WASHINGTON – For the third time U.S. history, the House of Representatives will vote on the impeachment of a president after the House Judiciary Committee approved two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Friday.The committee voted along party lines to approve both impeachment articles following a marathon hearing that went late into Thursday evening.The articles – one on President Donald Trump's alleged abuse of power and the other on obstruction of Congress during the impeachment inquiry -- were both approved in separate votes by a 23-17 margin with Democrats for and Republicans against.
What are your predictions? I think the House Democrats will make the vote on the best day for their primaries to make the best political use of something they know will fail in the Senate, and they will impeach on a party-line vote. But I'm sleep-deprived at the moment, so you shouldn't listen to me.
How about you? What do you think will happen next?
9 comments:
I thought it was "abuse of Congress" and "obstruction of power." I'm almost certain those are the phrases that made it out of the focus group.
Or was it "abuse of obstruction" and "power of Congress"?
How would you like to have to figure out what witnesses would shed light on whatever the heck these are?
From America's Paper of Record:
Trump's Popularity Surges After Nation Learns He May Have Obstructed Congress
It sounds like Senate Majority Leader McConnell and Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham have decided that drama is bad, and is going to kill this as quickly as it hits the Senate. Which is a kindness to the Democratic plotters, as far as I can tell; it may be gentler on the Republic, but it misses an opportunity to expose the game for what it is.
That said, I have heard it is best to be magnanimous in victory.
I don't know--today McConnell seems to be signaling he wants a trial and acquittal.
I have to admit I don't relish having to argue for the rest of my life that the Senate covered up the charges. They seem like garbage to a degree surprising even for this particular House leadership, but if they're dismissed, we'll never hear the end of it.
And yet it's hard to get past the problem that neither "abuse of power" nor "obstruction of Congress" is even remotely a crime, nor are the predicate acts, to the extent we can decipher what they are now that "bribery" failed the most recent focus group test.
We need a long drawn out trial, otherwise more papers are going out of business and I sure don't those people getting hired by my employer.
Not to mention that there are a handful of senators who'd do well to be bottled up in Senate hearings for a while. I just hope the Senate leadership will recess from time to time to approve more judicial nominees.
What I think WILL happen:
The Republican leadership in the Senate (goaded on by Mitt the Mutton-headed and the other never-trumpers that pervade the scene in DC) will manage to rescue the Democrats from what could turn out to be the mother of all own goals. Republican swamp denizens will congratulate themselves on their good sportsmanship - and for once again proving their independence from that awful man, Trump - while the Democrats will go back to plotting with their allies in the deep state to destabilize any and all of Trump's acts as President.
What I would like to see happen:
After a brief statement explaining that the articles appear to be wholly without legal or constitutional basis, Senate leadership (I'm particularly looking at you, Mr. Graham), will explain that the record of the House's actions contains numerous instances of dubious procedural moves that raise all sorts of serious due process questions.
Therefore - in order to be sure the Senate's consideration does not contribute to the violation of anyone's due process - they are going to table the two articles of impeachment for the time being, and investigate these concerns about how the House got to this point. Then they recall every witness, including every witness that House Republicans wanted to call. They ask every question that Schiff wouldn't allow. They allow effective cross examination of all witnesses. In addition to investigating the House's garbage procedure, the Senate also shines light on the underlying facts of the Ukraine situation (including the Biden family's involvement), and the failure of key State Department personnel to acknowledge the President's role in foreign policy.
Only then, after shining a light on all of the Democrats' sordid shenanigans, the Senate leadership will send the articles back to the House, asking them to reconsider in light of the corrected record.
When it's all over with, no one in their right mind will be able to pretend that the Democrats aren't stinking rats of the worst kind.
(Who am I kidding? It will still be all Orange-man-bad, all the time).
What should happen is a prompt, efficient trial, wherein the defendant/defense team calls its witnesses, and clear the case. Shouldn't take more than a week of half-days, with the other half given over to actual legislation and confirmations. Provide the stark contrast between walking and chewing gum and merely yapping about walking and chewing gum. Regarding witnesses declining to produce themselves for testimony, there's no need to negotiate with them over their appearance: Jurney v MacCracken provides all the mechanism needed to produce reluctant witnesses.
To dismiss the charges without a trial would only smack of Republican partisanship. There's no need for Republicans--even Romney--or Conservatives to lower themselves into the Progressive-Democrats' behavioral or political sewers.
As for magnanimity, that only works on those with honor or the potential for honor. The product of the current crop of Progressive-Democrats needs to be quickly stomped down into a film of goo scumming the swamp, along with any Progressive-Democrats who hold onto that product.
Magnanimity for these can be sufficiently produced by then moving on without looking back; what was perpetrated, having been adequately answered, needing no further attention.
Eric Hines
I haven’t researched this in detail but I did find this document which purports to be the 26 rules governing impeachment trials.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-RIDDICK-1992/pdf/GPO-RIDDICK-1992-69.pdf
After skimming it, I’m still not entirely sure what is and isn’t possible legally but logically it seems to me there would be 3 possible avenues for the Senate:
1) Let the Articles of Impeachment languish in the inbox (in other words, ignore them). Based on Rule III, this may not be possible.
2) Vote to convict or not as soon as the Articles hit the inbox (no trial, witnesses, speeches, etc.). I’m not clear on whether this is possible under the rules but it may be.
3) Hold a trial then vote.
I’d prefer 2 (assuming it’s possible under the rules governing impeachment trials). I understand the desire to push back, present the other side, show up those who lied or spun - but I think people are pretty much sick of this whole thing. I’d like to see the Senate Republicans explain that just because the Democrats (or the House) wasted 3 years and tens of millions of dollars on this nonsense doesn’t mean the Republicans (or the Senate) have to waste still more time and money. Say there is a Presidential election in less than a year and the voters can decide for themselves whether the President should stay or go - they don’t need the Congress making that decision for them. Then vote.
As for the argument that it would be great to tie up some Democratic Presidential candidates with impeachment hearings to keep them off the campaign trail, I disagree. They seem to spend most of their campaign time either shooting themselves in the foot (feet?) or shoving those feet in their mouth(s).
Post a Comment