Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Impeachment
Impeachment
#1
It begins.  In the past 36 hours, a U.S. House of Representatives vote on impeachment has moved from likely to inevitable.

Nancy Pelosi has been trying to hold the Democratic caucus together, so that it looked like it was a slow, deliberate path, if any impeachment.  It's not always good for the impeaching party, as Republicans learned in the 1990s.  But as Trump has stopped all cooperation with House investigations, the situation was getting more untenable.  The belief is that Trump would rather have the impeachment fight, so he can have something to run against in 2020.

The inciting event was Republican congressman Justin Amash calling for President Trump's impeachment.  And suddenly, it got really uncomfortable for a whole lot of progressive democrats to be to the "right" of a Republican member on impeachment, when, let's face it, the base is out for blood.  By late afternoon yesterday, it looks like cracks have appeared within the leadership team in the House, with members giving impeachment-adjacent speeches.

There have also been suggestions from Judiciary Committee members that the first impeachments should be Attorney General Barr and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, for withholding evidence from Congress.

It's going to be a long trip, everyone.
"Kitto daijoubu da yo." - Sakura Kinomoto
Reply
RE: Impeachment
#2
Can't they start with "contempt of Congress" charges? Do they have to go straight to impeachment?

(Legal-process question, not moral or political question.)
--
Rob Kelk

Sticks and stones can break your bones,
But words can break your heart.
- unknown
Reply
RE: Impeachment
#3
Nobody knows. This is new territory.
Reply
RE: Impeachment
#4
The short answer is Congress can start however it wants.  However, many of the Trump administration arguments are based on the idea that they can't be investigated unless there is an active impeachment proceeding.  This is probably incorrect, but it may not be worth the time and lawyers to fight it on every document or witness request.

Yeah, we're not exactly sure how to go about prosecuting the nation's top law enforcement officer while in office.  Contempt of Congress is probably the first step, yes.  But the obstruction of justice is happening right out in the open.  It's one thing to try to find legal grounds to stop giving over a few things you like.  But to just tell everyone in government not to cooperate with an investigation from Congress in any way is criminal behavior.  The remedy for criminal conspiracy is impeachment, not contempt charges.

The case for impeaching Mnuchin is much weaker.  His resistance is limited to one or two topics, and while the law is clear, contempt is probably sufficient, until someone starts defying court orders.   Governments ignore laws they dislike all the time, until forced to follow them.  But really, does this pair look like lawbreakers?
"Kitto daijoubu da yo." - Sakura Kinomoto
Reply
RE: Impeachment
#5
Could they be trying to trigger the impeachement, expecting to survive and then carry the survival into the polls?

I love the smell of rotaries in the morning. You know one time, I got to work early, before the rush hour. I walked through the empty carpark, I didn't see one bloody Prius or Golf. And that smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole carpark, smelled like.... ....speed.

One day they're going to ban them.
Reply
RE: Impeachment
#6
Everyone seems to think so.

Today, Trump walked out of a meeting ostensibly on infrastructure spending, after three minutes of lecturing the Dem leadership on how he can't work with people who are investigating him. He proceeded to give a press conference 30 minutes later, stating that he will approve no legislation until all of the Congressional investigations are halted.

If you think this is a good play, imagine if Obama had decided to shut down the government until the Benghazi hearings were shut down.
"Kitto daijoubu da yo." - Sakura Kinomoto
Reply
RE: Impeachment
#7
(05-22-2019, 04:20 PM)Labster Wrote: He proceeded to give a press conference 30 minutes later, stating that he will approve no legislation until all of the Congressional investigations are halted.

.... Yeah, he's toast.  I don't think any sitting President has ever threatened to not do his job if his demands aren't met.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this be malfeasance?  *Checks*  Nope.  It's Nonfeasance - the failure to perform the duties of one's office.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nonfeasance.asp

Even if he has the support of the far-right wingnuts, I can't see the rest of the Republicans supporting him anymore because if they do, they're gonna lose big in the elections.
Reply
RE: Impeachment
#8
I would not be surprised if Mnuchin and other members of the administration defy court orders, either at the behest of Donald Trump or because by their own behaviour they've become part of the conspiracy to obstruct justice and they have concluded that going for broke is their best bet at getting out relatively unscathed or at least with a political win even if they end up behind bars. I'd be surprised if it works that well to be honest. The public has been getting really tired of the Republican party, even if a significant chunk remains blindly devoted.
Reply
RE: Impeachment
#9
It's only nonfeasance if Trump actually carries out his threat. The dude has a history of not following through on stuff. If so, it's an outright gift to Democrats, because now they can take his quotes and let him share in the blame for congressional gridlock.
"Kitto daijoubu da yo." - Sakura Kinomoto
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)