Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by nosborne48, Dec 10, 2019.

  1. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member it a pointless exercise for political gain? Or is the House performing its sworn constitutional duty? And what are the chances of conviction and removal?
  2. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Absolutely. But one that will potentially backfire on the Democrats.


    Zero. And what I meant by the above is that it may fire up Trump's supporters by making him look persecuted.
  3. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Congress isn't necessarily performing its "sworn Constitutional duty," since it has the power to impeach, but also the choice not to impeach.

    No matter what the president has done, and no matter what evidence is raised, the Senate will not convict to remove him. Zero chance.

    Therefore, there is either a political advantage to the Democrats to impeach him (and to keep it narrow and to do it now), or it is futile folly. The argument is which one it is.

    (I think there is a political advantage to continued investigations as long as new evidence is revealed (or pried loose by the courts) and witnesses are brought (or ordered) to testify. But that's not what the Democrats have planned, so I don't get it. But Nancy Pelosi has proven to be a highly effective foil since she regained the gavel, so we'll see.)

    Impeachment is a political process conducted by politicians in a political context with a political outcome. Those seeking justice through it are barking up the wrong tree.
    SteveFoerster likes this.
  4. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    I've been thinking that it's just something to try to use against him in the next election. Will it work? I think that the people who voted for him before will vote for him again, regardless of the findings.
  5. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    I have never seen the kind of stability in Presidential approval/disapproval polls that we have had with this President. Not just stable, the percentages are actually rigid. I don't think either party will gain any advantage at all from the impeachment process; it just doesn't seem to matter. Nothing seems to matter.
  6. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    I agree, and with more enthusiasm now that he's being so openly persecuted by those dastardly coastal elites.
  7. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    That choice is influenced by whether the guy is guilty. Or at least should be.

    I think House Dems do perform their Constitutional duty, whether they think it benefits them politically or not. Doing the right thing while expecting a revard is still doing right, not wrong. SOMEONE should act as if limits to official conduct still exist - even if that action is just symbolic.

    Correct. But let them go on record with this.

    One thought: Trump got caught trying to swiftboat Biden. The cheapscate couldn't even pay for his own swiftboaters; tried to outsource it to a third world country using taxpayer money. Impeachment process makes it less convenient to continue smearing Biden; it'll look more blatantly self-serving.
  8. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Senator McConnell is toying with the idea of a quick up or down vote on conviction. I read an interesting analysis this morning where the writer says that it is the job of the House to marshal the evidence and put the case together. The Senate merely decides if it's enough to convict and if so, what the sanction should be. I don't think there's any law saying how the Senate performs its duties except that the constitution says that the Senate has the sole power to try impeachments and "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." which suggests to my mind a formal legal-type trial instead of the usual floor vote.

    The role of the Chief Justice is interesting, too. The Vice President generally is the President of the Senate so one might have thought that he would preside over this most important function but the conflict of interest was evidently obvious even to the 18th century political mind. That aside, what, exactly, does the Chief Justice do? Can McConnell really decide what votes should be taken and when or is that up to the Chief Justice? Can the Chief Justice direct a verdict if, as a matter of law, there isn't enough evidence to convict? Should there be a prosecution team and a defense team with cross examination and argument? Are Senators afforded the chance to speak or are they treated as traditional jurors? I don't know. There have been just two trials of Presidents in the Senate, Johnson and Clinton, but I think there have been several other impeachment trials, mostly of federal judges, as well.

    Interesting stuff!
    heirophant likes this.
  9. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

  10. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    The Senate decides all of that by majority rule. It can even over-rule the Chief Justice by the same.

    The Senate can decide to have a trial as you describe, or it can have a full-blown trial, or something in between. Each citizen will have to decide for him/herself whether or not what the Senate does is fair, sufficient, etc.
  11. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    One thing is well established. There is no judicial review so whatever the Senate does is all there is.
  12. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    Everything I've heard indicates that McConnell plans to keep things short and sweet. I think the most the Democrats can hope for is to force a vote on every decision so that each Senator has to go on record for their decisions on all these procedural issues. Smells like whitewash to me.
  13. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

  14. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    The Republicans have been on record regarding the Senate trial for some time now. I don't think anyone expects anything other than a party-line acquittal.

    In the Clinton impeachment trial, no new witnesses testified, although a few were deposed and the tapes of those depositions were played. The difference this time is that there are material witnesses the White House is blocking from testifying, as well as documentary evidence the White House is refusing to relinquish.
  15. chrisjm18

    chrisjm18 Well-Known Member

    Trump: Don't call me orange. I'm peach (Impeach).
  16. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch, The House and Senate are dutifully passing various acts which the President quietly signs to, among other things, keep the government functioning. Did we really NEED this sideshow? :rolleyes:
  17. copper

    copper Active Member

    My prediction is a couple Democrat Senators will vote with the Republicans for acquittal as well, therefore technically a bi-partisan acquittal. Senators are typically more stable (less emotional) in their judgements than congressmen but who knows??
  18. heirophant

    heirophant Well-Known Member

    Sen. Joe Manchin, D - W.Va., almost certainly will. I expect that several others will too, particularly those from red states who were elected as well-regarded local sons and daughters on rather populist platforms (champions of the common working man and woman in opposition to the greedy corporate Republican fat-cats) and on pledges to the voters that they wouldn't let themselves become tools of the national left-wing democratic social-agendas. They find themselves in a very uncomfortable position.

    If they vote for impeachment, they still won't get the Senate anywhere near the 2/3'ds majority needed to remove the President and undo the 2016 election (which would require not only democratic unanimity, but also peeling off 1/3 of the Republican Senators, which ain't gonna happen). And voting for impeachment will make their reelection chances in their red states evaporate.

    But if they don't, they will almost certainly face well-funded primary challengers from their left with lots of national media support. Despite the fact that a leftist democratic candidate wouldn't stand a chance in the general election in these red states. So the Republicans would win that way too, by pushing those state democratic parties even farther left. That might put them more in tune with NY and LA, but not so much with their own in-state electorate in the general election.

    I think that all the democrats can realistically hope for with this little bit of political theater (which is all it is) is getting a very slim one or two vote majority for removal in the Senate, that the news media (the propaganda arm of the democratic party) will emblazon all across their front-pages and national news broadcasts, in hopes of portraying the President as fatally damaged even if he wasn't formally removed by 2/3'ds vote. But even achieving that would require preserving democratic unanimity while peeling off a small number of Republicans to join them, which is growing less and less likely every passing day.
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2019
  19. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Bring on the trial; I want to see the Biden’s, (Joe and Hunter), Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Peter Strozk, Lisa Page, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and Robert Mueller (among others) answer questions under oath.

    Pelosi knows this is a death blow to whatever infinitesimal chance the Democrats had in 2020;
  20. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I would be fine with that, provided we add Mulvaney, Johnson, Bolton, Giuliani, and a few others with first-hand knowledge of what did or didn’t happen, along with the evidence the White House is refusing to turn over. I mean, if we’re going to be open about it....

Share This Page