House Panel Approves Of Impeachment Inquiry Procedures | Talking Points Memo

[theamericanist]

@becca656

But will the House be able to control the monkeys in the circus?

Haven’t you noticed you’re one of the organ grinders? (to mix analogies, or metaphors, or images: whatever that is)

1. Impeachment does not mean that either the House, nor individual Reps, want the President removed.

2. Nor does an impeachment inquiry require that the House vote to send the issue to the Senate for a trial. (And even if it did: when? Recall that the Rs moved to impeach Clinton immediately before the 1998 election, when Ds gained seats, unusual for a second-term President. Then they put him on trial, after what amounted to a public repudiation of their prosecution.)

3. Nadler’s plan seems to be based on the quaint notion of gathering evidence and establishing facts.

@paul_lukasiak

noticed that not only was Art 1, Sec 2, Clause 5 not mentioned, but “Article 1” was not mentioned in the non-quoted text of the resolution either (i.e. the phrase “Article 1” only appears within quotations from other documents.)

4. Did you have a point?

[paul_lukasiak]

@theamericanist

You know what optics are for ? Clarity.

the original definition of “optics” is that optics is the science of light. Its not “for” anything.

in a political context, optics means" the way in which an event or course of action is perceived by the public."
"

@khyber900

There is no ambiguity (at least to me) that there is in fact an impeachment inquiry underway.

Do you think the judge in the Grand Jury materials case is going to find this sufficient to rule that a “judicial process” is underway.(as in “preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding”)

[thunderclapnewman]

@paul_lukasiak

perhaps because it isn’t really happening.

What a bunch of happy horseshit.

It is not required by the Constitution or by the rules of the House to mention a known fact in creating an impeachment investigation.

You’re not nearly as bright as you have convinced yourself that you are.

[theamericanist]

@paul_lukasiak

optics means" the way in which an event or course of action is perceived by the public."
"

LOL – as noted, you really shouldn’t try to make a distinction when it doesn’t make a difference.

I noted the purpose of optics is clarity. I commend the practice of seeking clarity to you.

[thunderclapnewman]

@theamericanist

Did you have a point?

He does, but if he combs his hair just right it doesn’t show very much.

[becca656]

Well, aren’t you just a ray of sunshine.

At no time did I ever suggest that I was in favor of impeachment. I have always been in favor of the hearings with the proper legal documentation so that subpoenas needed to get to the truth can’t be ignored. I want the hearings so that the truth comes out. I want the documents so that the truth comes out. I’ve never said differently.

So what was your point?

[thunderclapnewman]

Collins is dead wrong—as usual—and Hoyer is just unhappy because he sees Nadler stealing his thunder.

This is an official impeachment inquiry, which doesn’t require a full House vote to begin.

[theamericanist]

@becca656

So what was your point?

That you argue without meaning, as in that post.

1. There is a solid argument that clothing an inquiry with the Constitutional authority of impeachment creates force.

2. The observation that I made (per Barbara Jordan in 1974) is that this is distinct from removing a President from office.

Strive to keep up.

[becca656]

Like I said - a ray of sunshine. Good day, sir.

[midnight_rambler]

@theamericanist

I respect Pelosi’s political skills, so I’m not prepared to say she’s wrong in what she’s doing. I think I understand it (and to the extent I do understand, I disagree), but I’m not certain she doesn’t see something I don’t, particularly about marginal districts Ds want to win next year.

My suspicion is that she can’t see the forest for the trees - she’s so laser-focused on holding on to the marginal House seats that she doesn’t want to do anything with a hint of risk, even though it would be likely to drive down the broader popularity of both Trump and Republicans in general and thereby benefit those seats. She still has a lot of the 90s/00s Democratic mindset.

[theamericanist]

@becca656

Like I said - a ray of sunshine

Sunshine is the paradigm for illumination.

As noted: strive to keep up.

[theamericanist]

@midnight_rambler

She still has a lot of the 90s/00s Democratic mindset.

Those would be the years where Democrats won the White House in 1992 and 1996, won the popular vote in Y2k, and the White House again in 2008? Even if you discount W’s selection and 2004, that’s still 3 for 5.

You were saying?

[Akimbo]

The only question I have is a legal one: Has the House given the Judiciary Committee enough authority to conduct their investigation in the eyes of the court?

Will the court recognize this as preliminary to a judicial proceeding and grant them access to Grand Jury material and the ability to compel witness testimony without significant delay?

[tpr]

I’m pleased to see this happening so swiftly after the end of recess.

Here’s hoping Nadler is ready to play hardball with intransigent agencies and courts. Neos on “both” “sides” have spent 20 years empowering the Executive at the expense of Congress. That is a lot of inertia to overcome.

[theamericanist]

@Akimbo

Has the House given the Judiciary Committee enough authority to conduct their investigation in the eyes of the court?

This is part of what I mean about the Speaker’s skills – suppose the Judiciary Committee wants something specific, which the court refuses cuz after all, they’re only a Committee in one half of the Congress.

I can see various ways (involving the specific framing of what they are asking to see, e.g., evidence of money laundering or corrupt deals regarding Trump making money off the taxpayer) in which a vote of the whole House to cloth the inquiry with the Constitutional authority of impeachment would be a damned tough vote for Rs, since it would be seen as a direct attempt to cover for Trump: cuz it would be.

That’s what optics are for, after all: clear focus.

The most important political question in any poll is some variation on: Cares about people like me.

A vote to allow Trump to hide financial documents would not send that message for House Republicans.

[thunderclapnewman]

@Akimbo

The only question I have is a legal one: Has the House given the Judiciary Committee enough authority to conduct their investigation in the eyes of the court?

There is nothing inherent in a full House vote that gives the investigations any additional weight with the federal courts.
There are assumptions about the process, but nothing statutory or constitutional.

[theamericanist]

@thunderclapnewman

nothing statutory or constitutional.

Wrong.

There is I suppose an unresolved question about just how far the Constitutional authority to impeach would go, but there is no doubt that an impeachment inquiry by the House is far more powerful under the Constitution than a generic claim of executive privilege by the President. That’s an unequivocal lesson from Watergate.

[jtx]

Not in this context, it is for show.

[Akimbo]

@thunderclapnewman

There is nothing inherent in a full House vote that gives the investigations any additional weight with the federal courts.
There are assumptions about the process, but nothing statutory or constitutional.

I think that was my point as well. When I read what the resolution says, I think it says the House gave the Judiciary Committee the ability to do what they needed to act without consulting the House in full.

I’m not a lawyer though. Nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

[theamericanist]

@jtx

Not in this context, it is for show.

As I noted: The most important political question in any poll is some variation on: Cares about people like me.

A vote to allow Trump to hide financial documents would not send that message for House Republicans.