• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Should the House begin impeachment hearings?

Should Congress begin impeachment hearings?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 60.0%
  • No

    Votes: 12 34.3%
  • Not sure at this point

    Votes: 2 5.7%

  • Total voters
    35
All they'd have to do to justify taking the President away from his "duties" is call it "Executive Time With Congress." And in the subpoena, it just needs to say "The House requests the President spends no more time than the equivalent of two rounds of golf."
 
Or post it as a reality show.

Survivor: Congress.

Let Trump think that his guilt/innocence will depend not on a Congressional vote, but on ratings.

"How can you impeach a man with such a market share as mine?"
 
From a political perspective, impeachment might be risky, but from a moral or legal perspective, it seems to me like Congress needs to impeach, after further investigation. If Congress doesn't do their job, what will future members of Congress do the next time that a president does things that threaten the country? By not acting, the Congress becomes complicit in allowing a president to abuse his power and get away with illegal activity.

Either way, it's not going to be pretty. Trump is already trying to obstruct witnesses from testifying before Congress. We are in crazy land for sure.
A lot of people seem to be overlooking Ravensky's point. The house holds a lot of hearings leading up to actual impeachment proceedings. Get trump on the stand or force him to come up with a lame excuse to not answer the questions, and all those independents that Koy talks about about will likely turn on him very quickly. He doesn't have the attention span, patience, or stamina to deal with 11 hours of questioning, (unlike Clinton. ;) ) and watching him squirm and whine about it might even alienate a significant portion of his base.

If the house were smart, the committee would seriously consider hiring the Daily Show archive crew to find the bits of him saying things that contradict his answers. Every single time, they should run a clip, then ask "were you lying then, or are you lying now" and just keep hammering him on it.

Then, after they've broken him with weeks of that, then they can start actual impeachment proceedings. At that point, even if it doesn't look like it will happen before the election, force McConnell to deny the proceedings...preferably with a few days of the election. Could possibly get 2 birds with one proverbial stone. :)

Donald Trump would not be present for impeachment hearings and would likely never agree to attend. His fear is that Republicans might find cause to turn against him. Probably won't happen, but he is panicking anyway.
 
...

I don't believe Trump will ever resign, which is what (imo) makes it all the more important to have hearings on Russia and everything else before beginning the impeachment process. Get everything out in public so that even Senate Republicans support impeachment and conviction, or the public votes the turd out - whichever comes first.

I believe that the House leadership has been waiting for some bipartisan support to occur BEFORE they start impeachment hearings.
Exactly the same as in the Nixon era. That's why they held the Watergate hearings first; lasting for 7 months before impeachment was on the table.

I think that it is futile to expect anything of the sort, because most Republicans believe that they will be primaried or lose reelection, if they turn against Trump. They have made their Faustian bargain already, and they paid for it dearly in the 2018 "blue wave". It is almost a certainty that articles of impeachment will fail to convince 2/3 of the Senate to remove Trump from office.
Maybe. We'll see.

Let Republicans do what they feel they have to do, and let the public decide whether they want another 4 years of this mess to continue.
I agree, but the House does not need to vote on impeachment now for that to happen. Investigative hearings, otoh, are necessary and starting.
 
Let Republicans do what they feel they have to do, and let the public decide whether they want another 4 years of this mess to continue.
I agree, but the House does not need to vote on impeachment now for that to happen. Investigative hearings, otoh, are necessary and starting.

Right, but nobody is calling for an immediate vote on impeachment. The call is for impeachment hearings to start. That would give greater legitimacy to the subpoenas that the House is issuing for Trump's tax returns and it would likely force the Supreme Court to get involved in scaling back some of Trump's more idiotic stonewalling behavior. Right now, Democrats are slow-walking the impeachment process, arguing that they just want to "do it right". Frankly, I suspect that they think they can stroll along right up to election day and then declare the whole effort moot in light of an impending election. Anyway, impeachment hearings may not result in any articles of impeachment at all, but it really is necessary for the House to do its duty on this.
 
Big mismatches between valuations on his returns and valuations for loans = fraud--and New York can prosecute for that without having to get it through the Senate.

I keep trying to picture how that could possibly go down. Presumably whoever enforces NY law doesn't have any jurisdiction in DC or Palm Beach. Sure, Trump can be convicted of fraud in NY (in absentia if necessary). But could he be sentenced to a prison term, and what if he ignores it, just fails to turn himself in and goes about his nefarious business? Put out an arrest warrant? Is levying a fine the only thing they could actually enforce?
Presumably the State could collect by seizing assets within their jurisdiction, but serious fraud gets anyone else some jail time...

shit that may yet hit the fan:
russian money laundering

Ever hear of extradition? It applies between states as well as between countries.

- - - Updated - - -

From a political perspective, impeachment might be risky, but from a moral or legal perspective, it seems to me like Congress needs to impeach, after further investigation. If Congress doesn't do their job, what will future members of Congress do the next time that a president does things that threaten the country? By not acting, the Congress becomes complicit in allowing a president to abuse his power and get away with illegal activity.

Either way, it's not going to be pretty. Trump is already trying to obstruct witnesses from testifying before Congress. We are in crazy land for sure.
A lot of people seem to be overlooking Ravensky's point. The house holds a lot of hearings leading up to actual impeachment proceedings. Get trump on the stand or force him to come up with a lame excuse to not answer the questions, and all those independents that Koy talks about about will likely turn on him very quickly. He doesn't have the attention span, patience, or stamina to deal with 11 hours of questioning, (unlike Clinton. ;) ) and watching him squirm and whine about it might even alienate a significant portion of his base.

If the house were smart, the committee would seriously consider hiring the Daily Show archive crew to find the bits of him saying things that contradict his answers. Every single time, they should run a clip, then ask "were you lying then, or are you lying now" and just keep hammering him on it.

Then, after they've broken him with weeks of that, then they can start actual impeachment proceedings. At that point, even if it doesn't look like it will happen before the election, force McConnell to deny the proceedings...preferably with a few days of the election. Could possibly get 2 birds with one proverbial stone. :)

Would he even show up?
 
...

I don't believe Trump will ever resign, which is what (imo) makes it all the more important to have hearings on Russia and everything else before beginning the impeachment process. Get everything out in public so that even Senate Republicans support impeachment and conviction, or the public votes the turd out - whichever comes first.

I believe that the House leadership has been waiting for some bipartisan support to occur BEFORE they start impeachment hearings. I think that it is futile to expect anything of the sort, because most Republicans believe that they will be primaried or lose reelection, if they turn against Trump. They have made their Faustian bargain already, and they paid for it dearly in the 2018 "blue wave". It is almost a certainty that articles of impeachment will fail to convince 2/3 of the Senate to remove Trump from office. Let Republicans do what they feel they have to do, and let the public decide whether they want another 4 years of this mess to continue.

That's the ticket.
 
Let Republicans do what they feel they have to do, and let the public decide whether they want another 4 years of this mess to continue.
I agree, but the House does not need to vote on impeachment now for that to happen. Investigative hearings, otoh, are necessary and starting.

Right, but nobody is calling for an immediate vote on impeachment. The call is for impeachment hearings to start. That would give greater legitimacy to the subpoenas that the House is issuing for Trump's tax returns and it would likely force the Supreme Court to get involved in scaling back some of Trump's more idiotic stonewalling behavior. Right now, Democrats are slow-walking the impeachment process, arguing that they just want to "do it right". Frankly, I suspect that they think they can stroll along right up to election day and then declare the whole effort moot in light of an impending election. Anyway, impeachment hearings may not result in any articles of impeachment at all, but it really is necessary for the House to do its duty on this.

Agreed. Plus, I think it's taking some time for what Mueller actually did--and what his report has afforded the House--to really sink in, not just among the general population, but among those in Congress as well.

Plus I can't help but think the date of Roger Stone's trial (November) wasn't also deliberate. Both primaries will be well under way by then and the frontrunners more or less determined. The assumption, of course, is that it will be Trump on the GOP side, but that's not actually a certainty just yet. If the GOP follow 2016, they'll start their primary debates in August, but it may be earlier to match Dems evidently shifting their debate schedule earlier.

Republicans are not just going to sit this one out, after all. Bill Weld has just called on Trump to resign and evidently is planning on a run, going so far as to officially switch from Libertarian back to Republican. Kasich and Romney have been dropping little test bombs here and there and apparently Larry Hogan is considering it.

And clearly Trump and the RNC fears any challengers could be effective, as the Guardian noted:

With the party firmly under Trump’s control, the GOP is now working to stifle any potential rebellion.

Last month, Republican National Committee members unanimously voted to approve a resolution declaring “undivided support” of Trump and his presidency at the body’s annual winter meeting in New Mexico. Meanwhile, in South Carolina, Republicans have voiced support for cancelling the state’s primary to block potential challengers and protect the president.
...
For Weld or any other candidate who runs as a Republican, playing the spoiler might be the best they can do. The president’s approval ratings remain high among Republicans and few observers see him losing the nomination.

But historically, wounding is what insurgent candidates have done best. George HW Bush defeated fellow Republican Pat Buchanan’s primary effort in 1992 only to lose to Bill Clinton in the general. In 1980, Jimmy Carter lost 12 primary contests to Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy before losing by a landslide to Ronald Reagan. And in 1976, Reagan challenged Gerald Ford, who lost to Carter.

Any attempt to primary the president would be “an attempt to wound”, said Steve Duprey, a New Hampshire Republican National Committee member who was a senior adviser to the late John McCain’s 2008 campaign. “Now with the basically co-joining of the Republican National Committee with the Trump campaign so it’s one, I think it makes it a very daunting task to take him on.”

Still, some do see some room for potential insurgent candidates to mount more competitive campaigns aimed at denying Trump the nomination.

Tom Rath, a former New Hampshire attorney general who served as a senior national advisor to Kasich in the 2016 election, said there is “no appetite” in the Republican party for a challenger. However, if Trump seems unlikely to win re-election in 2020, Republicans afraid of losing the White House after having already lost the House of Representatives could be more open to an insurgent candidate.

“The only cogent argument that will cut is electability,” he said. “And if there was a weakening of the president’s numbers, I think that would potentially give more credence to a challenger.”

And what will impact electability? Ongoing investigations, but particularly bombshell revelations from the Stone trial in November when the primaries are well under way and the initial challengers have been pared down, so that there is no distracting noise.
 
And what will impact electability? Ongoing investigations,
Well, Trump DID promise that if I voted for Hillary, I'd get a president that was under federal investigation. And he delivered. Maybe his 2020 campaign slogan would be "STILL Investigating!"
 
I'm torn. So voted undecided.

I believe that Trump has committed offenses related at least to obstruction that demand that he be held accountable.

I also believe that he is purposely trying to destroy the rule of law as well as other offenses against the constitution such as attempt to make racism a policy and usurping powers that are not constitutionally his. The destruction on checks and balances could be irrevocable in the short/medium term. He has violated his oath of office to uphold the law. For this he MUST be brought down and his crimes displayed for all of history to see.

On the other hand, I do worry that the senate will not go along and that impeachment would fail. I also have been reading the history of what has happened in the past when there is an impeachment and to try and fail could increase the likelihood that Trump will get 4 more years to complete his destruction of our constitutional system.

So for now I am undecided on immediate impeachment. I think that congress has to continue to investigate and observe and document as Trump commits more and more crimes.

- - - Updated - - -

Hillary Clinton wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post where at least in part she addresses this question. You have to pay to see it, unfortunately. It's being quoted all over the press right now.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/politics/hillary-clinton-mueller-report-op-ed/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/25/media/reliable-sources-04-24-19/index.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-russia-plot-impeachment

It's a good opinion piece. I subscribe to the WaPo.
 
Hillary Clinton wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post where at least in part she addresses this question. You have to pay to see it, unfortunately. It's being quoted all over the press right now.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/politics/hillary-clinton-mueller-report-op-ed/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/25/media/reliable-sources-04-24-19/index.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-russia-plot-impeachment

Snippets:

The debate about how to respond to Russia’s “sweeping and systematic” attack — and how to hold President Trump accountable for obstructing the investigation and possibly breaking the law — has been reduced to a false choice: immediate impeachment or nothing. History suggests there’s a better way to think about the choices ahead.

Obviously, this is personal for me, and some may say I’m not the right messenger. But my perspective is not just that of a former candidate and target of the Russian plot. I am also a former senator and secretary of state who served during much of Vladi*mir Putin’s ascent, sat across the table from him and knows firsthand that he seeks to weaken our country.

I am also someone who, by a strange twist of fate, was a young staff attorney on the House Judiciary Committee’s Watergate impeachment inquiry in 1974, as well as first lady during the impeachment process that began in 1998. And I was a senator for New York after 9/11, when Congress had to respond to an attack on our country. Each of these experiences offers important lessons for how we should proceed today.

First, like in any time our nation is threatened, we have to remember that this is bigger than politics. What our country needs now is clear-eyed patriotism, not reflexive partisanship. Whether they like it or not, Republicans in Congress share the constitutional responsibility to protect the country. Mueller’s report leaves many unanswered questions — in part because of Attorney General William P. Barr’s redactions and obfuscations. But it is a road map. It’s up to members of both parties to see where that road map leads — to the eventual filing of articles of impeachment, or not. Either way, the nation’s interests will be best served by putting party and political considerations aside and being deliberate, fair and fearless.

Second, Congress should hold substantive hearings that build on the Mueller report and fill in its gaps, not jump straight to an up-or-down vote on impeachment. In 1998, the Republican-led House rushed to judgment. That was a mistake then and would be a mistake now.

Watergate offers a better precedent. Then, as now, there was an investigation that found evidence of corruption and a coverup. It was complemented by public hearings conducted by a Senate select committee, which insisted that executive privilege could not be used to shield criminal conduct and compelled White House aides to testify. The televised hearings added to the factual record and, crucially, helped the public understand the facts in a way that no dense legal report could. Similar hearings with Mueller, former White House counsel Donald McGahn and other key witnesses could do the same today.
...
Third, Congress can’t forget that the issue today is not just the president’s possible obstruction of justice — it’s also our national security. After 9/11, Congress established an independent, bipartisan commission to recommend steps that would help guard against future attacks. We need a similar commission today to help protect our elections. This is necessary because the president of the United States has proved himself unwilling to defend our nation from a clear and present danger. It was just reported that Trump’s recently departed secretary of homeland security tried to prioritize election security because of concerns about continued interference in 2020 and was told by the acting White House chief of staff not to bring it up in front of the president. This is the latest example of an administration that refuses to take even the most minimal, common-sense steps to prevent future attacks and counter ongoing threats to our nation.
...
We have to get this right. The Mueller report isn’t just a reckoning about our recent history; it’s also a warning about the future. Unless checked, the Russians will interfere again in 2020, and possibly other adversaries, such as China or North Korea, will as well. This is an urgent threat. Nobody but Americans should be able to decide America’s future. And, unless he’s held accountable, the president may show even more disregard for the laws of the land and the obligations of his office. He will likely redouble his efforts to advance Putin’s agenda, including rolling back sanctions, weakening NATO and undermining the European Union.

Of all the lessons from our history, the one that’s most important may be that each of us has a vital role to play as citizens. A crime was committed against all Americans, and all Americans should demand action and accountability.
 
...

I don't believe Trump will ever resign, which is what (imo) makes it all the more important to have hearings on Russia and everything else before beginning the impeachment process. Get everything out in public so that even Senate Republicans support impeachment and conviction, or the public votes the turd out - whichever comes first.

I believe that the House leadership has been waiting for some bipartisan support to occur BEFORE they start impeachment hearings. I think that it is futile to expect anything of the sort, because most Republicans believe that they will be primaried or lose reelection, if they turn against Trump. They have made their Faustian bargain already, and they paid for it dearly in the 2018 "blue wave". It is almost a certainty that articles of impeachment will fail to convince 2/3 of the Senate to remove Trump from office. Let Republicans do what they feel they have to do, and let the public decide whether they want another 4 years of this mess to continue.

That's the ticket.

:rolleyes: Maybe it would be, if not for the game-rigging that is going on. The republican cheat machine is turbocharged, now that it is free to enlist the help of foreign adversaries with impunity. I say get the attention of the public, NOW. Go ahead and use the "i-word". Get Mueller's story in public testimony asap. Get people from SDNY and everywhere else there are current investigations underway, to testify to the House committees. Don't sit around and give tacit endorsement for another 18 months, to corruptions that jeopardize the foundational principles of this Nation. If we're going to do that, we might as well come right out and publicly ask the UK, Norway, Germany, Australia, Japan and anyone else who is appalled by Trump and trumpism, to please hack into Donny's unsecured cell phone or the Chinese system that monitors it, and retrieve that call from Junior at the infamous Trump Tower meeting. Normalize the whole set of means to the end of "election". Cheato will likely up the ante, asking Russia if they will please do something about the Dem candidate "you know, Russia, Fox News will reward you mightily if you make her famous, like... Sergei Skripal?" And who can complain? I can hear Cheato now... "Four years they tried to hang me with this witch hunt bullshit, and no luck. Now, just one of their stupid candidates mysteriously drops dead - just ONE! - and they're accusing me??? I never even HEARD of her! Gimme a break, losers."
 
That's the ticket.

:rolleyes: Maybe it would be, if not for the game-rigging that is going on. The republican cheat machine is turbocharged, now that it is free to enlist the help of foreign adversaries with impunity. I say get the attention of the public, NOW. Go ahead and use the "i-word". Get Mueller's story in public testimony asap. Get people from SDNY and everywhere else there are current investigations underway, to testify to the House committees. Don't sit around and give tacit endorsement for another 18 months, to corruptions that jeopardize the foundational principles of this Nation. If we're going to do that, we might as well come right out and publicly ask the UK, Norway, Germany, Australia, Japan and anyone else who is appalled by Trump and trumpism, to please hack into Donny's unsecured cell phone or the Chinese system that monitors it, and retrieve that call from Junior at the infamous Trump Tower meeting. Normalize the whole set of means to the end of "election". Cheato will likely up the ante, asking Russia if they will please do something about the Dem candidate "you know, Russia, Fox News will reward you mightily if you make her famous, like... Sergei Skripal?" And who can complain? I can hear Cheato now... "Four years they tried to hang me with this witch hunt bullshit, and no luck. Now, just one of their stupid candidates mysteriously drops dead - just ONE! - and they're accusing me??? I never even HEARD of her! Gimme a break, losers."

...and continuing on... "Plus, she's ugly and had no chance of winning. If I were going to kill someone, it'd be someone like Biden."
 
I believe that Trump has committed offenses related at least to obstruction that demand that he be held accountable.

I agree.

I also believe that he is purposely trying to destroy the rule of law as well as other offenses against the constitution such as attempt to make racism a policy and usurping powers that are not constitutionally his.

I'm not quite there yet. I don't think he's purposely setting out to destroy the rule of law or usurp power. He simply doesn't understand how things work. He's a spoiled, sheltered man who has always gotten his way, has never been held accountable for anything in his life, and is acting in accordance with his experience. As the old saying goes, ignorance of the law is no defense, but I do believe his actions fundamentally stem from ignorance. At some level he probably understands that some of his actions are illegal, but that's never been a problem for him in his business life, and he seems to utterly fail to grasp the separation of powers. He's not sitting in the Oval Office plotting the destruction of the rule of law and the Constitution. He's sitting there wondering "why aren't people following my orders? I'm the boss!"

On the other hand, I do worry that the senate will not go along and that impeachment would fail.

And for that, we go back to Mitch McConnell, whom I do believe is fully aware of the damage he's doing. For him, Trump is a useful idiot, and the vessel upon which he and key Republicans have hung their hopes for turning this country into one with one-party rule. The GOP once ran 16 challengers against Trump, and seemed fairly well surprised that he won the nomination so convincingly. Instead of trying to regain their party from this one bombastic idiot interloper, they've gone "all in" and as a whole have no intention of mounting a serious challenge to his 2020 nomination. They are absolutely setting about to usurp power, and Trump is their way to get that done.
 
I don't think he's purposely setting out to destroy the rule of law or usurp power.

Literally everything he has done since day one contradicts such a thought.

He simply doesn't understand how things work.

He has been toying with the Presidency for well over thirty years. He may not have understood the job in the first few months—even the first full year—but that excuse doesn’t wash anymore.

He's a spoiled, sheltered man who has always gotten his way, has never been held accountable for anything in his life, and is acting in accordance with his experience.

Being sheltered does not necessarily equate with being grossly ignorant of the rule of law. Quite the contrary, in fact, since he has continuously broken the law and then had people like his father and Roy Cohen and the like to fix it for him.

That is someone who knows exactly how the “law” works and how to get around it, not someone who is clueless and just bumbling through a privileged oblivion.

but I do believe his actions fundamentally stem from ignorance.

Again, contrary to literally everything he’s done. He is a criminal who knows how to cover his tracks and that takes a deep understanding of what those tracks entail.

Iow, he plays the fool to fool people into believing he’s a fool.

At some level he probably understands that some of his actions are illegal, but that's never been a problem for him in his business life

Again, quite the contrary. You’re mistaking deliberate acts and knowing exactly how to get out of them with innocent bumbling.

He's not sitting in the Oval Office plotting the destruction of the rule of law and the Constitution.

Someone who has the power to whisper in his ear and/or affect policy most definitely is, so if he is not a willing participant, he is clearly a useful asset to whoever is behind it.

He's sitting there wondering "why aren't people following my orders? I'm the boss!"

Again, that is what we are supposed to think of him, but everything he has actually done betrays some other force at work, either within him or behind him pulling the strings, or, most likely, a combination of both. Considering the fact that nearly every single person who has ever worked for him in this campaign is either indicted, facing a trial or quit/been fired and the same conditions remain firmly in place, the evidence argues for an ongoing, willing (or coerced) participation on his part.

Iow, the fact that everything has changed around him, but nothing has changed in regard to the damage he is deliberately inflicting on America’s standing in the world betrays the fact that it’s all centered on him and not any other factor. That, again, would necessarily require him to be more than just a “useful idiot.” Useful, yes. Idiot, no.

Not possible for an idiot to nevertheless go this long and this deep, consistently and without alteration of agenda even if that idiot were being puppeted through.

On the other hand, I do worry that the senate will not go along and that impeachment would fail.

And for that, we go back to Mitch McConnell, whom I do believe is fully aware of the damage he's doing. For him, Trump is a useful idiot, and the vessel upon which he and key Republicans have hung their hopes for turning this country into one with one-party rule.

I agree he finds Trump a “useful idiot” but that’s out of opportunity, not design. And there is a design at work behind everything Trump has done. It’s the same pattern he employed in every single business “deal” he’s ever been a part of. The purpose was never the intended facade; never to build a building for the sake of the building, rather to build a building for the sake of it going bankrupt so that he could profit off of the detritus.

He’d sell his name, take out huge loans and make everyone think he was all about the building up not the tearing down. Vulture capitalism.

That takes a con man’s intelligence and guile and that’s exactly what we’re seeing in his persona; a long con. Again, whether that’s him on his own or, more likely, him being puppeted by Putin (as all the evidence points to) may not ever be definitively revealed, it’s clear that after two years in office he can’t still claim “I’m new to this and don’t know what I’m doing.”

The GOP once ran 16 challengers against Trump, and seemed fairly well surprised that he won the nomination so convincingly. Instead of trying to regain their party from this one bombastic idiot interloper, they've gone "all in" and as a whole have no intention of mounting a serious challenge to his 2020 nomination. They are absolutely setting about to usurp power, and Trump is their way to get that done.

Possibly. It’s difficult to tell, because the GOP is exceptionally good at hiding their true colors. It’s what they do professionally after all (most to the point of serious harm to others to hide their secrets). There are—however—serious challengers already arising (Weld, for example) and clear calls within the more “moderate” parts of the party that just aren’t trumpeted on Fox News and Breitbart.

But that should be no great surprise. The Republicans only have ONE “news” organization (Fox) after all. Nothing else comes close, so if it’s not being vomited on Fox every twenty minutes it doesn’t leak out into the real world the way every tiny shit a Dem takes gets amplified.

But there is definitely a “silent” and a “not so silent” element within the 40% potential Republican swing/disgruntled voter ranks and no Republican Senator up for re-election is forgetting that fact or the devastation from 2018.

It’s not enough to scare the untouchables, of course, but then, there never is.
 
From a political perspective, impeachment might be risky, but from a moral or legal perspective, it seems to me like Congress needs to impeach, after further investigation. If Congress doesn't do their job, what will future members of Congress do the next time that a president does things that threaten the country? By not acting, the Congress becomes complicit in allowing a president to abuse his power and get away with illegal activity.

Either way, it's not going to be pretty. Trump is already trying to obstruct witnesses from testifying before Congress. We are in crazy land for sure.
A lot of people seem to be overlooking Ravensky's point. The house holds a lot of hearings leading up to actual impeachment proceedings. Get trump on the stand or force him to come up with a lame excuse to not answer the questions, and all those independents that Koy talks about about will likely turn on him very quickly. He doesn't have the attention span, patience, or stamina to deal with 11 hours of questioning, (unlike Clinton. ;) ) and watching him squirm and whine about it might even alienate a significant portion of his base.

If the house were smart, the committee would seriously consider hiring the Daily Show archive crew to find the bits of him saying things that contradict his answers. Every single time, they should run a clip, then ask "were you lying then, or are you lying now" and just keep hammering him on it.

Then, after they've broken him with weeks of that, then they can start actual impeachment proceedings. At that point, even if it doesn't look like it will happen before the election, force McConnell to deny the proceedings...preferably with a few days of the election. Could possibly get 2 birds with one proverbial stone. :)

Donald Trump would not be present for impeachment hearings and would likely never agree to attend. His fear is that Republicans might find cause to turn against him. Probably won't happen, but he is panicking anyway.
Even the president is subject to congressional subpoena.
 
Donald Trump would not be present for impeachment hearings and would likely never agree to attend. His fear is that Republicans might find cause to turn against him. Probably won't happen, but he is panicking anyway.
Even the president is subject to congressional subpoena.

Yeah? Or WHAT? Sent the US Marshalls to war against the Secret Service?
 
Yeah? Or WHAT? Sent the US Marshalls to war against the Secret Service?
stop payments on jet fuel for AirForce 1?

That seems to be the extent of their capability. Seriously, did nobody notice that the presidency has been steadily usurping powers from the other branches of government, until Cheato starting blatantly using those usurped powers to destroy the Country? It's not like we couldn't see this coming...
 
Back
Top Bottom