Before you spend any more energy criping about Pelosi and impeachment, find out what impeachment is and how it would go.
What people need to understand is that the Senate, i.e., the Republicans, i.e. Mitch McConnell himself, runs the show in the impeachment hearings. It is done by the Senate. They do it. It is them. Not the house.
It is a trial is run by the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding, and the President present the whole time in the front of the room. Trump will be able to call witnesses. Repeat. Trump will be able to call witnesses. McConnell will be able to call witnesses. Repeat. McConnell will be able to call witnesses.
This means that not only will the impeachment fail, but the Republicans in the Senate, led by Mitch McConnell, will basically be putting on Celebrity Apprentice 2.0 staring Donald Trump.
It won’t just be a fail. It will be a multi day show put on and arranged entirely by Trump’s people.
Unless we get to a point where there is the necessary number of Republicans in the Senate to convict, we do not want this to happen. Pelosi is right.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Perhaps it is not about whether impeachment would succeed. Perhaps it is about doing the right thing. Perhaps it is about showing the world that Democrats have principles. What they stand for. Because right now, no one knows.
Perhaps it is about future elections.
A failed impeachment attempt will backfire in a very big way on Democrats in the 2020 elections. The best stance is to not impeach him (you really really really do not want a Pence presidency) but to defeat him in 2020 then indict him and his whole family and abettors.
Roger, I totally agree with you about the role and importance of impeachment.
Unfortunately, the role of this particular impeachment would be a revival of Celebrity Apprentice for reasons stated. This is not about Democrats having principles. This is about Republicans refusing, in all contexts and at all times, to follow normal procedure or be in any way decent, or loyal to their oaths.
True. His positions are in many ways more heinous than Trump’s, yet he has conned people into thinking he’s rational.
The first step to impeachment is to identify an impeachable offense.
We don’t have that yet.
Maybe after the Mueller report.
Even if Trump lied in his interrogatory answers (which we do not know yet), lying under oath wasn’t even in the articles of impeachment against Clinton – so I don’t think that would do it.
Stuff that happened prior to his taking office doesn’t even count (the way I read the constitution).
So what have we really got so far?
Nothing.
Wait and see.
The house is doing the right thing, based on the information they currently have.
Trump is (un)named as a co-conspirator on a felony crime that Cohen is going to jail for. That alone is impeachable, surely?
Impeachment is a vote, anyway, not a criminal trial. Presidents can be convicted of impeachment for basically anything.
LOL
There is no doubt that there are more than enough known offenses to 1) impeach Trump and b) lock him up for the rest of his life once he is out of office and can be easily indicted.
At this moment in history, the United States has a president that every thinking person knows, even if they don’t admit it, will die in prison.
“the way I read the constitution).”
I’ll wait for a real lawyer to weigh in on these issues.
Yes, a push to impeach Trump at this point — as richly deserved as it is — would backfire in a way similar to the attempt to impeach Bill Clinton.
But Speaker Pelosi hasn’t taken impeachment off the table; she has merely deferred it. That is the correct stance.
I agree that impeachment is political and sure the house could vote out articles of impeachment. But as of today – what would they charge him with? It is not as clear as you might think. Even if articles of impeachment were voted out of the house, there are not the votes to convict in the Senate. So I think the house is doing the right thing presently. Which is waiting to see what the Mueller report has in it (if anything).
Maybe Trump will end up in jail – maybe not. We will have to wait and see. So far I have seen nothing he could be charged with criminally.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/trump-felony-michael-cohen-paul-manafort-collusion-payment.html
Yes – Trump wrote a check for legal services and gave it to Cohen after he was president.
But didn’t Cohen do legal services for Trump? It is a little ambiguous what this payment is for – don’t you think?
Even if the payment was a reimbursement (not clear), was the reimbursement an illegal campaign contribution under the FEC rules? Cohen pled guilty and didn’t fight this charge. It is not very clear that Trump has any exposure on this at all.
First, he didn’t pay the money – Cohen did. Cohen was the guy who had the duty to report – not Trump. Trump could say (and probably will) – I figured since Cohen was a lawyer he would report it if required.
Second, he didn’t pay the money back to Cohen until after the election (if that is actually shown). So how could Trump’s payment be a campaign contribution – if it occurred after the election?
Third, was the only purpose for the payment for the campaign or could it have been for similar reasons to all the other stories Trump paid for over the years (to avoid embarrassment)? It is my understanding that if Trump paid for the story for the same reasons as he paid for prior stories, that it is not an FEC violation.
So, basically – this is not the slam dunk your news source makes it out to be.
We will have to wait and see.
I do like your optimism though.
https://www.needtoimpeach.com/impeachable-offenses/
There are massive problems with each and every one of these items.
I guess we will see if the house brings any of these items up for articles of impeachment.
I wouldn’t get my hopes up.
Gotta love the twists liars and apologists for Trump will use to defend him — but, if you agree with his racism, bigotry, embracing nazis and white supremacists, history of sexual assault, etc., you’re pretty low on the decency scale to start with.
dean:
Nobody cares whether you love me or not.
What matters is whether you agree or disagree with my opinion – and why.
Lets say Trump is a racist (you have to prove it) – is that an impeachable offense?
I will help you out – NO!
So all the stuff in your comment is irrelevant.
Say something that is relevant.
Trump calls Mexican immigrants ‘rapists’ and poor nations such as Haiti, El Salvador and Africa in general ‘shitholes’. For heaven’s sake, if this isn’t blatantly racist, elitist and despicable, nothing is. The latter comment should have seen him sacked immediately.
Have to prove it? How effing stupid do you have to be to not look at his history and what he’s saying now and not realize it.
Answer: ricka level stupid, but given your history of not caring about racism (or bigotry, or sexual assault, or support for nazis and white supremacists) that answer is obvious to everyone.
Being a racist is a potentially impeachable offense.
Sorry – but being a racist just doesn’t meet the test of being a high crime or misdemeanor (at least in my opinion). That would be like impeaching someone for being happy or sad or black or white or homosexual or having impure thoughts. Not very likely.
But if you can indict a ham sandwich, perhaps the “right” house could impeach someone for being a racist.
Lets put it this way. I don’t think the house will issue an article of impeachment for being a racist – ever. I don’t think the Senate would convict, even if such an article were ever to issue.
Wouldn’t being a racist disqualify one from being the president of a nation that makes a point through its laws and constitutional amendments of being non-racist? Of course that is just based on logic and may have nothing to do with legality, especially in the case of impeachment based on “high crimes and misdemeanors.” “Misdemeanor” is now considered a kind of minor crime so it seems it was once considered something more.
Nope. I think you might be getting the 14th amendment mixed up with the 1st amendment.
The 14th amendment says (in part) “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
So the State (and the Federal government) have to give people equal protection of the laws. The 1st amendment allows people to be jerks, racists, sexist and even satanists. Even Nazis can have a parade (so ruled by the Supreme Court). That is the 1st amendment.
You are allowed to think whatever you want in America, and it is legal. Just don’t act on your thoughts (shoot people because of their race or religion or sex or national origin) and you will be fine.
As a Brit, I’m always surprised by the level of protection afforded to hate speech by the First Amendment. But whatever. Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion, not being Public Enemy Number One.
Imho Greg and Pelosi are correct. Impeaching Trump at this point will very likely fail for the reasons explained in the OP. So play the long game with the bastard. Then lock him up 🙂
Re: “Nope. I think you might be getting the 14th amendment mixed up with the 1st amendment.”
There was no confusion. The white supremacy movement which was given support by Donald Trump throughout his campaign and even after he was slipped into the presidency despite the popular vote. In what way would such support qualify someone for the presidency of a country which, according to the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law? There is also, of course, the 13th Amendment which (except for penal servitude) which outlawed the race-based enslavement prevalent in several states at the time.
The 1st Amendment prohibits laws “abridging” freedom of speech; it certainly does NOT say that someone’s utterances can’t disqualify him or her from a job. Court decisions have held that it also does not protect someone from legal action in cases of slander, “shouting fire” where there is none — or the equivalent, or “inciting violence,” all of which, arguably, Trump has done.
I note (again) that I am describing a logical point that is not necessarily reflected in actual law, although perhaps it should be.
On a non-political note here: I’ve never heard or seen a phrase like “Don’t cripe on…”.
Is that a one-off or a Minnesota thing?
I am from Minnesota and I have to admit the phrase is new for me also.
I just rolled with it based on context.
???
Cripe –> expression of annoyance?
=======
Also…
“Cripes Miss Wilcox, they’re not guns,’ I said.
No, they’re not Mattie, they’re books. And a hundred times more dangerous.”
— Jennifer Donnelly
======
cripes
interjection
old-fashioned , slang an expression of surprise
Word Origin for cripes
C20: euphemistic for Christ!
Collins English Dictionary
====
Criminy!!!
Yeah, I knew these. I’ve just never seen it used the way Greg has. I’m assuming it’s meant in the same way we’d say (in MI at least) “Don’t rag on …”
I never saw it as a verb.
“It’s all fun and games until someone gets criped…”
Yeah, I guess that’s my point. But — English is nothing if not flexible.
Re: “English is nothing if not flexible.”
Yes, you can even make numerous racist/ethnicist remarks as a candidate and a president without, according to RickA, being a racist/ethnicist. (And I can even coin a new word.)
I know you didn’t intend this about my comment, but just to make it clear to others: By “English is flexible” I meant we have the wonderful ability to use old words in new ways and modify usual syntax as we see fit for a given communication purpose.
I didn’t mean using it (English) to say the types of things the modern right does on a regular basis is a good thing.