President Donald J. Trump

[Snarfyguy]

There’s an entirely realistic possibility that McConnell will scuttle an impeachment, either by not taking it up at all, or by not allowing meaningful hearings to occur.

Senate GOP honchos have said as much. Can't find the link, but there was a piece in New York Mag a week or so ago to that effect.

That's the plan, should proceedings get that far.

[Still Baron]

There’s an entirely realistic possibility that McConnell will scuttle an impeachment, either by not taking it up at all, or by not allowing meaningful hearings to occur.

Senate GOP honchos have said as much. Can't find the link, but there was a piece in New York Mag a week or so ago to that effect.

That's the plan, should proceedings get that far.

That’s bananas. Why wouldn’t he just hold the vote and not convict? To avoid the spectacle of someone laying out the charges on the Senate floor?

[Davey the Fat Boy]

There’s an entirely realistic possibility that McConnell will scuttle an impeachment, either by not taking it up at all, or by not allowing meaningful hearings to occur.

Senate GOP honchos have said as much. Can't find the link, but there was a piece in New York Mag a week or so ago to that effect.

That's the plan, should proceedings get that far.

That’s bananas. Why wouldn’t he just hold the vote and not convict? To avoid the spectacle of someone laying out the charges on the Senate floor?

I think you answered your own question. But it isn’t just the spectacle. They are trying desperately to keep Trump’s tax returns and other financial entanglements from being exposed. Thus far they’ve just refused to comply with subpoenas, but that strategy will be impossible to maintain in the context of impeachment hearings. So why would they let them happen if they hold the power to make sure they don’t?

[Jimbo]

The fuck you still fretting over impeachment? The election is only a matter of months away and Trump is going to lose. Of course if Trump runs against a milquetoast candidate, i.e., anyone Davey or Hatz likes, he could win again but with exciting choices like Gabbard, Sanders and Yang in the race - and some solid backing from the party - he'll lose.

[Still Baron]

I think you answered your own question. But it isn’t just the spectacle. They are trying desperately to keep Trump’s tax returns and other financial entanglements from being exposed. Thus far they’ve just refused to comply with subpoenas, but that strategy will be impossible to maintain in the context of impeachment hearings. So why would they let them happen if they hold the power to make sure they don’t?

Yeah but all that will go down in the House. McConnell’s refusal to host a trial won’t stop it.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

I think you answered your own question. But it isn’t just the spectacle. They are trying desperately to keep Trump’s tax returns and other financial entanglements from being exposed. Thus far they’ve just refused to comply with subpoenas, but that strategy will be impossible to maintain in the context of impeachment hearings. So why would they let them happen if they hold the power to make sure they don’t?

Yeah but all that will go down in the House. McConnell’s refusal to host a trial won’t stop it.

Well... this is where you have a lot more knowledge than I. How long do you think Trump and his loyalists can run out the clock on defying the house’s demands for information? Thus far, the strategy has worked, and we can’t count on the courts forcing accountability given McConnell’s decade-long efforts to usurp the judiciary.

[Still Baron]

I think you answered your own question. But it isn’t just the spectacle. They are trying desperately to keep Trump’s tax returns and other financial entanglements from being exposed. Thus far they’ve just refused to comply with subpoenas, but that strategy will be impossible to maintain in the context of impeachment hearings. So why would they let them happen if they hold the power to make sure they don’t?

Yeah but all that will go down in the House. McConnell’s refusal to host a trial won’t stop it.

Well... this is where you have a lot more knowledge than I. How long do you think Trump and his loyalists can run out the clock on defying the house’s demands for information? Thus far, the strategy has worked, and we can’t count on the courts forcing accountability given McConnell’s decade-long efforts to usurp the judiciary.

He’s going to lose most of those subpoena fights in court. I don’t know how long it’ll take. Could be wrapped up soonish, could drag out.

[Still Baron]

But if the House takes up impeachment, they are in a much more powerful position with respect to the subpoena power.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

Are they in a better position in terms of House inquiries? This is where I get confused. Apparently the Senate has the sole right to conduct Impeachment trials. Does the House have latitude to hold Impeachment hearings on their own?

[Still Baron]

Are they in a better position in terms of House inquiries? This is where I get confused. Apparently the Senate has the sole right to conduct Impeachment trials. Does the House have latitude to hold Impeachment hearings on their own?

The House institutes impeachment proceedings. They are the equivalent of a grand jury deciding whether to indict. In exercise of that power, their investigatory authority is at its zenith. This is why questions of whether something they want is relevant to their general oversight authority (which is implied by the constitution) are more muddled.

Their impeachment power, on the other hand, is unquestionable as it is specifically laid out in the constitution. So courts should (and would) defer to the exercise of that power. If they decide, after their investigations, to impeach, then it’s like a grand jury issuing an indictment to be tried in court. And so whatever the outcome in the Senate, the President (or whomever) has been impeached. That’s why it’s still appropriate to say Bill Clinton was impeached.

The impeachment is then tried in the Senate, which votes to convict or acquit. By the time it goes over to the Senate, all the evidence has been investigated and gathered. It’s just a matter of the House and the President presenting evidence and argument and the Senate (as a petit jury) taking its vote.

Compare Article I, Section 2, [5] with Article I, Section 3, [6].

[Davey the Fat Boy]

How does that work in terms of public inquiries? Can they hold them in the guise of evidence building?

[Still Baron]

How does that work in terms of public inquiries? Can they hold them in the guise of evidence building?

I would say an unqualified yes, but I’ll say that nothing dictates that they can’t. I think they can do it however they like.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

I guess that’s the best argument in favor of impeachment. We’re not likely to see any meaningful oversight absent that context.

[Snarfyguy]

I found that article.

GOP senators say that if the House passes articles of impeachment against President Trump they will quickly quash them in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has broad authority to set the parameters of a trial.

While McConnell is required to act on articles of impeachment, which require 67 votes — or a two-thirds majority — to convict the president, he and his Republican colleagues have the power to set the rules and ensure the briefest of trials.

“I think it would be disposed of very quickly,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/ ... antly.html

[Still Baron]

Ah, excellent. That makes more sense than him just not holding a vote.

I’ve just ordered Charles Black’s Impeachment primer (which comes highly recommended). I’ll report back if I learn anything interesting.

[Deebank]

A warm British welcome for the 'Tangerine Wankmaggot' In Chief...



SOme of these are quite good.

[Minnie the Minx]

We got home quite late last night after dinner with friends and could hear music floating through the neighbourhood. I went to investigate because it sounded like a band. A house about three doors up round the bend were having an outside party with a skiffle band, so I took a beer and went and watched. There was a guy of about eighty, who I think had some cognitive problems, who started talking to me. He was the Dad of one of the guests. He started talking to me about politics and he voluntarily offered up though he was conservative and a lifelong Republican that he wouldn't give Trump the STEAM OFF HIS PISS and started doing impersonations of him trying to sign things "duh, can I read? How can I sign if I can't read?" He went on and on. It was a treat. This man had worked for BUSH for god sake and he was incandescent with rage about the current scenario.

Then everyone beat a Trump pinata to bits and the old guy whooped and cheered.

[Count Machuki]

Excellent!

[Minnie the Minx]

Excellent!

It really was.

[Snarfyguy]

Holy shit, how much worse is this going to get?!