Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, August 13, 2019

Is the country in the midst of an impeachment process or not? The answer should be simple. But congressional Democrats have muddled through subpoenas and hearings and press conferences for more than three months since Robert Mueller delivered his report, without adding much clarity.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"If you get any closer, I swear I'm gonna light this fuse, so help me!"

#1 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-12 02:37 PM | Reply

Good article summing up the faux impeachment proceedings so far:

Democrats seem to have deliberately avoided the dramatic moment that a whole-House vote to authorize a formal impeachment inquiry would provide. Perhaps House Democrats fear Trump would hijack any such moment to paint Democrats as both extreme and feckless. Perhaps they fear that initiating impeachment proceedings, rather than simply conducting them without formally invoking an impeachment process, would crowd out the ability to move forward on other legislation. Perhaps they have backed into impeachment "proceedings" as a compromise among different views about impeachment within their caucus; Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi certainly wants to protect her majority by shielding red-state Democrats from a vote that she apparently does not think would help them retain their seats in November of 2020.

Perhaps House Democrats only need to strengthen their hand in their lawsuit seeking access to Mueller's grand jury material, which formal impeachment proceedings may help them achieve. In May, one of us analyzed, with Molly Reynolds, what powers formal impeachment action would give the House. Although uncertain, it's more likely than not that benefits would accrue to House investigators battling an intransigent White House if investigators were to seek documents and testimony under impeachment proceedings, rather than under traditional oversight. This is particularly true for the Judiciary Committee's effort to obtain grand jury materials from Mueller's investigation, which are protected by statute from disclosure in most circumstances. Announcing that formal proceedings are underway will be ammunition in the related coming courtroom battles, including efforts to compel former White House counsel Don McGahn's testimony. It could be, then, that Pelosi is leading a strategy not of drift but of calculation, as an attempt to maximize the litigation benefits of something impeachment-ish while minimizing the associated political cost.

On the political side, the main reason offered by Pelosi and political pundits alike for not pursuing impeachment efforts has been the belief that initiating such formal proceedings without a clear path to conviction and removal by the Senate would damage Democrats at the polls in 2020. This line of argument, at a minimum, seems at odds with the lessons from the elections after the country's two presidential impeachments, neither of which removed the commander in chief [yet did not hurt the unsucessful party at the polls.]

In a rare point of agreement with Speaks, I agree that the Dems will get punished at the polls for not moving into a formal impeachment inquiry unless they act soon.

#2 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-08-13 12:13 PM | Reply

""We've made it clear that the committee is holding an investigation ... we are considering what to do about it, including the possible voting of articles of impeachment.""

No, as is clearly evident, you are trying to find ways you can impeach someone without being found guilty of any reasons for impeachment and get away with it. Basically, you are trying to find ways around the law so you can be as corrupt as politicians have always been. Both sides want to try to treat the Federal government like a private company, where they can do whatever they want for any reason. Our laws prevent that to stop any person or group from oppressing Americans but both sides have their heads so far up their own arses that they can't possibly see what the American people truly want, or what is best for America.

#3 | Posted by humtake at 2019-08-13 12:29 PM | Reply

@#2 ... In a rare point of agreement with Speaks, I agree that the Dems will get punished at the polls for not moving into a formal impeachment inquiry unless they act soon. ...

I've of two minds on this one.

On one hand, I agree with what you say. There is a downside for the Democrats for not starting the formal impeachment inquiry.

On the other hand, if the House does vote to impeach, Pres Trump would never get convicted by the Republicans in the Senate. That is a major upside for Pres Trump.

So, the reason for my ambivalence is I weigh the Democratic downside and the Pres Trump upside, and they look about the same effect.

In other words, do the Democrats vote to impeach, being rewarded at the polls, only to have the Republicans refuse to convict, boosting Pres Trump at the polls.

I see it as a toss-up, to a net loss, for the Democrats. Maybe that is why Spkr Pelosi is so reluctant...

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-13 12:31 PM | Reply

"...if the House does vote to impeach, Pres Trump would never get convicted by the Republicans in the Senate."

And Pelosi would be turning over final adjudication to Moscow Mitch and Roy Cohn Jr.

#5 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 12:34 PM | Reply

#2 | Posted by Rightocenter

History says the party pursuing impeachment will be punished which should give them pause before just going off and launching impeachment proceedings. I am not aware of any successful Presidential impeachments either. There are no "faux impeachment proceedings" - impeachment has not been invoked. I read the statement but actual impeachment itself is still not invoked. I think the experienced members of the party are very carefully playing a somewhat longer game trying to get ironclad evidence and as a result and as the summary of the article lays it out "they are backing into impeachment". IMHO They are either developing a case that absolutely proves what is alleged and forces the Senate to vote on it or they won't impeach.

The last bit is gold and spot on:

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld: In a Trumpian world, you go into impeachment proceedings with the momentum you have, not the momentum you might want.

Like it or not Trump changed politics.

#6 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-08-13 02:42 PM | Reply

History says the party pursuing impeachment will be punished which should give them pause before just going off and launching impeachment proceedings.

That is not exactly true, FTA:

On the political side, the main reason offered by Pelosi and political pundits alike for not pursuing impeachment efforts has been the belief that initiating such formal proceedings without a clear path to conviction and removal by the Senate would damage Democrats at the polls in 2020. This line of argument, at a minimum, seems at odds with the lessons from the elections after the country's two presidential impeachments, neither of which removed the commander in chief. In 1868, Republicans in the House successfully impeached President Andrew Johnson but the Democrats in the Senate did not convict him. After that fall's elections, Republican party control remained the same in the Senate, Democrats gained seats in the House but Republicans kept their overwhelming majority, and the presidency went to a Republican, Ulysses Grant. Similarly, the Republican party suffered little at the polls after the House's late 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton"on lesser charges than those in public view against Trump now"ended in acquittal by the Senate in February 1999. After the Congressional elections in 2000, the Senate moved from Republican control to a tie, but Republicans lost only one seat in the House and won the presidency when George W. Bush took office.
Pelosi is concerned about two things: not having enough Democrat votes if the members in the seats from districts that Trump won vote against impeachment and on the other side of that coin, losing those seats if those members do vote to impeach, thus losing the Majority.

I think that it will be worse for her if she doesn't impeach.

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-08-13 03:33 PM | Reply

What If the House Held Impeachment and Nobody Noticed?

Political theatre wouldn't dream of something as such.

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-08-13 03:36 PM | Reply

The Republicans didnt have a needed majority to convict Clinton.

The Democrats dont have a needed majority to convict Trump.

What was the right thing to do with Clinton?

What is the right thing to do with Trump?

#9 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-13 10:17 PM | Reply

What was the right thing to do with Clinton

Impeach and convict, but the Democratic controlled Senate didn't have the balls to convict.

What is the right thing to do with Trump?

Impeach and convict, but the GOP controlled Senate won't have the balls to convict.

#10 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-08-13 10:45 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

They're not going to impeach. It's too late. The Dems don't want the oxygen sucked out of their nominating circus.

#11 | Posted by willowby at 2019-08-14 01:13 AM | Reply

the GOP controlled Senate won't have the balls to convict.

I recall you arguing the exact opposite on more than one occasion. What changed?

#12 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 05:56 AM | Reply

#12

Nothing has changed, I have said that it is possible to flip more than the 9 sitting members who are Never Trump signatories but that is entirely dependent on the case that gets presented.

Regardless, impeach and at the very least, make the GOP Senators who refuse to convict accountable.

#13 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-08-14 05:58 PM | Reply

Regardless, impeach and at the very least, make the GOP Senators who refuse to convict accountable.
#13 | POSTED BYRIGHTOCENTER

I don't understand how there are not more people adhering to this exactly.

#14 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-08-14 06:43 PM | Reply

I don't understand how there are not more people adhering to this exactly.

Because the flip side to that coin is, once the Republican Senate dismisses impeachment Trump will be "exonerated" and spend the rest of his campaign whining about how he was innocent the whole time.

Democrats will still think he's guilty and Republicans will still think he's innocent regardless of impeachment.

Or, perhaps, Nancy is waiting to get closer to election to play her hand, who knows.

#15 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-08-14 07:04 PM | Reply

Or, perhaps, Nancy is waiting to get closer to election to play her hand, who knows.

Now that the Chief Judge of the DC District Court smacked down Nadler and the JC in their effort to relate cases to get the FedRulesCrimPro to apply to their McGahn subpoenas, the cards in Nancy's hand are not looking any better than they were when Mueller released his report.

#16 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-08-14 09:20 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort