Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I have been against impeachment due to the Senate, I no longer am [View all]ehrnst
(32,640 posts)53. Where to start....
Will impeachment proceedings rile up Trump's base to show up and vote for Trump?
The GOP certainly used the threat of that to get out the vote in their base in 2018, so they seem to think so.
Can you guarantee that if Dems do not impeach that Trump will lose?
Clearly a rhetorical question.... If I had the ability to predict the "guaranteed" results of an action on an election outcome, would I be here posting opinions on a discussion board?
If he doesn't lose we have lost an opportunity to do our Constitutional duty because a reelected Trump will never be able to be impeached.
Is there a rule that one can't impeach a POTUS in their second term? That's new to me...
Also, if we impeach, we will get the redacted grand jury testimony which is where all of the juicy information is.
Those with way more legal knowledge than me say that Congress already has a way to get the full report, without impeachment:
Rule 6(e) was amended in 2002 to permit an attorney for the government [to] . . . disclose any grand-jury matter involving . . . a threat of attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power . . . to any appropriate federal . . . official, for the purpose of preventing or responding to such threat or activities.
This exception allows transmission by a government attorney, without court intervention, of the Mueller report and its underlying evidence to the House committee. The attorney general is an attorney for the government. Any Russian meddling in our 2016 elections and beyond involves grave hostile acts of a foreign power. Any attempted coverup of Russian meddling involves the meddling and thus also falls within the exception. Members of the House committee are appropriate federal officials to receive grand jury material given their responsibility to prevent or respond to the Russian meddling and any coverup thereof through the committees historical jurisdiction over impeachment of federal officials and civil and criminal proceedings generally.
Grand jury secrecy is a nonissue in this case and should not stand in the way of disclosure of the full Mueller report and its underlying evidence to the House Judiciary Committee.
This exception allows transmission by a government attorney, without court intervention, of the Mueller report and its underlying evidence to the House committee. The attorney general is an attorney for the government. Any Russian meddling in our 2016 elections and beyond involves grave hostile acts of a foreign power. Any attempted coverup of Russian meddling involves the meddling and thus also falls within the exception. Members of the House committee are appropriate federal officials to receive grand jury material given their responsibility to prevent or respond to the Russian meddling and any coverup thereof through the committees historical jurisdiction over impeachment of federal officials and civil and criminal proceedings generally.
Grand jury secrecy is a nonissue in this case and should not stand in the way of disclosure of the full Mueller report and its underlying evidence to the House Judiciary Committee.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-has-a-clear-legal-path-to-the-full-mueller-report/2019/04/15/1678e6f2-5d31-11e9-98d4-844088d135f2_story.html
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
188 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
And if we don't, it suggests that Trump's transgressions are less important than Bill Clinton's.
flor-de-jasmim
Apr 2019
#2
The impeachment was two years after Clinton's re-election, beginning in December of 1968.
hedda_foil
Apr 2019
#146
Respectfully, I think this analysis suffers from a few omissions and logical fallacies.
better
Apr 2019
#153
same here..ive been holding off on sending Tom Steyers 'Need To Impeach' postcards...
samnsara
Apr 2019
#4
I mean king (or Queen) in the political power sense, a monarch not bound by law or custom.
Celerity
Apr 2019
#10
There is no reason at all that they can't. That's what I think they should be doing now.
ehrnst
Apr 2019
#8
They need all the underlying evidence including grand jury testimony in order
boston bean
Apr 2019
#66
It's not a binary choice (Impeach/Don't Impeach) Either way, FIRST INVESTIGATE.
lagomorph777
Apr 2019
#122
Research isn't part of the impeachment reasoning process, which appears to be straightforward:
Pope George Ringo II
Apr 2019
#131
Yes, that's pretty much the problem with impeachment in a nutshell.
Pope George Ringo II
Apr 2019
#141
+1, Some posters are making it their duty to be concerned with as much condescension as possible
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#14
THIS !!! I've already thrown a red flag about the amount of FUD pettifogging impeachment.
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#67
I am 100% with you !!! It would NOT take long at all if you went the simple seemingly slam dunk
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#79
Cummings said on MJ we can look at impeachment. I know he's not the leader but there's
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#151
Yep, drop the whole damn thing if it's going nowhere. I think Pelosi is going to look at the polls
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#158
there is nothing subtle about the menace we face, in both the short and long term event horizons
Celerity
Apr 2019
#24
I profoundly disagree with your stance and your mischaracterisation of both my intent
Celerity
Apr 2019
#36
Nah, you sly one you ... no you don't. The sophistry on this issue is oozing those are ...
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#80
No it's not a rhetorical question, you can't guarantee Red Don wont win so it's irresponsible ...
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#77
That's the definition of 'rhetorical question,' - one that you already have your answer for...
ehrnst
Apr 2019
#83
You claimed Red Don can be impeached in a second term. Keep up with your own words
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#100
This is false and you know it, stop with the FUD ehrnst others have already noticed your pettifoggin
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#69
+1, its hard for the cops to say "they got away with it" when they did nothing to stop them
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#15
You are pettifogging a foundational moral, legal holding to account and erecting an
Celerity
Apr 2019
#26
I am NOT a sir, and I do NOT need a thesaurus to express myself in a varied, substantial way
Celerity
Apr 2019
#42
When you know the "nothing" is relative. I already expect sophistry from some :rolleyes:
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#27
At least one has been an accomplice to this very same thing with another criminal president
FiveGoodMen
Apr 2019
#167
+1, we don't have to move for conviction or even removal just get the information out there to
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#35
So by "they" you mean "a few fans that you know," not "they" as in any more than that.
ehrnst
Apr 2019
#115
Sure, as long as it's THEIR dictator. They all seem to think this will last forever.
catbyte
Apr 2019
#102
impeachment only takes a simple House majority, conviction and removal is where the 67 vote Senate
Celerity
Apr 2019
#50
Because Clinton was relatively popular with republicans. It was republicans who didn't
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#114
Tom Cotton perhaps, he is one smart and evil fuck, plus a vet and a fundie radical
Celerity
Apr 2019
#117
I'm on the fence but from a pragmatic standpoint look at this excerpt from nate silver's 538 chat
jcgoldie
Apr 2019
#93
This is a HARD PASS from me. For those of us who lived through Clinton's acquittal
Baltimike
Apr 2019
#99
Its false equivalency to compare Red Don to Clinton on POLLING alone. Clinton was relatively
uponit7771
Apr 2019
#103
It's false equivalency to compare impeachment w popularity on the other side
Baltimike
Apr 2019
#105
The Republicans are blowing up their own party. Trump, via Mitch, is packing the court with ultra
in2herbs
Apr 2019
#104
Illiberal democracy (Orban, Trump,Matteo Salvini, etc. and their ilk/minions are the new template)
Celerity
Apr 2019
#109
Congressional Democrats have several jobs to do...one of those jobs is. Checks and balances.
world wide wally
Apr 2019
#116
Yes, we should. But so tired of dems having to be the adults in the room and battle for
wiggs
Apr 2019
#164
The House has a duty to impeach; if it doesn't, it will suppress the Dem vote in 2020.
SunSeeker
Apr 2019
#166
same here..i was always wanting to wait til we got all the facts but hell we have them NOW
samnsara
Apr 2019
#185