no, The House controls its own rules, procedures, and schedule, and the Dems control the House.
[on edit] (and one of the reasons I want a select committed appointed, rather than doing impeachment through judiciary, is that Pelosi can put whoever she wants to on a select committee, and they can pass their own rules for proceding, and would not have to worry about the GOP idiots like Collins and Gomert and Gaetz gumming up the works. The GOP can’t force the tempo to be faster, but if impeachment is done through the judiciary committee, they can do a lot of mischief)
Agree. She’s doing the calculus and waiting in the weeds, like a leopard watching for the right moment to reveal itself and pounce. She’s successfully pulled this off before, most notably with passing the ACA against enormous odds.
My guess is that she’s fully on board with impeachment, when the time is right. Since Republicans are screeching every minute how the crazy Democrats are salivating for vengeance, she’s playing it cool until she knows they can succeed.
Either way works in the Democrats’ favor. If they continue to investigate and expose the crimes of the trump mob, it makes him look worse every day and he continues to decompensate in plain view, while reporters force every Republican to defend him. If Dems actually make solid legal cases for impeachment, they will file the specific articles for which they now hold incontrovertible proof. Hopefully this will happen during the thick of the election season, for maximum harm to Republicans.
For us maybe, but the rest of the public isn’t tuned in the way we are. Impeachment is a gun with one bullet. If you fire too soon, you’ll miss and ruin your chance. There’s no reason this can’t wait a couple of months. I’m pretty sure the evidence against Trump will snowball from here to the point where even Senate Republicans in the reddest states will have trouble dismissing it.
Of course they would. Do you think they care whether the Congressional committee is calling it an investigation or an impeachment hearing? You’ve seen the Republican response to everything: deny, obstruct, stonewall, litigate.
This is what the half of us are saying. Removing Trump from office is a practical problem, and a very dire one. It has nothing to do with what’s emotionally satisfying in the moment; it has nothing to do with what’s ethical or just.
Now, others say if you impeach you’ll bring people along. I don’t personally see why you wouldn’t bring people along with investigations first on a variety of subjects—there’s certainly no lack with Trump’s history. Will it “demoralize the base”? Well, base, once and for all—the votes aren’t there to convict and remove. We risk a backfire effect that reelects him. Bear with us just for a bit, and for Christ’s sake vote for the Democrat who gets the most votes in the primaries. That’s really not a lot to ask. We’ll impeach and remove if that’s in any way possible. Right now 2020 looks like the safest path. Stay tuned.
The previous announcement does not reflect the views of station management. It only reflects mine.
I disagree. Using oversight is less effective at getting information. And politically, its going to be a disaster.
Oversight is supposed to have a legislative function. Trump is accusing Democrats of using oversight to go after him personally – and right now, he’s right about that (he’ll lose his argument in court eventually, because as long as there is the flimsiest of legislative pretexts, the courts will not intervene on Trump’s behalf – but in any event, the courts will slow walk any oversight related case.)
And every time someone argues that there is not enough support for impeachment yet, they are making Trumps case for him – that this is about nothing but politics, and an effort to overturn the election,
nd everytime someone says that “we need more evidence”, they are saying that the evidence we already have is inconclusive – essentially affirming the GOP argument that Mueller report does NOT show obstruction of justice.
Ok. IANAL - does the constitution require that oversight be pursued in the form of articles of impeachment? Investigations now to support articles later are insufficient?
The courts might move quickly, but it might not be a decision we like when the court fight reaches this particular Supreme Court. Because that can’t be guaranteed, I think there is an argument for seeing how far we can get with oversight first (which will also have to move through the courts).
I’m no legal scholar, but as an amateur opinion… I think there may actually be a better chance of a good SCOTUS result if the case is made for normal Congressional oversight, vs. the more politically loaded impeachment.
For a long time I felt the same way. Impeachment without removal would be construed as a “victory” and the trumpers/Repubs have never been shy about spiking the football. Alternatively, if he is impeached and removed from office, Pence will just pardon him, a la Gerry Ford. No consequence.
So, my current position is that the best route is continue investigations, exposing crimes and making the case for prosecution after he is voted out. Keep the evidence of his crimes on the front pages every day. Make Republicans answer over and over again about why they support him. Do this right up to election day. Then, when he loses and a Dem president is inaugurated, issue the indictments, slap on the cuffs and take him away.
Excuse me, Speaker Pelosi, but doesn’t a consistent refusal to co-operate with House investigations warrant impeachment all by itself?
How is the House supposed to investigate the President if he orders everyone in the executive branch to illegally ignore subpoenas and refuse to co-operate?
“Oversight” and “Impeachment” are two separate and distinct powers of congress.
“Impeachment” powers are derived directly from Article 1, section 2 of the constitution. “Oversight” on the other hand, is an extrapolation of the legislative powers found in Article 1, sections 1 and 8 (primarily).
In other words, the “oversight” powers exist solely to facilitate Congress’ exercise of its legislative functions, such as passing and revising laws, and making appropriations. Theoretically, absent a legislative function, there is no “oversight” power – in practical terms, the courts have chosen not to question the use of oversight powers as long as even the flimsiest pretext of “legislative need” is presented.
It should also be noted that the constitution forbids “bills of attainder” (art i section 9) which are essentially criminal trials done through legislative means. By extropolating from that (much the same way we extrapolate “oversight” and “executive privilege”) we can see that the founders did not want Congress to use its legislative powers to investigate criminal conduct with the purpose of punishing the wrongdoing.
In other words, the constitution provides congress the powers associated with impeachment to address “high crimes and misdemeanors” by public officials. Congress should not be in the business of investigating criminal conduct with a view toward punishment outside of the impeachment process.
Impeachment is the only Constitutional check available for removing a lawless President for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Pelosi’s strategy seems to be to slow-walk endless investigations until she can claim it is too close to the next election to impeach Trump. Sten Hoyer has already said as much.
The junior Senator from Vermont has dismissed impeachment proceedings, too. He’s the purported “front-runner” for the Presidential nomination of the party that he chooses to use to his advantage every 4 years. Where’s your criticism of this particular career politician?
Impeachment doesn’t remove the lawless President without conviction in the Senate. That is going to require 20 Republican votes. I would sooner bet on the Orioles to win the World Series.
it doesn’t provide additional tools so much as strengthens the existing tools – including increasing the likelihood of expedited review of cases by the Supreme Court.
This is important, because the Courts really don’t like to get involved in inter-branch disputes, and are likely to slow walk any cases brought by congress under oversight powers against the executive or vice versa.
For instance, the Mazar case is pretty frivolous, except that does have one unique aspect that would allow the courts to avoid making a decision right away. That aspect is the use of oversight powers to investigate a President. While there is abundant court precedent allowing congress to investigate private citizens under the flimsiest of legislative pretexts, those powers are exercised in the absence of alternatives for Congress to use.
However, in the Mazar case, Congress does have the option of using its impeachment power but has chosen instead to use “oversight” without (in the subpoena itself) citing even a flimsy legislative pretext.
IMHO, this argument would be sufficient to allow the courts to avoid making a summary judgment against Trump, which is all that Trump is really after here.
