The biggest problem with impeachment is that, the only two times it was used in the past were as partisan hit jobs and both attempts failed. If, however, the majority of Americans start to favor impeachment (say 55% or more) it would be a viable option since Republican Senators would have a lot more trouble opposing it.
A few more high profile hearings in the House might sway public opinion enough for this to happen but, until then, we should hold off. If we fire too soon, we’ll likely miss and we have only one bullet.
Nadler is at least moving in the right direction even if it isn’t yet where I want him to be (Warren’s position). I think as the Chairman he has to maintain some sense of objectivity and tell the people that his hearings will have value. He also needs the Speaker to step up and lay out the path forward.
I am of the view that Nadler should run a narrowly focused ‘impeachment’ inquiry focused on the Mueller Report findings. Confirm the findings and recommend that Trump resign and face charges for obstruction. Send a vote of ‘impeachment’ to the Senate recommending that he be removed now to face charges and then have the Senate decide that narrow question.
I think these are very non-controversial positions for Nadler and the Dems to take and the people will accept it as legitimate.
There are three Supreme Court ‘Obstruction Rulings’ guided Mueller’s team.
Obstructive acts: Marinello v. United States (2018)
Nexus to an official proceeding: United States v. Aguilar (1995); Arthur Andersen v. United States (2005)
Corrupt intent – United States v. Aguilar (1995) and Arthur Andersen v. United States (2005). Mueller’s prosecutors returned to the Aguilar and Andersen decisions for analysis on “corrupt intent (criminal intent).
Even if the Senate fails to convict Trump, I think it could be very edifying to listen to GOP senators explain why they think what Trump did doesn’t make him unfit to hold office. Just might help us win the Senate in 2020.
Would put Gardner, Collins, among others on the hot seat.
The three Supreme Court ‘Obstruction Rulings’ guided Mueller’s team.
Obstructive acts: Marinello v. United States (2018)
Nexus to an official proceeding: United States v. Aguilar (1995); Arthur Andersen v. United States (2005)
Corrupt intent – United States v. Aguilar (1995) and Arthur Andersen v. United States (2005). Mueller’s prosecutors returned to the Aguilar and Andersen decisions for analysis on “corrupt intent (criminal intent).
Exactly. An impeachment trial and vote in the Senate is politically a lose-lose vote for the Republican Senators regardless of whether-or-not Trump is convicted.
“High crimes and misdemeanors” involve, the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. - Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist, a source that is much better informed of the intent than the right wing apologist known as Turley.
No. You are confusing intent with motive: Trump’s clear intent, the plain consequences of his actions, was impeding the investigation; his motives, his reasons for doing so, don’t appear to have much to do with it at least if we take Mueller’s and G. Conway’s statements as given.
Please read and inwardly digest the following three U.S. Supreme Court decisions on ‘obstruction’, requiring ‘corrupt,’ or ‘criminal’ intent.
Obstructive acts: Marinello v. United States (2018)
Nexus to an official proceeding: United States v. Aguilar (1995); Arthur Andersen v. United States (2005)
Corrupt intent – United States v. Aguilar (1995) and Arthur Andersen v. United States (2005). Mueller’s prosecutors returned to the Aguilar and Andersen decisions for analysis on “corrupt intent (criminal intent).
“if proven”!?!?! Mueller lays out the proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So WTF is Nadler talking about? Is he saying that the overwhelming evidence of Trump’s criminality is insufficient?
