Impeach for the spectacle

[struggle4progress]

By HAL RIEDL
BALTIMORE SUN
MAY 28, 2019 | 6:00 AM

... Trump is the worst president in American history and the most deserving of removal from office ...

By the time the evidence is in during the trial of Mr. Trump, by the time the Republicans are reduced to muttering, spluttering defenders of the indefensible, there may be something approaching the two-thirds needed to convict ...

In 2020 only 12 Democratic Senators are up for re-election, whereas 22 Republican seats are at stake. Even if the two Democrats who are most at risk, Doug Jones of Alabama and Mark Warner of Virginia, are defeated, it will take only six new Democrats to flip the Senate. The “Trial of Trump” will guarantee the outcome.

Congress really has no choice. Donald Trump must be faced down as soon as possible with the ultimate remedy that is available under the Constitution “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” to quote the preamble; and to preserve “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

https://www.courant.com/opinion/op-ed/hc-op-riedl-impeach-trump-0528-20190528-yt5bk42xbjf5rjeh4i7jqfosmy-story.html

[struggle4progress]

1. What's the endgame?

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver is open to impeaching President Donald Trump, but he wants to hear from Special Counsel Robert Mueller before he makes up his mind ...

Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Missouri, voted twice to begin impeachment proceedings when Republicans controlled the U.S. House. Now that Democrats are in charge, the St. Louis lawmaker wants to proceed carefully.

“We need to do everything we can to maintain our majority and not just pursue impeachment for the sake of pursuing it because people don’t like this man,” said Lacy Clay ...

Rep. Sharice Davids, D-Kansas, told reporters last week that she hasn’t discussed the issue with the speaker, amid reports that Pelosi’s cautious approach toward impeachment is meant to protect potentially vulnerable Democrats, such as Davids, who flipped a suburban district from Republican to Democratic last year ...

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article230789014.html

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. What I don't get is the theory that if you impeach

him, what is the evidence that millions of voters will say, "I am going to the polls with the express purpose of voting against candidate x because his/her party impeached?

I am seriously asking. Strikes me that even if there are people like that, there are at least an equal number of Dems who would be more motivated to vote because we at least tried to hold him accountable and stood for what was just and right. In addition, you would just logically have to add in people who may be on the fence but when they hear a cumulative list of crimes in a formal, cogent manner, they would be swayed against reelecting the monster.

[watoos]

8. We need to make decisions based on polls.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

13. Ha! So then the poll question should be:

" if the president was impeached, would you vote against a Democrat because of it only?"

BTW, obvious to me Graham read the Slate article that tells Dems they should impeach with what's in Mueller report only. Because that's exactly what Graham is warning against!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

14. Slate article that probably scared Lindsay

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/congress-subpoena-fight-trump-impeachment-mueller-john-roberts.html

[struggle4progress]

2. Senate Republicans vow to quickly crush impeachment trial

By Lukas Mikelionis | Fox News

... “I think it would be disposed of very quickly,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham told The Hill on the viability of the impeachment process. “If it’s based on the Mueller report, or anything like that, it would be quickly disposed of.”

Other Republicans echoed Graham’s comment. Texas Sen. John Cornyn told the outlet that the impeachment articles passed by the House would lead to “nothing.”

“It would be defeated. That’s why all they want to do is talk about it,” he added, suggesting Democrats are more interested in talking about impeaching Trump than actually trying to do that. “They know what the outcome would be” ...

“Why on earth would we give a platform to something that I judge as a purely political exercise?” Sen. Thom Tillis told The Hill ...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-republicans-vow-crush-impeachment-trump

[watoos]

6. The link is a bit misleading,

Mitch McConnell wouldn't be in charge of the Senate trial, Chief Justice Roberts would preside over the trial.

[StarfishSaver]

9. The Chief Justice would preside, but MCConnell would set the rules and the timetable

McConnell would definitely be in charge.

[watoos]

11. Chief Justice Roberts would rule

on admission of evidence and requests for subpoenas in full view of the public.
This would only be the 3rd time in American history for an impeachment trial, it would command enormous public attention.
The president's lawyers will have to present real arguments, real evidence, and not simply Sean Hannity TV spin.

[StarfishSaver]

12. This is true. But all of his rulings and decisions will have to operate within the parameters

set by McConnell.

Like the presiding judge in any other kind of case, Roberts wouldn't have free rein to operate as he pleases. He'll be bound by the timetables and procedural rules that McConnell prescribes in advance.

So while you're right, Roberts can ensure that the trial isn't a Hannity-style circus, he won't have a lot of control over the timing, format or procedures he will operate within.

And, yes, this would probably garnet a lot of public attention, a lot of it is very dry.

How much do you remember about the Clinton impeachment trial?

[hedda_foil]

15. Roberts would preside but McConnell would be in charge.

In the Clinton trial, Rehnquist was just a figurehead.

[TheBlackAdder]

10. I want all of the dirt exposed. Enough of it and some Republicans might break party lines.

[struggle4progress]

3. History no guide on wisdom of impeachment

PAUL WALDMAN Washington Post

... Right now, though, President Donald Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. — two people who don’t appear particularly fond of each other — seem to be in agreement that if House Democrats were to impeach the president, it would work out well for him ...

But just because that’s what they believe in the White House, it doesn’t mean they’re right — especially this White House, which is not exactly filled with the best and the brightest. There’s a temptation to assume that if the other side is pursuing some kind of counterintuitive strategy, then it must have a good reason, and one shouldn’t fall into its trap.

But here’s the truth: Nobody knows what the political effects of impeachment will be. Not Pelosi, not Trump, not any Democratic or Republican “strategist” you see on cable news, not any pollster, not any elected official, not any political scientist, not any journalist and not your loudmouth uncle. Nobody ...

... Trump thrives on conflict and chaos, so impeachment could be great for him. On the other hand, the idea of impeachment is clearly driving him batty, making it likely that he’ll become increasingly erratic and convince the public that he isn’t fit for the job ...

https://www.wacotrib.com/opinion/columns/guest_columns/paul-waldman-washington-post-history-no-guide-on-wisdom-of/article_8711f406-db78-5680-951c-ba7731bd2643.html

[JHB]

4. K&R

[watoos]

7. Everything is going according to plan,

Have faith, stay the course. The official Democratic agenda per Speaker Pelosi is to keep doing what we're doing. Any arguments to the contrary may be looked upon as bashing Democrats. I've seen the light, trust in Speaker Pelosi.

[PRETZEL]

16. Agree in that I trust Speaker Pelosi

and the route she's taken.

Also, for the most part, she has been pretty tempured in not going against members of her caucus that are calling for impeachment to start now.

I think she, Chairs Nadler, Shiff, Neal, Waters, etc. have a pretty good understanding where the evidence, once it becomes public, will lead.

I really have no objections to letting this play out as it is. For as much as it is, impeachment is at it's core, a political undertaking by which members will have to go to their districts and explain their positions. There's no harm in safe districts leading the charges for immediate impeachment while those in less safe districts can maintain the "wait and see" position.

As we continue to see more and more evidence of both obstruction and stonewalling coming from the administration, public perception will continue to shift and as the level starts going in the Dems direction, those swing districts will follow.

[notinkansas]

17. Pelosi's reasoning makes sense (I guess) but

it really needs to be partnered with a foolproof way to prevent 45 from becoming so unhinged that he is willing to start a war for political expediency. In the past he has expressed the opinion - on more than one occasion - that the way Obama would get reelected is by starting a war. There is no doubt in my mind that he would be willing to send any number of Americans to their deaths if he thought it would help him personally.