The idea of waiting to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate is brilliant

[StarfishSaver]

Among other things, waiting to send them over gives more time for evidence to be gathered of Trump's criminality and allows for a Democratic majority to introduce that evidence into the trial. It will allow time to build more public support for conviction. It also puts some distance between Trump and his Senate enablers, maybe even giving time for some to wake from their fever dreams.

But, perhaps most important is this consideration: While McConnell says he won't take up the impeachment until the 19th or 20th, it is very possible that there is some maneuver he could pull to scuttle a trial altogether. In other words, sending the impeachment to the Senate while the Senate is still under McConnell's control means the House and Democrats in the Senate completely lose control over the process and gives McConnell total control over what happens. Delaying transmission of the Articles takes McConnell completely out of the equation.

As I said, this is brilliant. And probably has McConnell steaming since I have no doubt he was planning to bury this and they just thwarted any ability he has to do it.

[BainsBane]

1. It doesn't get Trump out of office

which I thought was the whole point of this impeachment.

[padah513]

6. McConnell said the Senate

Couldn't take it up until the 19th.

[Gore1FL]

72. The let McConnell be responsible for Trump for the time in between. nt

[StarfishSaver]

78. No!

Being "responsible for Trump" means he has control over the impeachment process - and not just through the 19th, but until the Senate changes hands several days later - and there are several ways he can get the Senate to acquit Trump or even make the trial go away.

He can't be trusted with the impeachment process at all. Pelosi knows that, so she's likely not to give it to him at all.

[Gore1FL]

111. So they are on record supporting sedition.

Either way, it sounds like Trump stays in office until the end. I want that to be on McConnell, not Pelosi.

[StarfishSaver]

8. Trump's not going to be removed no matter when they send the Articles

They could impeach and transmit the Articles this afternoon and it wouldn't make a difference. McConnell has said they're not going to even start a trial until the day he leaves office. And even if they did, this Senate wouldn't convict him.

[BainsBane]

15. Yes, I know McConnell said that

I was hoping pressure could be brought to bear on him.
So what is the point of impeachment now?

[sweetloukillbot]

22. Preventing him from running again

Removing his secret service protection and pension when he leaves office...
Proving once again what a loser he is...

[CousinIT]

34. There is another reason too: for the future, making it clear that inciting a coup against the US...

...will NOT be tolerated without consequence: Impeachment even in the house only does that.

[panader0]

41. hey lou, does that pension and SS protection still get removed if

trump is convicted or not? Even when he's out of office? TIA.

[StarfishSaver]

48. No. The Former Presidents act denies benefits only to presidents who have been removed from office

They may need to fix that to deny benefits to presidents who have been impeached and convicted since, now we see, it is possible to have a president who is so craven and criminal that they need to be impeached at the very end of their term when it's too late to actually remove them from office.

[LiberalFighter]

81. The Senate can't impose as part of the penalty?

[StarfishSaver]

97. No, they can't

The Constitution expressly limits the penalties the Senate may impose to two: 1) removal from office; 2) disqualification from holding future office. They're not allowed to impose any additional penalties as part of the impeachment process.

Congress probably should amend the Former Presidents Act to deny benefits to presidents who have been removed through impeachment. They surely never - and why would they - anticipate such a unique situation as this where a president is impeached att he very end of his term and convicted after he left office.

[Wednesdays]

114. Can he be tried after leaving office?

Wouldn't they consider it a moot issue?

[StarfishSaver]

117. That's not settled law since it's never been done

But my reading of the Constitution is that it is possible.

I think that as long as he was impeached while he was still a sitting president, the Senate can try him, even once he leaves office. I based that on two rationales: 1) one of the punishments the Constitution permits is prospective - disqualification - and can still be imposed after a president has left office; and 2) the founders surely did not intend for an impeached president who committed crimes right up to the end of his term to completely escape punishment and accountability simply because his term ran out before the trial could be held.

[DENVERPOPS]

143. Trump could care less about the pension.

Trump and his spawn and their spouses have already rounded up a TON of Top Secret Classified information, which they can sell to the highest bidder worldwide, once he is no longer in office. It has been the plan of all of their retirement nest egg's all along.
(That, and of course, the sales of Pardons......invite all these idiots into the administration, make them all join in on all the corruption, then force them to pay you off for a get out of jail free card before he and his scum family skips town.....)

All this discussion is fine. But it detracts from really important things going on currently.
I would be completely focused on getting through the next 10+ days right now.

"The people were walking down the jungle path, swatting at the mosquitoes, and were completely oblivious to the herd of charging elephants".......... Pardon the use of the last word.......it seems appropriate.....LOL

[StarfishSaver]

145. True. He can raise that with a couple of emails from his marks

Well, that's if he can manage to get an email account ...

[LisaM]

104. I don't care if he gets a pension and Secret Service protection.

But I care massively whether he can run for office again. If he can't, that will dry up his fundraising channels, among other things.

[StarfishSaver]

107. Yes. One of the reasons to hold a trial in the Senate

And hold off on doing it until there's a possibility of conviction.

[ShazzieB]

113. Agreed, 100,000%

His not being able to run for office again is of paramount importance!

[DENVERPOPS]

144. The way he is living/eating

he probably won't make it to 2024 in all reality.....

[Progressive Jones]

174. I'm pretty sure he'll be prevented from running again, one way or another. nt

[StarfishSaver]

57. This won't take away his protection or pension

That would only happen if he's removed from office.

[CaptainTruth]

127. I'm hearing that could also happen via censure. ???

What I've seen from multiple sources (on social media, none of them sources I consider to be authorities on the subject, so huge grain of salt) is that since there's nothing in the Constitution or (apparently) law guaranteeing benefits to ex-presidents, & nothing in the Constitution or (apparently) law defining exactly what censure consists of, Congress could pass a censure resolution that includes taking away Trump's ex-president benefits. Not sure if it would have to be signed by new President Biden to have any effect? No idea.

Four years ago I never imagined I would get this deep into the "legal weeds," trying to understand obscure processes, Congressional rules, the sometimes convoluted language of Constitutional amendments & how they were later clarified by SCOTUS decisions, etc... but here I am!

[StarfishSaver]

131. No. Censure cannot do it

It has to be done by law. And even if they did pass a new law, it would only apply to future presidents who came into office after the date of the law's passage. It could not be used to retroactively take away the benefits that Trump became entitled to when he was sworn in as president.

[misanthrope]

126. George Wallace couldn't run for governor of Alabama in 1966

So his wife was propped up as a stand-in who easily won election. I would expect the same if Trump were ineligible.

[Aristus]

37. I agree.

If Trump is shut out of running again, it relieves the Republicans of the necessity of being spineless in his presence, and instead gives them the opportunity to be spineless about something else.

[KS Toronado]

77. Interesting insight and true, but if "it relieves the Republicans" would we be helping them?

[Aristus]

79. Yes, but we would also be helping ourselves.

It used to be Republicans were terrified of competent, sensible governance. Now they're terrified of Trump and Trump's lunatic followers.

Get rid of Trump, Trump's family, and any right-wing hope that Trump would ever again hold public office, and the same Republicans who currently line up timidly to kiss his ring will fall back on less cultish things to be timid about.

[wryter2000]

116. That's kind of what I'm wondering

This may be crazy, and I'm not sure I really mean it...but I wonder if him running again might just screw things up for the Republicans. I sure don't want 4 years of Trump, but I don't want 4 years of Cruz, either.

[KS Toronado]

167. Him running again would screw things up for the republiCONs and help our side. IMHO

[StarfishSaver]

170. Be careful. A lot of people thought that same thing in 2015 an 2016

Just saying ...

[mcar]

55. IMPOTUS II will be branded a double loser

[Eyeball_Kid]

138. Were McConnell not supporting Trump,

He’d cancel the recess and await the article, set it on the floor, order the Senate to vote, and be done with it. So his actions speak a ton. He’s SHOWING BY HIS ACTIONS that he’s protecting Trump.

[StarfishSaver]

142. Yup

He could get them back before the 19th if he wanted.

[Happy Hoosier]

13. There is another point to consider.

If convicted, a simple majority vote would bar Trump from ever holding a Federal office again.

That's worth doing.

[dansolo]

46. Not true

There is still the 2/3 requirement to convict. It is the penalty stage proving him from holding any future office that only requires a majority.

[StarfishSaver]

49. HH said that once convicted, it takes a majority to disqualify them. That is correct.

[Happy Hoosier]

58. Yes, I said AFTER conviction for barring from office.

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires conviction for removing privileges granted by Congress.

[gldstwmn]

17. He must be made not to run again.

There will be no library, Trump airport, no monuments for MAGAts to masturbate to. It will affect his legacy in many ways.

[TreasonousBastard]

20. That's part of it, but if its stalled for any reason, it's over, while...

he still can be tried and found guilty with less trouble after the 20th.

At this point, there really is little he can do that can't be stopped and the bigger point is to stop a 2014 run, which a guilty verdict would lead to.

And, after he and his lackeys are out of power, he would have less leverage over those on the fence.

And, keeping him in office for the next 10 days makes it impossible for Pence to pardon him.

[Generic Brad]

84. It is not the only point

We have a House and Senate filled with traitors. This vote will shine a light on all the roaches and make it easier to pressure them out.

[NurseJackie]

112. That would be my hope as well...

... but I do not believe that such a thing would ever happen with Moscow Mitch at the helm. Sad, isn't it?

I do, however, believe that there is a lot of political value in getting the GOP senators on-record with regard to whether they approve and defend Trump's actions.

Even if they vote in his favor, they've voted against their own best interests.

Image a 80-20 senate in two years.

[Wednesdays]

122. With Fox News and hate radio still around,

we'll be lucky to get 52-48 in 2022.

[misanthrope]

123. Only if you care about the immediate safety of the nation over your tribe's interests

For too many, the allure of political one upmanship is just as important.

[BainsBane]

125. It doesn't accomplish that

particularly since they are now talking about waiting until 100 days into Biden's term. Voters don't like political stunts.

[misanthrope]

129. Doesn't accomplish which?

Immediate removal of Trump's hands from the levers of power would make the nation safer. That's what citizens are concerned about.

If you mean his impeachment on down the road doesn't give Democrats political one upmanship, you could be correct. My suspicion is GOP support for impeachment will vanish once the new POTUS, House and Senate are in place.

[BainsBane]

135. Yes, I agree

completely.

[stopdiggin]

136. immediate removal is not possible at this time

(unless you're taking 25th) The question at hand is whether the House should hand over impeachment to a senate controlled by McConnell (i.e. a black hole) -- or to one controlled by Schumer and Harris. There is certainly an element of politics here -- I don't think I would characterize it as "gamesmanship" -- unless one considers smart, goal oriented, politics gamesmanship.

[stopdiggin]

130. the "Do Something Now!" crowd

even if it's totally ineffectual (and perhaps counterproductive to your aims)

[BainsBane]

134. What is the aim?

For me, it's getting Trump away from the nuclear codes. The rest is political gamesmanship, and will be seen as exactly that by voters.

[stopdiggin]

140. Yes, that is the question.

Getting Trump away is certainly a worthy goal. If, after reading the OP, you have a way of effecting that -- I'm all ears. Do you have a such a method?

[BainsBane]

152. Send the articles right away

and then pressure McConnell to act. Make it clear that if he doesn't, any bloodshed is on his hands. An impeachment after the fact is going to blow back and hurt the Democrats.

[stopdiggin]

161. which of course DOESN'T remove Trump from the nuclear codes

(your stated aim)
And I guess we've kind of circled back to the "Do Something Now!" crowd.

(you're, of course, entitled to your opinion -- and I'm entitled to point out that it won't get DJT out of office -- or away from the codes -- one second sooner.)

[BainsBane]

163. Doing something later is pointless

because Republicans are less likely to vote to convict. So yes, I am part of the do something now crowd. I want the nuclear codes taken away from him because I fear for the lives of billions.

The logical extension of your argument is to do nothing at all. That's fine, if that's what you want to see done, but doing it after the fact will not result in conviction.

[stopdiggin]

171. getting the codes away from him prior

to the 20th -- will only transpire through the 25th. And that is a different thread.

(and we also disagree that action taken after his departure is "pointless" -- although I'm not sure that I would characterize it as "brilliant".)
----- -----

[StarfishSaver]

141. Holding the articles until the Democrats control the Senate is more than "gamesmanship."

Among other things, it is the ONLY possible way that we can have any chance of preventing Trump from running and getting his hands on the nuclear codes again.

I don't remember but am curious - were you among those who pushed for impeachment in 2019?

[bluestarone]

148. I was not supporting this. (my first thoughts) BUT

If WE have control of the process, THAT would be AWESOME! (maybe even get OTHER RETHUGS through OUR investigation?) CONTROL is the key here! TY Starfish.

[StarfishSaver]

149. Exactly!

[BainsBane]

154. an investigation is not the same as impeachment

an impeachment is directed at the president or other official targeted. The House or Senate can open an investigation at any time, and they should conduct one over this.

[BainsBane]

151. No because I knew he wouldn't be convicted

and it only served to embolden him.

People insisted it was the only way he could be shown he wasn't above the law. The effect was the opposite.

[StarfishSaver]

155. At least you're consistent

Thanks for answering.

[BainsBane]

157. I do support acting to get him out of office

and impeaching now and then referring the articles to the Senate right away. I support that because he must be removed from office. What I don't think is clever or brilliant or even wise is to play political games. The public sees right through that.

[StarfishSaver]

159. But the issue is that there is no chance in hell he'll be removed from office before his term ends

They can send the articles to the Senate tomorrow but McConnell won't act on them until after Trump is out of office.

But worse, if McConnell gets control of the Articles while he is Majority Leader, he will take action to make sure either there is no trial at all (through a motion to dismiss) or that a trial is even more of a kangaroo court than last year's trial was and that Trump would be acquitted in the blink of an eye.

The only way to maintain any possibility of a conviction or any other punishment is if the House maintains control of the articles until the Democrats take control of the Senate and THEN send them over.

But sending the Articles to Mitch won't have any more likelihood of success than the impeachment you opposed last year would.

This isn't a political game. In fact, it's just the opposite. Rushing the articles to the Senate in order to appear to be moving swiftly would be a political game done just for show. Holding them back may make Congress look like they're not moving as fast as some may want. But it's the only way to have a chance to actually accomplish anything.

[BainsBane]

162. I don't see any productive point to doing it after the fact

and I can guarantee you the public will react against it. Yes, it would be nice to ban him from holding future office, but Republicans are LESS likely to vote to convict after he has left office.

Your argument is one for not doing it at all.

The 25th Amendment should already have been revoked. The man is a terrible danger to the safety of the human race.

[StarfishSaver]

164. It's not "after the fact."

I think Republicans are much more likely to vote a ban AFTER he is out of office. He no longer has the same power over them and he won't have the bully pulpit he's enjoyed up until now - especially after Democrats hold a trial presenting substantial evidence of his criminality.

It's a chance worth taking. Especially since there's no downside at all to doing it that way.

You're right - the 25th Amendment should have been invoked, but so far it doesn't seem to have been and there's nothing Congress can do about that. But the Democrats CAN impeach him and put him on public trial.

[BainsBane]

165. I guess we'll see

[servermsh]

2. Yes. And then Democrats should vote to send the impeachment investigation to committee.

While they do the main urgent business like COVID relief on the Senate floor.

[Bluethroughu]

7. Excellent Idea.

[padah513]

3. I agree

Trump is still impeached and we might have a more favorable outcome in the Senate.

[gldstwmn]

4. Agree. This will put

an end to Maga 2.0.

[UpInArms]

5. there are consequences if he is impeached

If a president is impeached, convicted, and removed from office, they lose many of the benefits awarded to former presidents, such as a pension, security detail, and travel allowance. A president who is removed from office via impeachment may also be barred from holding future office.

[soothsayer]

14. They need to vote separately on that last bit

But only requires simple majority, not 2/3 (to bar him from office)

[StarfishSaver]

26. Those consequences only attach if he is convicted and removed from office

That's not going to happen under McConnell, regardless when the House sends the articles to the Senate.

But if they wait to begin a trial until the Senate is under Democratic leadership and give more time to produce evidence, it is possible that they could get 2/3 of the Senate to convict and disqualify. him from ever holding office again, which they're much more likely to do after he's already out of office.

[captain queeg]

9. And I guess if trump and company pull anything it could dramaticaaly increase the pressure to act

McConnell may get willing to fast track it

[lame54]

10. They will have the excuse...

There's no point because he is already gone

[StarfishSaver]

29. He'll already be gone when the Senate takes up impeachment, even if they send the articles today

[lame54]

35. Just pointing out it's not brilliant...

The more time goes by the less pressure to do the right thing

Republicans are always looking for excuses to not do the right thing

[LiberalLovinLug]

105. "The more time goes by the less pressure to do the right thing"

This is so true.

And I can only surmise that for at least a few in the Democratic party that is the plan. To ride it out. And meanwhile during that time, their friends in the MSM will soon be full of editorials on how we have to heal and halt the impeachment process.

Republicans never allow anything to stew like that. For the moderate, cautionary voices to drag out processes until they don't mean anything anymore. When RGB died suddenly, and with just weeks to go until the election, Republicans put on ear muffs, and rolled up their sleeves and pushed through Trump's pick quickly and in record time. No matter the controversy. The screams from the other side. Or the news network scoldings.

[StarfishSaver]

108. I think it's just the opposite

The more time that goes by and the further Trump gets away from power, the more likely it is that we could get a conviction in the Democratically-controlled Senate and a vote to disqualify him from future public office.

But your suggestion (actually a smear) that the Democrats are slow-walking anything is just counter-factual. The only thing the Democrats can do at this point is impeach him. And they're going to do that. And then they're going to keep those articles away from Mitch McConnell because they know that, once he has control of them, he will bury them.

[Dream Girl]

118. Yes and much more evidence, details and info. will come to light

[mcar]

124. Who in the Democratic Party wants to "ride it out?"

Even Manchin is calling for impeachment.

More and more evidence will be coming out over the next few months. MSM is not going to sweep this under the rug.

[StarfishSaver]

133. This is typical of a certain kind of binary thinking we often see here

If Democrats don't do exactly what the poster wants at this very moment, they are caving in, content to "ride it out," etc.

Nuance, strategy, and timing are lost on people who want the instant gratification of red meat thrown at them at every moment.

[LiberalLovinLug]

147. I agree with you, "timing" is lost on people

I've been around awhile, and if nothing else I've learned how in politics, a week is like a month, and a month might as well have been a year ago. We strike while the iron is hot.

And one of the reasons I support Democrats is that they allow a big tent, they don't all walk in lockstep. If you don't think there are any disagreements within the party on this, I guess that's your view.
Biden himself is described as luke warm to the idea entirely.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-01-08/biden-doesnt-take-position-on-trumps-possible-impeachment


Biden Calls Trump 'Unfit' but Doesn't Endorse Impeachment

President-elect Joe Biden says President Donald Trump isn’t “fit for the job,” but he repeatedly refused to endorse growing Democratic calls that he be impeached for a second time.

[spanone]

11. ⭐️K&R⭐️

[IrishObserver]

12. And he can't run in 2024

I don't care if Trump isn't impeached until he's out of office. At least he'll be prevented from running in 2024. If his political ambitions aren't crushed he would start campaigning for 2024 straight away. And given that the Senate Rethugs won't even stand up to him after a coup, do you think they'd oppose him running for office?!

[soothsayer]

21. They need to vote separately on barring him from future office

But it’s easier (simple majority)

[former9thward]

176. Impeachment does not bring that penalty.

If he was convicted it might. But that takes 67 votes.

[magicarpet]

16. Is it even allowed,... to impeach after the term is over.

Is seems as futile as having open heart surgery after you died of a heart attack two days before.

When you are gone you are gone bye bye.

[soothsayer]

23. I've always heard it was

[highplainsdem]

24. Yes, it's possible. And if it passes the Senate it would still stop Trump from running for federal

office ever again. ending his plans for another presidential run.

[StarfishSaver]

31. I don't think he can be impeached after he leaves office. But he can be convicted

of an impeachment that was done while he was president.

That's how I read the impeachment provision.

[magicarpet]

40. Seems doable,...

(begin snip...)

The Constitution provides that the President “shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” but it says nothing about the timing of when the impeachment and trial may take place. That omission makes sense, since presidents – and any other impeachable officials – could commit impeachable offenses at any time while they are in office, including in their last months or days in their positions.  It certainly makes no sense for presidents who commit misconduct late in their terms, or perhaps not discovered until late in their terms, to be immune from the one process the Constitution allows for barring them from serving in any other federal office or from receiving any federal pensions.  What’s more, litigation or prosecutions might not be able to get at the misconduct, since the scope of impeachable offenses extends to misconduct that is not an actual crime.  And what if that misconduct is not discovered until after a president leaves office?  There may be no practical means for holding him accountable for such misconduct, especially if he is regarded as having been immune from any criminal prosecution or inquiry while he was in office.  Being president is not a safe harbor from political and legal accountability.

(end snip,... more at link below...)

[qazplm135]

150. It's unclear

Folks acting like it's definitive are not basing that on anything then the opinion of some. Others think you can't. Ultimately the Supremes will decide.

No problem with giving it a try but it's not a lock guarantee.

[uponit7771]

168. They will impeach ... BEFORE .. his term is over. The Senate Trial can happen later

[Deacon Blue]

18. Definitely Brilliant...

No distraction for Joe’s kick-off, more time to round-up perpetrators and incitors, tRump family phone records, build a case which cannot be ‘both sides-erized’. Downside might be that momentum gets lost, but keeping this Krystallnacht front and center can only help. They’re brazen bunch, and it’s taken far, far too long (he’s learned his lesson my ass!), but they need to be smeared over and over with this in glorious detail. Then after the new Administration is underway, make the turds say if they were for it before they suddenly sprouted a conscience. Great sport...

[Deacon Blue]

19. Definitely Brilliant...

No distraction for Joe’s kick-off, more time to round-up perpetrators and incitors, tRump family phone records, build a case which cannot be ‘both sides-erized’. Downside might be that momentum gets lost, but keeping this Krystallnacht front and center can only help. They’re a brazen bunch, and it’s taken far, far too long (he’s learned his lesson my ass!), but they need to be smeared over and over with this in glorious detail. Then after the new Administration is underway, make the turds say if they were for it before they suddenly sprouted a conscience. Great sport...

[in2herbs]

25. Are you advocating that the House vote to impeach now but Pelosi withhold the Articles until Biden

in office and Schumer is MJL? Didn't Pelosi do this for the first impeachment?

I am still fuzzy on how the Senate can impeach a past president. If we wait until Biden is in office trump is a past president. Doesn't the criteria for a Senate impeachment say that the president shall be removed from office?

If D's are going to try this I think they should think again because if the Rs ever gain power again the Rs will use this past president maneuver to go after past presidents, like Obama.

I say the House do it's job and impeach -- fast --- and send Articles to Senate. If the Senate doesn't act before Biden takes his oath it then becomes a political issue for 2022 and beyond.

[StarfishSaver]

38. Yes.

While I don't think the House can impeach a former president, I do think that once the president is validly impeached, the Senate can proceed to a trial, conviction and punishment - especially since one of the two available forms of punishment doesn't rely on his being in office. He can be removed from office and disqualified from future office. He certainly can't be removed anymore once he leaves office, but he can still be disqualified. And I can't see that the Senate wouldn't have the power to impose such a punishment on an impeached president just because he got out of town by the skin of his teeth.

The House needs to impeach asap and then hold off on sending it to the Senate for trial. There is no constitutional or statutory requirement that they send it over within any particular timeframe.

People are always blasting the Democrats for following the rules and not thinking outside of the box. Yet when they DO think outside of the box and figure out ways to use the rules to their advantage, even if that use of the rules is unprecedented, folks are telling them, "No! No! It's just not done that way!"

Sorry. The House seems to have figure out a way to make this work within the rules and I'm glad that they're considering doing it.

[in2herbs]

47. Only disqualified from holding a future office? and not stripped of his salary and benefits? will

he be stripped of his salary and benefits?

What would be wrong with the prosecutor or AG for DC preparing and filing a criminal complaint now for service on him at 12:01 on 1/20 so that trump can have this looming over his head also? The complaint can be amended after he is served to include any crimes that were discovered after filing of complaint.

Thanks.

[StarfishSaver]

52. Right

The Former Presidents act strips salary and benefits ONLY if he's removed from office.

A criminal complaint has nothing to do with or no influence on the impeachment process. Those are two separate tracks that are done completely independently of each other.

[in2herbs]

59. I understand that a criminal complaint is separate and apart from impeachment I just put it out

there as being one more thing to throw against him and for him to expect when he leaves office.

Since he can't be stripped of salary and benefits after he leaves office, my feeling is to get the impeachment over with it over with before Biden takes office and kiss off expecting this Senate to do anything about it and let the voters decide in 2022.

What would be the purpose of the Senate voting on whether or not to convict AFTER trump is out of office? I can see the media making the Ds look like fools for pushing a Senate vote to convict a president who is no longer in office.

[StarfishSaver]

63. Convicting him after he leaves office would allow them to disqualify him from holding office in the

future.

It would also send an incredibly strong message to the world and to history to make him the first and only president impeached in the House AND convicted in the Senate.

I don't think Pelosi gives a damn what the media thinks.

[roscoeroscoe]

27. Yes yes yes

Keep investigating, subpoena records, phone logs, etc. With time before the inauguration short, ease up and investigate.
Who was on the phone with Flynn? Roger Stone?

[gibraltar72]

28. I think this is a master stroke.

Nothing exculpatory is gonna be found for Trump. In the meantime his legal troubles will get worse in NY. That wasn't my first reaction, but upon reflection I think time and investigation is not Trumps or GOPs friend.

[superpatriotman]

30. What does the Constitution say about impeaching after leaving?

Does it say anything?

[StarfishSaver]

39. Please be sure to separate "impeaching" from "convicting"

I think the Constitution limits the power of impeachment only to currently serving officers. it would make no sense for the House to have the power to impeach former officials after they've left office.

But once they're impeached, I think the Senate has the power to convict and penalize them even after they leave office. The Senate only has two penalties it can impose upon conviction: removal and disqualification. Removal is an immediate punishment that occurs automatically upon conviction. But if they are no longer in office, it's not operable. But they can still disqualify them, which is a prospective punishment. I think they have the power to do that, even if the president is no longer in office.

[jcgoldie]

32. pragmatically speaking perhaps...

...But it gives the appearance of a political maneuver. Whether they can get him out before the 20th I believe it should be treated as urgent. The pressure brought to bear on Republicans in the senate will evaporate with the passage of time. The events of the 6th dictate that this should be treated as an emergency, not something to be addressed after 100 days in the course of regular business. Just my opinion.

[StarfishSaver]

43. Impeaching immediately is treating it like an emergency

But sending it to the Senate to die under McConnell does and means nothing. If it's such an important matter, the only way to ensure it's treated as such is to get it away from McConnell.

[jcgoldie]

56. I dont see how it can "die under McConnell"

If he slow plays it then Schumer will control it. If he pushes through a vote, then every GOP senator will be on record supporting insurrection or doing the right thing. 100 days later that pressure will dissipate.

[StarfishSaver]

60. Mitch can dispose of the impeachment so that it's gone by the time Schumer takes control

Don't underestimate McConnell's ability and willingness to do that while he's still in power.

Pelosi and Clyburn know that. That's why they're not willing to deliver the impeachment into McConnell's hands

[jcgoldie]

65. How does he "dispose of" it without a vote?

All I'm saying is there's a political tradeoff and more to this than just whether Trump is allowed to run for office in the future, and now is the time you have maximum pressure and every senator will be held most accountable for how they vote.

[StarfishSaver]

67. He can hold a vote on the 20th to dismiss the impeachment when they come back into session

He could hold a trial in two days that acquits Trump.

And that's just off the top of my head. I have no doubt that McConnell has gamed out every single possibility for shutting the impeachment down before he loses control of the Senate, most of which would never have occurred to us but that Pelosi is fully aware of.

She knows McConnell and she knows what she's doing. If she's taking this course, it's for a very good reason.

[in2herbs]

64. +

[Fozzledick]

33. Seems to me an open Case of Impeachment would void any self-pardon

for the crimes under impeachment.

Might be best to keep the case open until he's lost that power, then proceed if only to mark his name for history and revoke his pension and right to hold any government office.

[tinrobot]

36. If McConnell won't reconvene until the 19th, then yes, it makes sense to hold off.

[C_U_L8R]

42. Trump is confident that he won't be removed

So now we just have to wait and HOPE he doesn't pull some crazy shit ... from looting the treasury to handing off nukes to his treasonous magat mercenaries (that's about as crazy as I could imagine right now but I'm sure it could get worse). Who will protect us? How will we be kept safe?

On the other hand, maybe this does strengthen the impeachment case. It just seems a very risky way to play it.

[StarfishSaver]

44. What's risky about it?

[C_U_L8R]

45. 10 days of Trump with unrestrained power.

[StarfishSaver]

50. Those 10 days of unrestrained power will happen anyway, no matter when the Articles are sent

Even if the House impeached him and sent the articles to the Senate yesterday, the Senate is not going to even start the trial proceedings until after Trump has left office.

[C_U_L8R]

51. 25th is really what should be happening

But the Cabinet is a bunch or chickenshits and traitors.

[StarfishSaver]

53. True

So it's left up to the House and while they don't have any power to stop him in the next 10 days, they can impeach and lay the groundwork for keeping him out of office in the future.

[mcar]

54. Also gives Biden time to get his cabinet approved

and start on his agenda.

BTW, anyone who thinks Moscow Mitch will do anything with this before Schumer takes over is delusional.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

61. As long as they impeach him this week, I'll trust they know the best road

to humiliation and conviction.

[mackdaddy]

62. Under a new administration, subpoenas will actually be honored and enforced again.

I don't think that Trump will be removed before the 20th through impeachment. Mitch the Bitch still in control until the new GA members seated.

But if after Biden is in, then what reason would even other Repubs have to NOT convict him, since he would not be removed?

If he is convicted:
He looses his $200k/year
He Looses his lifetime SS security
He Can never run for office again (and grift more $ for his future run)
He looses his access to classified data and the PDB
He will not be able to Pardon himself, at least for these related crimes

I say go for it. I wish he could be removed this minute, but that power only belongs to Pence.

[StarfishSaver]

66. He won't lose his pension or Secret Service, but can be disqualified from future office

It also wouldn't affect the pardon since he has no pardon power after he leaves office and there's no prohibition against being pardoned while president for crimes of which he's impeached. And he would not automatically lose access to classified data by virtue of a conviction - that access is solely up to the sitting president and can be granted to or withheld from anyone he chooses.

[mackdaddy]

70. Would he not loose his pardon power on these charges as soon as he is impeached?

I guess that is the question, when does that kick in? As soon as the house declared they are having hearings, or after the vote, or only when it is delivered to the Senate?

Why would he still get his Pension and Security if he is convicted? I am not claiming to be an expert, just listing what my understanding was.

[StarfishSaver]

71. No.

Even assuming he has the power to pardon himself - which I don't think he has - impeachment doesn't affect the president's pardon power, even when it comes to charges on which he was impeached.

He would still get the pension and security because those are guaranteed by statute - the Former Presidents Act - which provides those benefits to all former presidents except those who have been convicted and removed. Statutes like this are applied very strictly, so it would apply to him since he does not fall within that very narrow exception.

It probably never occurred to the drafters that a president could possibly be convicted but not removed since a sitting president is removed immediately and automatically upon conviction and they did not foresee a situation in which a former president is convicted after being impeached at the very end of his term and leaving office before the trial is completed.

[mackdaddy]

82. So what does the "except in cases of impeachment" actually stop the president from doing?

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1
The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

[StarfishSaver]

99. It prevents a president from using his pardon power to prevent an impeachment

He can only pardon criminal infractions, not impeachments.

[Ligyron]

120. Yeah, what about that legal eagles?

Because that looks pretty straightforward to me.

[Fiendish Thingy]

68. It also gives time to censure and possibly expel the Congressional traitorous enablers

If Cruz, Hawley and Tuberville are expelled, that would lower the number of votes required to convict Trump.

[blue-wave]

69. Huh? No it's not brilliant

It's foolish and plays right into the hands of the republiCons and insurrectionists.

You know, before WWII the British establishment laughed at the warnings that Churchill was espousing about Hitler. How did that turn out for the multi-millions that died in WWII?

After all that was done, we have to wait for what? Many more Americans to die and our government to be overthrown? No. I will advocate for appeasing traitors and seditionists. And that's what waiting for justice exactly is.

[StarfishSaver]

73. Do you understand the difference between impeachment in the House and the trial in the Senate?

[blue-wave]

80. I most certainly do

Do you understand we had an attempted overthrow of the United States government on Wednesday last? But let's eat bon bons, hold hands and sing peace songs while they violently overthrow our government and hunt down all democrats and everyone else they deem 'undesirable." Wake up, this isn't play time.

Wednesday was intentionally violent and these people aren't playing games. Last I heard they plan on another capitol storming on January 17th. Gee let's wait and see. Maybe they learned their lesson the first time.

[StarfishSaver]

96. You don't seem to understand. But humor me.

Please explain how impeaching Trump this week and immediately sending the articles of impeachment to the Republican-controlled Senate into the hands of Mitch McConnell who will have the power to dismiss them without a trial or quickly dispose of them in another sham trial with no witnesses or evidence, so that when the Democrats take control of the Senate there'll be nothing for them to take up would remedy or rectify the horror we witnessed the other day while ...

Impeaching Trump this week and then holding the Articles until Democrats take control the Senate and the Democratically-controlled Senate can conduct a full public trial and possibly even convict and punish Trump is "eating bon bons, holding hand and singing peace songs."

Please be specific.

I look forward to your response.

[blue-wave]

115. I actually prefer invoking the 25th amendment

It's being discussed at this moment in time. There is a clause that allows for congress to invoke this amendment and not rely on the cabinet or the VP.

And even if they impeach on a privileged resolution in the house tomorrow and send it to the senate, and Mitch does nothing, at least the democrats did something. Americans are looking for leadership at this time. Give it to them. We can always impeach again at a later date.

As a country and a major political party, let's stop with the debates and remove those (those in congress who also are complicit) who have a constitutional duty to protect our country. Instead they incited a revolt. Also, prosecute to the fullest every person we can identify in that mob.

[mdbl]

128. +1

I agree, it's not brilliant. Try the 25th route and impeach and let moscow mitch take credit for screwing it up - again - especially if something else happens. We should be using every avenue available to tie up trump. Make him look like the embarrassment he is. Sitting around playing waiting games looks weak and dumb. Every loophole and avenue should be tried at this point.

[Ponietz]

106. "Do nothing, wait and see" apologists don't survive to write the history

Battered spouse syndrome writ at large. “Hey loyal Americans! Open wide and swallow, again, so we can get back to the 1990s!” Immediate confrontation is the only sane path. Thank you for your post.

[uponit7771]

169. That's why Pelosi has set a time of Monday for removing Trump so that's a done deal the rest of it

... is the impeachment which can happen before his term ends then the senate trial afterwards.

But Pelosi has already set a time for removal and if its not done she goes forward with impeachment

[Duppers]

173. Exactly!

And it gives tRump time to impose martial law in an effort to keep Biden out of office.

[BlueWavePsych]

74. Whichever gets Drumpf banned from public office works for me.

[George II]

75. When I heard Clyburn say that this morning I thought the same thing. They can still convict him....

....later in January or February. But as you point out, it can't be quashed by McConnell - he can't stop something he hasn't received yet.

[PatrickforO]

76. I tend to agree. While seeing him impeached, convicted and

perp walked out of the White House is cuffs is a marvelous fantasy, but Republicans once again are being spineless and circling the wagons around Trump.

It amazes both my wife and I that more Republicans aren't simply standing up and saying, "No, enough is enough. We repudiate the violent right-wing, the Proud Boys and all the other neo-Nazi domestic terrorists, and we are taking back our party."

But nope. They are not doing that. They will never do that.

McConnell has already said he will hold up until January 19th. Because he is a traitor just like Trump and the rest of the odious lot.

So, yeah, sending the articles to the Senate after the Biden administration commences does seem a decent idea. I know we all want it NOW, but we need to do so many things.

I'm thinking one of the most important things the new Senate and House can take up is a domestic terrorist law. To my mind, that is a major legislative priority.

[MoonlitKnight]

83. I disagree

The point is consequences for the actions of trump and getting everyone on record for posterity with recorded votes.

The Constitutional process to deal with this is impeachment. If it fails in the Senate then they will own that forever.

If Mitch blocks it then he will be forever tarnished. If it takes unanimous consent to get started then Schumer needs to push for it so we know who objects. If it takes until the 19th or later then there has to be a vote.

[Duppers]

172. I agree with you.

[eleny]

85. McConnell won't be able to control what evidence can be presented

Nor will he have a say in what witnesses can be called to testify.

[LiberalFighter]

86. My reading of Section 2

and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Means Trump can't do any pardons when he has been impeached.

[MontanaMama]

95. I'm very curious about this.

I hope starfishsaver weighs in on this question.

[StarfishSaver]

100. It means he can't use his pardon power to prevent an impeachment

Presidents who have been impeached continue to have all of their presidential powers, including the pardon power, as long as they remain in office.

Bill Clinton continued to issue pardons after his impeachment and so has Trump.

[Mr. Ected]

87. McConnell would quash this just like he did with Impeachment #1

Best to let the People's House crash down on Hateler & the Marauding Magats with force and immediacy, then let the GOP stew in their own juices for awhile as the fate of the fascists among them is put on trial in the national news media. Their party is disintegrating and we can help accelerate that process. In this case, a slow roll is superior to a race to the finish.

[Cozmo]

88. Sorry, my brain is spinning. Can tRump be impeached even if the 25th is invoked

I want him removed immediately via the 25th, impeached and convicted. And then if there is anything else that could be done to him, I'd like that to happen as well.

[StarfishSaver]

101. Yes, he can be

The 25th Amendment doesn't remove a president from office. It just takes his powers away and gives them to the vice president. And he can get them back. He remains president throughout.

A president can only be removed by the Senate following a conviction in an impeachment proceeding.

[bucolic_frolic]

89. Agree, you can't trust McConnell when his eyes are open, nor when they're closed

I don't know if they do up or down, voice votes in the Senate or under what circumstances, but I'd bet if there is a way Moscow Mitch could find it and he can't hear out of his left ear.

[llashram]

90. this

[judesedit]

91. Only brilliant in part as Dumpy is a complete and total danger to this country

and needs to go asap. Who knows what that lunatic and his lemmings are planning at this minute

[nvme]

92. IT WOULD BE A COUP

The delay would put Minority Leader in the position of having to go on the record further defending Trump. This would increasingly diminish his standing.

[SayItLoud]

93. tRUMP isn't done F'ing things up.

He will dig himself deeper into the hole leading to Hell. Unfortunately, he will destroy more along the way to his last day.

[Lonestarblue]

94. I have to disagree with a delay.

Chuck Shumer will take over effectively as Majority Leader in January 20, so the impeachment articles could be sent on that date. While I agree with you that more evidence could be collected with more time, Donald Trump urged his mob to commit insurrection on live TV with his rally speech. That’s enough for conviction. If and when further evidence is uncovered by the FBI after Biden takes office, Trump can be indicted for further crimes. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems that the US Constitution would not allow someone to be pardoned for insurrection against the government.

My reason for wanting to go ahead with the impeachment and the trial is that in a hundred days,,the news cycle will have moved on, the horror of the attack on the Capitol and the deaths will have moved to the back of people’s minds, and right-wing media will have had a hundred days to rehabilitate Trump’s image. The delayed trial will then look like a partisan vendetta against Trump. Striking now while his crimes are the focus of the news cycle seems better.

[StarfishSaver]

102. Schumer will not take over as Majority Leader on January 20

McConnell will remain Majority Leader until both Warnock and Ossoff are seated and that won't happen until least January 23, at the earliest. There is an incredible amount of mischief McConnell can do between now and then.

The impeachment will proceed. But sending the articles to McConnell now won't do anything to keep this in front of people's minds. McConnell will bury it.

[Klaralven]

98. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

[Hekate]

103. KnR

[Jon King]

109. Yes it is a great idea....

So much of Trump's crimes will be found once Biden officials have a chance to dissect the evidence, this could take months. He would not have been removed before 20th anyway. He is neutered now, the military said they won't do anything illegal. I think he travels to Alamo, does some meaningless executive orders vs big tech, and pardons his people.

We have to think big. Getting evidence of severe crimes would put the Repubs in a bad position going into 2022. Its possible with solid evidence we may even get to 67 Senators and convict Trump for all of history.

[wryter2000]

110. Plus,

By then, things may have quieted down enough that people will pay attention to the trial.

[Ponietz]

119. Ah...the rope-a-dope trick

Got it.

[StarfishSaver]

121. Um

[Ponietz]

132. Yeah, and if waiting 100 days makes any sense at all,

then let’s wait three and a half years—that way it will be fresh in voters’ minds for the 2024 election—ultra brilliant, huh?

[kentuck]

139. Agree

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214874638

[roamer65]

146. I agree.

Impeach and wait. Then when we have control of the Senate we pass a law disqualifying him from further office and remove pension, Secret Service protection and all other perks.

Meanwhile NY AG Letitia James will be getting her pound of flesh from him and his spawn.

[melman]

153. Counterpoint

It's actually not.

[StarfishSaver]

156. Thanks for your thoughtful and compelling response.

[melman]

158. Thanks for your thoughtful and compelling OP

[StarfishSaver]

160. You're more than welcome

[Quixote1818]

166. What is ironic about this is that Trump screwed the GA Republicans allowing Dems to get the Senate

and now that will come back to fuck him hard!

[AntiFascist]

175. I agree with Representative Ro Khanna...

the House should not delay and we should put the ball in McConnell's court as soon as possible. There's no reason the trial needs to take more than 3 days, and McConnell could even fast track the trial if there is enough pressure to do so, so that it could start before the 19th.

We don't need to wait for more evidence, and we definitely don't need to wait for Trump to make matters worse. The public support for conviction exists now and if GOP senators are worried about crossing Trump then they can sit out the trial.

[StarfishSaver]

177. When did Khanna say that Pelosi would be wrong not to send the Articles to the Senate immediately

I can't find anything he's said about this since Clyburn said this morning that this was a possibility.

[AntiFascist]

178. Just a little while ago on CNN, here's the link to the video:

https://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=631634

[StarfishSaver]

179. Thanks

I think he's just wrong.

I don't understand why he thinks that McConnell would hold an impeachment trial that would result in anything in the first three days of Biden's term. He would just do a kangaroo trial and get rid of the whole thing. I doubt he would even make the Senate vote on it. He would claim it's moot because Trump's out of office, entertain a motion to dismiss, they'd dismiss the case with a simple majority (and maybe even on a voice vote) and it would be over before it started.

I'm not sure of Khanna's thinking on this - it makes no sense - so I'm going with the Speaker and Leader Clyburn on this one.

[AntiFascist]

181. I believe McConnell made it clear that he would start a trial on the 19th...

people don't realize that mainstream GOP and former Trump supporters are now taking this very seriously, especially with the violence and violent plots now coming to light.

[StarfishSaver]

182. Oh, yes. Let's base what we do on an assurance from Mitch McConnell

No, on second thought. Let's not do that.

[AntiFascist]

183. Waiting 100 days is too long...

I realize Biden has more important things to get pushed through the Senate, but this will end up just being yet another example of Dems letting Trump off the hook.

[StarfishSaver]

184. I doubt they will wait 100 days. I think that's just a number they threw out

But how do you think that McConnell holding a trial with no witnesses, no evidence, and an instant acquittal by a Republican Senate (if it there even is a trial) will result in Trump being held any more accountable than he would be in a trial held a month later in a Senate controlled by Democrats with evidence and witnesses?

[AntiFascist]

185. If the House waited until the 20th or 21st then McConnell would not have control...

If Democrats are that worried about McConnell then waiting 10 days may be ok, but I really think we also need to take advantage of the momentum of the news cycle. It might be possible to take control of the Senate by the 15th if Sen. Murkowski could be persuaded to leave her party and the new Georgia senators can be sworn in.

[StarfishSaver]

186. McConnell will be in control at least until 1/23, perhaps even longer.

The new Senators won't be sworn in at least until then, and maybe not even then.

And they can't just switch to the majority one day and the next day start an impeachment trial. Taking the majority is a pretty huge undertaking. Committee assignments must change, offices move, staffs must be reshuffled, etc.

They also will need time to gather evidence, prepare witnesses, etc. They need to have a tight and fulsome presentation because this will not only be presented to the 100 Senators but also to the entire country and for history. Taking their time to do it right is not a problem.

[AntiFascist]

187. I think time is of the essence no matter what...

Trump will probably take being impeached again by the Democratic House as a badge of honor, but a serious conviction by the Senate is a different matter, especially if it is Republican controlled. I don't think McConnell would be allowed to sweep this under the rug. Gathering evidence is certainly important, but unless there are taped phone calls or testimony by, say, the Acting Secretary of Defense, Trump's tweets and speeches should speak for themselves. What additional evidence do you need?

I also believe that a long and exhaustive investigation should be conducted of other high-level officials and associates who instigated the coup attempt, and I'm sure there is plenty of evidence against these people yet to come to light.

[StarfishSaver]

188. Why

What would be the advantage of this going over quickly and McConnell disposing of it promptly within days after receiving it - and you are not operating in the real world if you think that McConnell gives two shits about being "allowed to sweep this under the rug" - that makes that a better option than waiting a few weeks until after the Democrats are firmly in control of the Senate?

There's plenty of evidence needed. His tweets and speeches aren't enough. Fortunately, the people who are in charge of this understand this and aren't treating it like it's something that can just be done willy nilly in a few days.

[AntiFascist]

189. I won't pretend to know what the people who are in charge understand...

but I do agree with Rep. Ro Khanna's point of view.

[IsItJustMe]

180. We will see. Neither of us have a crystal ball.