talking about how Trump is obstructing the investigation everyday for months. They went for the speedy route and they are going to get slammed for it. The democrats are doing their best to make Mark Twain look prescient "Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself."

[Seriati]

The foreman of the jury just announced he's going to conspire with the defendant. How can that possibly be fair?

I don't know, maybe the same way Nadler and Schiff described the President as guilty in their opening statements in the investigation to determine if he was guilty?  Or how there's nothing but innuendo - most of it made up by dramatic interpretations of Schiff - that actually supports the impeachment case, yet the "evidence is overwhelming"?

Why would you think a political impeachment would receive an apolitical trial?

Regardless, it's fodder for a story about the Senate acquitting Trump due to partisan bias rather than lack of evidence. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to sound like it could be.

I agree with this.  If the impeachment is dismissed without a trial, the media will run with 100% coverage that Trump was guilty as sin and only let off by politics.  Actually this result is super favorable for the Democrats in my view.

On the other hand, if there is a full trial while it's true that Trump will finally get to bring in fact witnesses and cross examine people and present a defense and literally that every witness we heard from to date will be eradicated because they don't actually know any relevant facts.  It's also true that to make his case Trump will have to bring in the officials that do have first hand knowledge, and do we really know what they'll say?

Will Bolton destroy the Democrats case or will he make it credible?  Pretty sure that Mulvaney won't be a win for the Dems, but will someone on his staff?

I'm guessing that Graham thinks he can control the narrative better without the trial, particularly if he's concerned there could be things out there to add credibility, but honestly he's wrong.  The media will literally make Trump into a criminal and 2020 will be about redoing the impeachment.  The truth needs to come out, no matter what it is.

[TheDrake]

I'm still amazed that the Democrats think that "Obstruction of Congress" has legs as an impeachable offense when they didn't even give the courts time to weigh in on Executive Privilege as it relates to their subpoenas. But then, I guess that was what their panel of legal experts giving testimony was all about. Who needs judges when you can call in legal experts who share your partisan slant on things?

Repeat after me. You have to actually appear to invoke executive privilege. Assuming everything is above board, you would think they'd be climbing over each other to explain why funds were withheld, and how Trump never ever mentioned Biden, but was constantly talking about Burisma and corruption in general.

[yossarian22c]

Repeat after me. You have to actually appear to invoke executive privilege. Assuming everything is above board, you would think they'd be climbing over each other to explain why funds were withheld, and how Trump never ever mentioned Biden, but was constantly talking about Burisma and corruption in general.

I agree that Trump would get slammed on the privilege claim in court, all the more reason to wait. Either he complies with the court order and the democratic controlled committees get to interview the witnesses and review the additional documents or you have him dead to rights on obstruction of congress charges. Democrats have given him Trump a perfect defense, either he complies after the courts rule and the charge is null and void or Republicans acquit because there is no court order. Now Trump gets a chance to comply by providing the material to the Senate, which the Republicans control. It was an absolutely absurd decision by the house leadership to go before the courts ruled.

[NobleHunter]

On the other hand, if there is a full trial while it's true that Trump will finally get to bring in fact witnesses and cross examine people and present a defense and literally that every witness we heard from to date will be eradicated because they don't actually know any relevant facts.  It's also true that to make his case Trump will have to bring in the officials that do have first hand knowledge, and do we really know what they'll say?

Remind me again, who's preventing fact witnesses from testifying before the House?

[Seriati]

The real argument for waiting is allowing as least the DC circuit, if not the full supreme court to uphold the subpoenas before charging him with obstruction of congress on that count. I'm sympathetic to the democrats but I didn't agree with that strategic decision. Wait and get the information or wait until the white house is defying congress and at a minimum the DC circuit before proceeding with impeachment.

This is even crazier when you look at their prospects for winning those cases. The DC circuit recently ruled that Don McGahn would have to show up to testify.

Sort of, they ruled he would have to show up to assert executive privilege in person.  The ruling may be correct, may also not be correct, but it has a specific political twinge.  If the court had ruled that McGahn had to show up but that the President was entitled to send a representative to assert privilege on the President's behalf - without regard to what McGahn personally is willing to testify about - then it would not have that political twinge.  Against a backdrop of Congress refusing Whitehouse counsel and denying the right of the White House to assert the privilege (and it's literally the President's personal right that his officials can not waive on his behalf), this decision was mostly about creating a situation where if you put enough people in front of Congress one of them would eventually "break privilege" unConstitutionally and the bell would not be unringable (sure Trump would win in court, but Congress would already have the information).

It's a variant of Meuller's strategy to cease attorney client files knowing full well he never planned to bring charges in court, and accordingly doing so for the unConstitutional purpose of turning them over to Congress.

I feel like there is even a stronger case for having the officials testify as part of the Ukraine matter, so not waiting the 1-2 months for the DC circuit even if you weren't going to wait another couple months for the SC seems insane to me.

I agree, they would likely be compelled to testify, but very likely the court would have imposed constraints, like those I mentioned above (right to counsel, right to WhiteHouse representatives to independently assert privilege), maybe even right to cross examine them, that would have undercut what the DNC wanted - an unchallenged chance to craft a biased story.

Have the democrats out talking about how Trump is obstructing the investigation everyday for months. They went for the speedy route and they are going to get slammed for it. The democrats are doing their best to make Mark Twain look prescient "Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself."

Again, the Democrats did exactly what they wanted.  This was always about telling a story to the public.  It's never been about conviction, vindication at trial is part of the story the Democrats want to tell.  They want to go out to their base and demand a mandate because "without one" the criminal will stay in office.  The Senate "trial" isn't a real trial the House convicted him with  and proved him a criminal and only politics save him.  The solution to politics is - of course - to give us a mandate.

The only 2020 election interference the Democrats have uncovered is their own.

[Pete at Home]

I'm still amazed that the Democrats think that "Obstruction of Congress" has legs as an impeachable offense when they didn't even give the courts time to weigh in on Executive Privilege as it relates to their subpoenas. But then, I guess that was what their panel of legal experts giving testimony was all about. Who needs judges when you can call in legal experts who share your partisan slant on things?

[snip] Assuming everything is above board, you would think they'd be climbing over each other to explain why funds were withheld, and how Trump never ever mentioned Biden, but was constantly talking about Burisma and corruption in general.

In court, perhaps, because there are rules to prevent a fishing expedition, and also rules for recusal when judges and prosecutors have a conflict of interest or clearly biased.  No serious court would allow a prosecutor or judge who had (like Biden) a son's personal involvement, or (like Al Green) called for impeachment before Trump even took office. 

Prejudice matters in court.  Remember when Trump lost that first immigration case, solely because of prejudicial statements that he'd made about Muslim immigration before he was elected?

"Repeat after me. You have to actually appear to invoke executive privilege."

Please show me the constitutional provision or federal case that establishes that a sitting president cannot invoke executive privilege without actually appearing before Congress.

[yossarian22c]

Again, the Democrats did exactly what they wanted.  This was always about telling a story to the public.  It's never been about conviction, vindication at trial is part of the story the Democrats want to tell.  They want to go out to their base and demand a mandate because "without one" the criminal will stay in office.  The Senate "trial" isn't a real trial the House convicted him with  and proved him a criminal and only politics save him.  The solution to politics is - of course - to give us a mandate.

The only 2020 election interference the Democrats have uncovered is their own.

Well I think something you and I can agree on is that is an idiotic strategy.

[Pete at Home]

... Trump would get slammed on the privilege claim in court, all the more reason to wait. Either he complies with the court order and the democratic controlled committees get to interview the witnesses and review the additional documents or you have him dead to rights on obstruction of congress charges. Democrats have given him Trump a perfect defense, either he complies after the courts rule and the charge is null and void or Republicans acquit because there is no court order. Now Trump gets a chance to comply by providing the material to the Senate, which the Republicans control. It was an absolutely absurd decision by the house leadership to go before the courts ruled.

Agreed and well-said.  But the absurdity won't keep me from voting for Biden in the primary and in the general election.  Just because he's proved absurd in his house leadership does not mean that he can't be a better president than Trump.

It's a very low bar.

[TheDrake]

Please show me the constitutional provision or federal case that establishes that a sitting president cannot invoke executive privilege without actually appearing before Congress.

They are working on it. A lower court already ruled this is the case. Beyond that, maybe a couple centuries of precedent that this is how it works? And also only applying to specific questions, not a blanket assertion.

[Pete at Home]

Please show me the constitutional provision or federal case that establishes that a sitting president cannot invoke executive privilege without actually appearing before Congress.

They are working on it. A lower court already ruled this is the case. Beyond that, maybe a couple centuries of precedent that this is how it works? And also only applying to specific questions, not a blanket assertion.

A lower court ruling and vague handwaving about being protecolegorically correct hardly constitutes a "repeat after me" assertion, Señor El Drake.

[TheDrake]

Fair enough, Pete. I hereby soften my repeat after me snark.

[TheDrake]

If only Obama realized he could have kept everyone in the administration from testifying about Benghazi.

[Pete at Home]

If only Obama realized he could have kept everyone in the administration from testifying about Benghazi.

Excellent counter.  My guess: that Obama did realize it, as Clinton did before him, but Obama was Obama, and thank heavens for that.  Obama was not about what he could get away with. I miss his style and grace. 

[yossarian22c]

I think Andrew Johnson was the most loathesome son of a bitch to ever hold office, but you can’t impeach a president for dismissing his own cabinet member.

Not to derail the thread but I can't immediately think of anything he did worse than Jackson (trail of tears). But that's setting the bar at something approaching genocide so don't take it as an endorsement of Johnson by any stretch of the imagination.

[Pete at Home]

I think Andrew Johnson was the most loathesome son of a bitch to ever hold office, but you can’t impeach a president for dismissing his own cabinet member.

Not to derail the thread but I can't immediately think of anything he did worse than Jackson (trail of tears). But that's setting the bar at something approaching genocide so don't take it as an endorsement of Johnson by any stretch of the imagination.

I won't.  6 months ago I'd have agreed with you re Jackson's role in ethnic cleansing, and I reserve the right to agree with you again, but I'm currently digesting some credible arguments that Jackson lacked the means to prevent actual genocide, and chose ethnic cleansing via forced migration to prevent the Cherokee in some areas from being totally wiped out.

Johnson in contrast enacted policies that enabled terrorism, including lynchings, church burnings, mutilations, and burning people alive.  http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/exhibits/reconstruction/section4/section4_presrecon.html

In 1865 President Andrew Johnson

• "implemented a plan of Reconstruction that gave the white South a free hand in regulating the transition from slavery to freedom and offered no role to blacks in the politics of the South"
• offered a pardon to all white Southerners except Confederate leaders and wealthy planters ... and authorized them to create new governments.

These new governments

passed the Black Codes, severely limiting the former slaves' legal rights and economic options so as to force them to return to the plantations as dependent laborers. Some states limited the occupations open to blacks. None allowed any blacks to vote, or provided public funds for their education.The new legislatures passed the Black Codes, severely limiting the former slaves' legal rights and economic options so as to force them to return to the plantations as dependent laborers. Some states limited the occupations open to blacks. None allowed any blacks to vote, or provided public funds for their education.

IMO Johnson should have been impeached for resisting the 14th amendment's effect after it had been passed.  But the actual impeachment charges against him did not fly.

https://millercenter.org/president/johnson/impact-and-legacy

For the most part, historians view Andrew Johnson as the worst possible person to have served as President at the end of the American Civil War. Because of his gross incompetence in federal office and his incredible miscalculation of the extent of public support for his policies, Johnson is judged as a great failure in making a satisfying and just peace. He is viewed to have been a rigid, dictatorial racist who was unable to compromise or to accept a political reality at odds with his own ideas. ...In the end, Johnson did more to extend the period of national strife than he did to heal the wounds of war.

Most importantly, Johnson's strong commitment to obstructing political and civil rights for blacks is principally responsible for the failure of Reconstruction to solve the race problem in the South and perhaps in America as well.

[Crunch]

If the impeachment is dismissed without a trial, the media will run with 100% coverage that Trump was guilty as sin and only let off by politics.

This will be the headline regardless of anything done in the senate. Why would they change now?

[Crunch]

The latest from the democrats is that that they should withhold their articles of impeachment from the Senate unless Mitch McConnell agrees to let democrats set the rules for the trial.

I can’t wait for this trial to start.

[Seriati]

If only Obama realized he could have kept everyone in the administration from testifying about Benghazi.

Excellent counter.  My guess: that Obama did realize it, as Clinton did before him, but Obama was Obama, and thank heavens for that.  Obama was not about what he could get away with. I miss his style and grace.

Sort of.  Benghazi was conducted under Congress's oversight authority.  It's kind of ancient history, but one of the first things that the House did was demand the records under their power to impeach and also on their oversight authority, and Trump's White House responded pretty much responded that by pursing this as an impeachment matter it would be resisted as a matter of first impression, even if the records would have been available if the House was conducting oversight (of course then they'd have to tie it to  a legislative purpose, something the lower courts have repeatedly failed to do).

If the SC wants to avoid the "big" decision on executive privilege thy could rule for the House on the oversight grounds and explain the "missing" legislative purpose.  If they rule for Trump, they'd probably consider the oversight role and point out that no legitimate legislative purpose was being pursued. 

Impeachment is a funny game, cause either the court has to rule that Congress defines it's own authority - no matter how spurious to investigate anything, anytime, anywhere without any constraints by labeling it impeachment (they won't say it that way, but that would effectively be the end result if Congress sets its own terms), or they have to read into their own authority the ability to constrain Congress's authority by application of judicial judgement to the Constitution.  There's little question that the frames rejected political impeachment when they refused certain terms, but that only has meaning if someone can enforce it on Congress.

Less you think it's impossible the courts have already imposed their will on the executive on multiple occasions even where the executive discretion should be unreviewable.  It's not much of a leap to hold Congress to account for minimum standards.  They could easily say, impeach all you want, but you need actual evidence to violate Executive Privilege not just a desire to go fishing.

[Crunch]

House Democrats are already preparing to impeach Trump a second time. According to Law & Crime, they're currently suing to get access to more grand jury materials from the Robert Mueller investigation in the hopes of building a case for obstruction of justice. "In a 66-page filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, attorneys for congressional investigators led by House General Counsel Douglas N. Letter vowed that Democrats on the Judiciary Committee would continue their impeachment inquiry into whether Trump committed obstruction of justice–regardless of the outcome of the House’s current 'narrow impeachment' process premised on the president withholding military aid to the Ukraine in an apparent scheme to obtain an investigation into Joe Biden‘s son," Law and Crime reported.

Impeachment now, impeachment tomorrow, impeachment forever.

[Crunch]

Vote today. There are 234 Democrats plus Amash for 235. 200 Republicans.

Pelosi must have the votes to move forward and get this sham done, she wouldn’t have the vote otherwise. Will she get all 235? Tulsi Gabbard joined the chorus of those asking to go with censure, maybe 6 total on that track. Maybe Pelosi gets them all on board, we’ll see.

[ScottF]

I've kind of shifted to something nearing legitimate pity for the democrats around this whole process. Not only have they decided to drive the entire bus down a one-way alley, in the very thing they thought was the last and best hope to unseat their bogeyman, they've forged a cudgel and handed it to him for the rest of the term.

[Ouija Nightmare]

I've kind of shifted to something nearing legitimate pity for the democrats around this whole process. Not only have they decided to drive the entire bus down a one-way alley, in the very thing they thought was the last and best hope to unseat their bogeyman, they've forged a cudgel and handed it to him for the rest of the term.

Why? They were getting hit with the stick regardless. Nothing has changed except they actually did something. No matter how ineffectual it might be. They will still be recorded in history as the one who held up their  hands and said “no”.

Nobody ever really glorifies the moral who were weak unless there’s somehow a lesson of victory to be spun out of it. Being righteous does not predicate success. Victory does not prove a just cause.

[ScottF]

I don't disagree that they were between bad choices. I do not think they will be viewed historically as the arbiters of morality and righteousness in a time of corruption. I think they'll be viewed as being completely befuddled as to how to combat an outlier opponent, combat being the only self-imposed option because there were no scenarios in which they would debase themselves to work with Trump.

When Trump was elected, I thought all the dems had to do was just not be nuts, and by the end of the term it would all be a fait de complete. I didn't realize the degree to which the left and media would be so emotionally fragile re: Trump's more repulsive tendencies. It's backed them into this corner and they're literally going to reap what they've sown. If that feels virtuous, then ok I guess.

[Crunch]

I've kind of shifted to something nearing legitimate pity for the democrats around this whole process. Not only have they decided to drive the entire bus down a one-way alley, in the very thing they thought was the last and best hope to unseat their bogeyman, they've forged a cudgel and handed it to him for the rest of the term.

Why? They were getting hit with the stick regardless. Nothing has changed except they actually did something. No matter how ineffectual it might be. They will still be recorded in history as the one who held up their  hands and said “no”.

Nobody ever really glorifies the moral who were weak unless there’s somehow a lesson of victory to be spun out of it. Being righteous does not predicate success. Victory does not prove a just cause.

That right there is what is commonly referred to as loser talk, what someone would say when they know they’ve lost. I’m hearing it more and more from Democrats on this shampeachment.

Te goal of this was to get Trump and overturn the 2016 election. Will this “high ground” you think you have feel so virtuous when the fallout pushes Trump to victory in November and he subsequently appoints 2 more SC justices? What about the cost of giving Trump a rubber stamp with control of the house and the senate?

No to mention, we now have the precedent of impeachment being for no reason. Henceforth, every house controlled by the opposing party will impeach the president. Just part of the game now. How is that so great for anyone?

[cherrypoptart]

Perhaps neither here nor there but some fine reading nonetheless.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrat-who-was-once-impeached-will-vote-on-trump-impeachment-170637692.html

When the House of Representatives votes on the articles of impeachment against President Trump on Wednesday, one of the Democrats certain to vote in favor is Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings.

In doing so, Hastings will become the first sitting member of Congress to vote for the impeachment of a sitting president after having himself been impeached — and removed from office.

Hastings was a federal judge when he was impeached by the House for accepting bribes in 1988...

... “Rep. Hastings is the only person in U.S. history to have been impeached, convicted, removed from office and then returned to high government position..." His longevity means Hastings has participated in three other impeachments. In 1998, he voted against impeaching Bill Clinton, like himself a Democrat. This marked the first time, at least in modern American history, in which one impeached official voted in the impeachment of another...

Earlier in the impeachment process, Hastings blasted Trump for a “disregard for the rule of law.”

But more than 30 years after his own impeachment, how much regard Hastings has for the rule of law remains in doubt. As the impeachment inquiry against Trump proceeded, Hastings found himself embroiled in an ethics investigation, one that focused on his relationship with longtime staffer Patricia Williams, who was one of his attorneys during the 1988-89 impeachment inquiry.

And in 2014, the federal government paid $200,000 to a woman who accused Hastings of inappropriate sexual conduct. The alleged behavior, which he denied, allegedly took place in 2001...

His political prospects brightened in 1992, when Bill Clinton was at the top of the ticket. Hastings defeated state legislator Lois Frankel, whom he at one point called a “racist *$)@#.” Twenty years later, he would endorse her when she ran for Congress. The former rivals are now both members of the Florida delegation.

The district Hastings represents is safely Democratic, and he has served in Congress since 1993 without interruption — though not without continuing scandal."

------------------------------------------------------------

And these are the people ruling over us.

[Crunch]

Democrat, Eric Swalwell:

Unless you send us (witnesses), we can only conclude that you're guilty because in America, innocent men don't conceal evidence... they are forthcoming and want to cooperate.

That’s right, if you’re innocent you have nothing to fear. Why in the hell are you guys ok with this? It’s shameful.

[ScottF]

Also Swalwell: "fffbraaaaap"

[TheDeamon]

Democrat, Eric Swalwell:

Unless you send us (witnesses), we can only conclude that you're guilty because in America, innocent men don't conceal evidence... they are forthcoming and want to cooperate.

That’s right, if you’re innocent you have nothing to fear. Why in the hell are you guys ok with this? It’s shameful.

He obviously has no understanding of the 5th Amendment, and innocent people DO have reason to want to conceal things from others, the government, and in particular political operatives, something Congress is packed to the gills with.

[Seriati]

Democrat, Eric Swalwell:

Unless you send us (witnesses), we can only conclude that you're guilty because in America, innocent men don't conceal evidence... they are forthcoming and want to cooperate.

That’s right, if you’re innocent you have nothing to fear. Why in the hell are you guys ok with this? It’s shameful.

I guess that's an admission that Schiff and the DNC are guilty unless they send the Whistleblower and Schiff testifies.

[TheDeamon]

Which moves us into a related item.

Bad idea for a potential 2021 Republican House to begin Impeachment proceedings on certain leading Democratic figures in the House under the same rules they used on Trump?

I'd also wish them luck on trying to invoke separation of powers on a Congressional subpoena.

[Crunch]

BREAKING: Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned the House may not immediately transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate out of concerns Republicans won't conduct impartial proceedings at a trial

Jesus *censored*ing christ, they’re going for impeachment without impeachment.

[TheDeamon]

BREAKING: Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned the House may not immediately transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate out of concerns Republicans won't conduct impartial proceedings at a trial

Jesus *censored*ing christ, they’re going for impeachment without impeachment.

McConnel seems to pretty clear that the Democrats get to use whatever it is they have when they refer it to the Senate. That the Senate will not do their work for them.

So basically sounds like a quasi-trial scenario. The prosecution(the House) only gets to present the evidence it discovered at the time the trial starts. Meanwhile the Defense can present basically anything they want(which a judge -- Justice Roberts as I recall) deems to be relevant.

He doesn't seem to be talking about setting up any roadblocks beyond that. Of course, that's not what the Dems want.

[NobleHunter]

Weren't you lot looking forward to the "fact witnesses" testifying in the Senate and clearer all this up? Of course, not that Dear Leader has decided he doesn't want them to testify, you're scrambling for reasons why that's "just fine, actually."

[TheDeamon]

Weren't you lot looking forward to the "fact witnesses" testifying in the Senate and clearer all this up? Of course, not that Dear Leader has decided he doesn't want them to testify, you're scrambling for reasons why that's "just fine, actually."

There's a difference between fact witnesses being called by the defense, and witnesses being compelled to testify by Congressional Act when those witnesses are being questioned about activities under the purview of Executive Privilege.

[TheDeamon]

To augment the previous and to be clear: If they REALLY wanted those fact witnesses, the House could wait until SCotUS has ruled in regards to their ability to compell testimony, without White House consul being present, or any other check(like Judicial review) to backstop their over-ride of Executive privilege.

If the Prosecution(The House) decides not to wait for SCotUS to rule (mostly) in their favor(which is likely), that's on them, and not the business or responsibility of the Senate. The Senate's constitutional role in this is to be the Jury(and to a lesser extent the Judge, although the Chief Justice handles most of that), they're not supposed to be the Prosecution, or doing the Prosecution's job for them.

[TheDeamon]

Going back to this:

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/14/jeff-van-drew-change-parties-085036

The stunning move comes amid new polling commissioned by Van Drew's campaign that shows his approval ratings are under water with Democratic voters in his district. Just 24 percent of Democratic primary voters said Van Drew deserves to be reelected to Congress, and only 28 percent said he deserves to be the Democratic nominee in next year’s election.

And adding this from FiveThirtyEight:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Where their chart at the time of this posting when you scroll down to breakdown by party indicate: 82.7% of Democrats support Impeachment, 44.4% of Independents support Impeachment, and 10.2% of Republicans support it.

The 24% of Democratic voters in Van Drew's district may be in the category of "reluctant about impeachment" and now that the House went and did it. The Democrats are now playing with a live hand grenade that may result in many of their voters staying home in 2020 should Trump's team present "a compelling enough" defense of what was happening. In all reality that number may be much higher, as people don't like being "spun up"/deceived/lied to. (There also is that 4% "anomaly" from that poll I noted earlier)

Which gets us to the more National Polling number of 82.7% of Democrats supporting Impeachment. That leaves 17.3% of their voters as either undecided or opposed. (I think Fox was claiming 11% opposition tonight)

What happens to the Democrats in 2020 if they have 10% or more of their voters (nationwide) decide to either stay home, or "protest" by voting third party as a consequence of the impeachment? (This also ignores minorities possibly "voting their wallet" and switching to voting Republican)

[Pete at Home]

I’m a democrat against impeachment on the BS bribery charge, and I’m voting 2020. I might skip the presidential ballot if the DNC puts forward someone like O-Cortez, but I’m not staying home.

[Kasandra]

I'm still amazed that the Democrats think that "Obstruction of Congress" has legs as an impeachable offense when they didn't even give the courts time to weigh in on Executive Privilege as it relates to their subpoenas. But then, I guess that was what their panel of legal experts giving testimony was all about. Who needs judges when you can call in legal experts who share your partisan slant on things?

Does it make sense to you that Trump refuses to let ANY member of his Administration obey a subpoena from Congress?  Trump's favorite tactic when "attacked" by opponents in legal situations is to run up the costs for the other side and run out the clock until the issue is moot.  There's little doubt that he would have continued to stonewall up to a Supreme Court decision ruling against him, and frankly, not much doubt that he would ignore such a ruling.  What are they going to do, impeach him?