Not quite as sure a bet when weighing Madam Speaker against the collective intelligence of Reps. Cicilline Raskin, Neguse, and Cohen. And those are only the four whom this article points out as speaking up. In other words, you presented a false choice.
1 Like
Probably through the Sergeant-at-Arms, but I prefer fines. $25-50K per day, for the first week, increasing thereafter at the rate of $25K per day, per week. Although that has the difficulty of needing court enforcement.
1 Like
You do understand that there are 17 judges on the DC Circuit, right?
Unless youâre suggesting that Garland as CJ has special powers? Thatâs possible, but only a trip to the court rules would dispose of the question.
1 Like
May I suggest you research the intersection between Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) and impeachment proceedings.
For starters.
1 Like
Man, that strategy worked greeeeeat in 2016! For sure, letâs try that again!
Please, FSM, no.
1 Like
Extraordinarily predictable wagon circling.
Like it or not, delivery is important, at least when facing the public. Willful blindness wonât make it go away.
By becoming the Democratic incumbent in San Francisco. Only takes one term. Line up some donors, youâre pretty much set.
Seriously? Her delivery has anything to do with this? Nobody, nobody is disputing her backroom skills.
As detailed above: No.
1 Like
MeanwhileâŚ
The same Pulitzer-Prized investigative reporter in MO who brought to light the repressive Debtor Prison Fees directed at the poor in our state is now challenging suburban woman voters to examine what else the GOP has in store for them and their children in the upcoming legislative sessions if they continue to vote Pro-Life Republican propaganda instead of for their families.
Itâs good to sometimes keep your eye on the ball instead of chasing after clown cars like Trump has the House doing right now. There is a time and place for everything. Donaldâs rightful place will be in grand juries after we convince voters that they need to think of themselves for a change instead of looking at the Dull (and Dumber) Hanging Object that Putin has put in front of them.
first of all, why not?
but the reason Iâd like to see at least one article of impeachment passed early on is that it reinforces the idea that the House is engaged in a âjudicial processâ. The idea is to draw as many parallels to Grand Jury proceedings as possible. In this case, the the analogy is to a grand jury that issues a (sealed) indictment, but continues to investigate that specific matter because it feels there is more evidence available, and may wish to issue a superceding indictment.
ANd I agree that there are dozens of potential articles â but IMO the initial effort should be limited to the Mueller probe and issues arising from it. That would include Trumpâs financial crimes and those of his family â because Trump made it clear that he did not want Mueller looking into his businesses â an effort to obstruct/impeded the investigaton that demands further investigation itself.
But I wouldnât include stuff like putting kids in cages, the Muslim ban, etc in an initial âarticles of impeachmentâ rollout. Focus is important.
1 Like
I was asking if the Chief Judge has special powers. Believe it or not, I donât think i know EVERYTHING! 
I think that Pelosiâs problem as a public speaker is because she has no clue how to communicate in the modern media environment. She is used to having her pronouncements âmediatedâ .
Pelosi will speak for five minutes, making sure that everyone get credit and that no one gets offended, going off topic and coming back every few clauses, and reporters would boil it down to âPelosi Announced A Floor Voteâ. Everyone was happy because each of their concerns was acknowledged in her statement â and the reporters stripped away all that crap and reported on the substance.
That doesnât work anymore. It comes off as (and is) word salad when she stands in front of micophones â and whatever message she was trying to convey is completely lost.
Well for 1 and 2, you point to the evidence uncovered during the Impeachment Hearings and use the Republicans naked partisanship as an angle to attack those Senators up for re-election.
Just because you are having Impeachment Hearings doesnât mean you need to vote to Impeach immediately. You can use the attention they draw to highlight evidence to all those folks who normally canât be bothered to pay attention.
1 Like
Bullshit.
Nixon was impeached (and resigned) because of a single piece of evidence â the smoking gun tape. That tape convinced GOP congresscritters and Senators that Nixon had to go, so they went to Nixon and told him that he had two choices â resign or be impeached.
In other words, Nancy Pelosi is lying about history to advance her own agenda.
Compared to Trump and the Russia betrayal, watergate was a pillow fight.
But most crucially, back in 1974, information was mediated by a few large newspapers and three television networks. It was this environment that told the American people that the Watergate cover-up was important â that it was a crime. By framing the story as a criminal cover-up, the minute there was âsmoking gunâ evidence that Nixon led that cover-up, it was over for Nixon.
We are in an entirely different information environment. What worked in 1974 will not work today. And only someone as old, privileged, and oblivious as Nancy Pelosi is incapable of recognizing this simple, obvious fact.
- This is a bad question. But assuming that the Democrats are not idiots (and this occurs before the 2020 elections) if the Senate does not vote to convict, Trump loses the election, and the Senate Majority is returned to the Democrats.
Thatâs because the Democrats donât have to send articles of impeachment to the Senate until they are damned good and ready, and theyâve gotten enough evidence to convince the American people that Trump has to go. When Democrats send articles of impeachment to the Senate, it will be to put the Senate itself on trial in the eyes of the American public.
- although there are no guarantees, theoretically it is stronger.
Thatâs because a subpoena issued under impeachment is derived from a different part of the constitution than âregularâ supoenas. There are two highly relevant court cases here
The first is US v Nixon (aka the 'watergate case). In that case, the Supreme Court found that executive privilege does not apply when subpoenas are issued to acquire evidence in criminal judicial proceedings. (some people will argue that impeachment is not a judicial proceeding, but most experts disagree).
The second is US v Holder (and US v Lynch) aka the Fast and Furious case. In that case, a district court found that executive privilege gives way when congress is in pursuit of âwrong doingâ in the executive branch. But again there are caveats â while the case was affirmed by an appeals court, it never reached the supreme court.
Again, there are no guarantees â but one thing is certain. Using âimpeachmentâ canât hurt a caseâs chances in court.
- Lawfare is correct. While the current rules of the Senate seem to compel a trial, there are probably ways to get around that (mostly having to do with scheduling⌠for example, an impeachment would be considered ânew businessâ and McConnell gets to decide in what order ânew businessâ is considered). And Senate rules can be âreinterpretedâ or changed in ways that could prevent a trial from proceeding.
âŚ
1 Like
Since she never stated that keeping Cummings happy, Iâm wondering where you got that one. As I understand her statement she sees benefit in multiple committees investigating him nowârather than single-threading it to just one.
Yesterdayâs win was significant. Just wait and see. Three cheers for Amit Mehta
Or stringing out until closer to the election so that the vast majority of people who donât care right now will have it on their radar.
If 2018 hadnât flipped the house NONE of the oversight would be happening. If 2020 looses the house, there are no checks and balances. Keeping the house is really important IMO. Far, far, far beyond what anyone on this board have realized. The constitution wonât go away if Impeachment hearings donât start until November or December. In the meanwhile, more and more articles can be assembled.
I for one am glad that this process is in experienced hands and not in the hands of hot-heads.
Pelosi and crew arenât going against just donald, they are facing his enablers who are much smarter and more powerful than donald could dream.
Even thinking that Mueller would push the impeachment step forwardâŚnot so sure he isnât supporting donald âŚFrom WaPo:
By Barrâs account, Mueller said in that call that âhis concern was not the accuracy of the statement of the findings in my letter, but that he wanted more out there to provide additional context to explain his reasoning and why he didnât reach a decision on obstruction.â
So does that mean that Mueller supports the accuracy of Barrâs statement of the findings? How stupid is Barr to lie about something that can be easily provable? Heâs a pretty slick lawyerâŚso there is something there that isnât just a flat out lie as we all are seeing Barrâs statements.
A lot more could/can be lost than won if this isnât handled well IMO and jumping on the impeachment train too early wouldnât be the best way to handle it IMO.
Thank you, as always, for sharing.
its usually best if you read the article before coming into the comments section about it. If you had read the article, you would have read THISâŚ
âYou want to tell Elijah Cummings to go home?â she asked, referring to the House Oversight Committee chairman.
Yes, but in the meantime, the narrative is, âWill there or wonât there be impeachment?â If the House launches an impeachment investigation, the narrative will be impeachment. On one side, Donnie as victim, and on the other side, âImpeach the bastard!â
Few will be paying sufficient attention to policy changes that are desperately needed to turn away from the continuing destruction of our country and its institutions. Most citizens, excepting Trump cult members, want change in areas that affect their lives. In a sense, Trump already owns the narrative. To me, that is unfortunate.
1 Like
Nothing substantive is going to be done policy wise with Senate and Presidency in the hands of the Republican party, not with the current rot in the Republican party anyway. If we want progress in those areas the rot needs to be exposed and excised. Impeachment hearings will directly expose that rot in the case of the Presidency, and their reaction to the hearings will indirectly expose it in the case of the Senate.
1 Like
-
The conduct for which the House voted to impeach him are done, at least as far as impeachment goes. It would be possible to impeach him again on different charges, but the the political will to do would extremely low. Not being convicted in the Senate does not however, remove jeopardy from criminal charges after he leaves the White House.
-
The Courts tend to view subpoenas issued as part of an impeachment proceeding as much more vital, and are less likely to strike down, as well as more likely to expedite any challenges to them. Challenges on things like executive privilege are also viewed as less strong in such cases. So in short, it has to do with how the Courts view those subpoenas and the subsequent challenges.
-
We would be into new territory, as the article you linked indicated. However, IMO, its extremely doubtful that McConnell would refuse to hold trial, given that he knows he has the votes to insure a âNoâ verdict. Any changes to the Senate rules or outright refusal puts himself and every republican in the Senate in a terrible place ahead of the 2020 election. Because, even if people donât want Trump impeached, there would be loud and across the board support for holding the trial. And if the GOP refused to hold the trial, then loses the Senate (probably by very large margins), the trial takes place with a Democratic majority and much chastened GOP minority. (assuming Trump isnât voted out, of course).
So in essence, #1 and #3 are both largely political issues, and are played out by public opinion. Which is decidedly not in Trumpâs favor.
1 Like
The impeachment narrative is already out there, has grown significantly after the semi release of the Mueller report, and will continue to grow pretty much until an impeachment trial or the November elections.
And while many of our pick ups in 2018 came from people running first on issues like healthcare, I think it is extremely unwise to say that there was never an anti-Trump component to those results. No Democrat ran on âI will not impeach the Presidentâ. Indeed, none ran on âI will do everything I can to work with the Presidentâ. There is a huge underlying anti-Trump sentiment out there among voters. We have to run FOR something (positive policy positions) and AGAINST Trump. For Me, impeachment falls squarely into both of those campsâŚwe have to be FOR our Constitution and holding people who violate it accountable. And we have to be AGAINST Trump.
3 Likes