Impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate: two different animals
When Bill Clinton was impeached and then tried and acquitted in the Senate, Republicans controlled both legislative bodies. So the impeachment and trial – which was conducted with protection of minority and presidential rights, unlike the present-day process so far in the House – made a certain amount of sense. GOP control in the House pointed towards impeachment, and although GOP control in the Senate was nowhere near the requisite 67, at least it assured that the Republicans would be managing the proceedings in the Senate against Clinton.
In the case of the removal process for Richard Nixon – although it never came to impeachment and trial because Nixon resigned first – both legislative bodies were controlled by Democrats. The situation was very similar to what later prevailed with Bill Clinton, in which the opposition party (in this case, the Democrats) would have directed a Senate trial because it had a majority, but lacked 67 senators to convict. However, there was one huge difference: enough GOP senators had turned on Nixon that they went to him and informed him that a Senate conviction was highly likely. Therefore, he resigned.
But in both cases, that of Clinton and Nixon, the party opposed to the president controlled both bodies of Congress. This is not the case today, which brings us to a curious situation and a puzzlement: why are the Democrats doing this, if they control only the House and not the Senate?
My answers (some or all of the following):
(1) They feel that the propaganda value of the testimony will damage Trump for the election.
(2) They hope that something new will be unearthed during the process that will end up sinking him in the election.
(3) They hope that something new will be unearthed during the process that will end up sinking him in the Senate and that enough Republicans will come to their side to effect his conviction and removal.
(4) They want to satisfy their base.
(5) They are crazy.
(6) They can’t do math.
(7) They never even looked to the future, and so they forgot about the Senate aspect of the process.
There are probably more possibilities, but I think that’s enough for now.
And so far, (1) (2) and (3) seem to have backfired.
[NOTE: CBS legal analyst Jonathan Turley observes:
Whether this is intentional or not, it [impeachment and removal process] seems designed to fail in the Senate. I don’t think you could prove a removable offense of a president on this record even if the Democrats were in control. This thing is too narrow, it is – it doesn’t have a broad foundation, and it’s an undeveloped record. There are a lot of core witnesses that were not called. And the question is why? They said, “We want a vote by December. We want to vote before Santa.” Why? Why – why would you – why would you be pushing this instead of calling these critical witnesses?…
And so the question is, what is this going to look like in the Senate? And I got to tell you, I think this could be the trial that Trump wants. And they will – the first witness they call may be Hunter Biden.”
Turley, who is often described as a liberal but is actually more of the libertarian persuasion, is a bit like Alan Dershowitz in that he tends to be pretty fair and to sometimes speak up for Trump even though he is very much not a fan.]
I vote for numbers 4, 5 and 6.
I would add #8:
They will face no consequences if they fail. (That is, there is no down side; they can only “win”.)
Hope is not a strategy.
There is a downside, but will it last? they’re turning independent voters off.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/471542-poll-finds-sharp-swing-in-opposition-to-impeachment-among-independents
Oh.
They are trying to get ahead of Horowitz and Durham. It is less important that they have anything of substance than it is to be first.
Previously, I said it was something like a schoolyard taunt. The first one to throw the epithet wins, because the copycat epithet sounds silly. Neo said that was too simplistic, and now I agree with her, mostly.
What the Dems have said and will say regarding Horowitz and Durham investigations is: 1) It’s about targeting people of Trump’s enemies list, and 2) it’s about deflecting attention away from the Ukraine imbroglio and impeachment. You can’t do 2) effectively if the impeachment process is still in its nascent stages when the H&D bombs detonate.
_______
I was going to dismiss Neo’s 5) Crazy item, but people like AOC and most of the squad and possibly Maxine Waters do have real power and might very well be more than a little nuts.
One thing that might play havoc with a Senate trial is the death of Ginsburg. Her age and history of cancer make for poor odds of surviving. Republicans might have to cut the trial short.
I recently looked in on an old Star Trek (Original Series) re-(re-re-)run in which a landing party headed by Mr. Spock kept running into serious trouble. It seems the problem was that Mr. Spock was faithfully applying his ubiquitous flawless logic to the situation, but he overlooked the fact that he was attempting to apply it to primitive, hostile aliens who were reacting emotionally rather than logically.
At this point, neo and dear readers can probably see where this is going, and I’m too lazy to type out the obvious (to most of us here) response, but — hint — It’s a combination of neo’s (5) and (6), driven by primitive, irrational, relentless psychosis.
“Downside”. Nope, it’s plural: downsides. And these are many. Some accruing to Democrat interests exclusively, both to individuals as well as institutional or collective interests. Some affecting the whole nation willy nilly. Some falling on the House. Others — if the Democrats go on to take a winning majority vote to impeach — may fall on the Senate or individual Senators as well.
In sum: it’s a pretty big shit show however we angle it. A very stupid, wholly avoidable mess. Enjoy your misery, leftists. You’ve earned it.
I vote 4) plus they actually think their deranged anger is shared by a very high percentage of the voters.
Should have prefaced my remark above with, “They firmly believe that….”
Just another one of their “Articles of Faith”…or “Pillars of Wisdom”, if you will.
(So no, they can’t possibly fail….)
But hold on—it looks like John Solomon is angling to be a real party pooper here (seems to have taken Vindman’s putdown a bit personally):
https://johnsolomonreports.com/a-dozen-document-troves-that-could-change-the-ukraine-scandal-if-trump-released-them/
Hmmm. Makes one wonder…. Will Trump play?…Will they be released?….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjtPBjEz-BA
Of the reasons offered, I vote for 1 & 4.
Reportedly, Trump now welcomes a Senate trial.
Two recent polls show black support for Trump now @ 34% and Hispanic support in the high 20s…
(2) They hope that something new will be unearthed during the process that will end up sinking him in the election.
Maybe there’s some projection going on too — Democrats know if they were investigated thoroughly, they would be in terrible trouble, so they can’t believe they won’t find something serious on Trump somewhere.
I’m surprised too. I wouldn’t have thought Trump could survive this level of scrutiny. But he has. He’s cleaner than I thought.
huxley concludes, “He’s cleaner than I thought.”
I always knew [“always”, at least dating from when he first became a candidate] that Trump is kinda screwy, but it also has consistently seemed to me that he’s no fool — he is often rendered blind to his own shortcomings, which are legion — but no fool in other regards nonetheless.
One area in which he’s no fool is that he knew/knows he has enemies with long knives determined to do him in, so he knew/knows he’d better toe a straight-‘n’-narrow line and stay clean. From what I have gathered, staying clean goes against his essential grain, but he knew/knows he’d darn well better do it, lest one or more of the long knives prematurely ends his presidency.
So far, anyone with an open mind, which eliminates virtually all observers given to nutcase conspiracy theories, must grant that he’s been “cleaner than I [huxley] thought”, or he’s miraculously managed to escape being caught for three years now and running.
I was going to dismiss Neo’s 5) Crazy item, but people like AOC and most of the squad and possibly Maxine Waters do have real power and might very well be more than a little nuts.
I have little doubt that Maxine is both malevolent and stupid. Says something about her constituency that that doesn’t bother them at all. Omar and Tlaib strike me as sinister characters without much scruple. Pressley’s a mediocrity who doesn’t know anything. AOC’s a silly goof.
Michael Anton, American Greatness:The Bribery Bait-and-Switch
Following up on his recent Claremont Review piece The Empire Strikes Back, Anton updates with the just held “Inquiry” hearings incorporated into his view.
“I wouldn’t have thought Trump could survive this level of scrutiny. But he has. He’s cleaner than I thought.”
Before coming down that golden escalator, Trump spent 40 years as a high-profile businessman in New York City and around the world. You don’t do that unless you learn how to go right up next to the line and lean forward as far as you can without going over it.
Mike
I have a theory I haven’t seen anywhere else: they are pushing impeachment as an insurance policy. They know they’re dirty. They know we know they’re dirty. They are preparing for any eventual indictments by prearranging a PR offensive, namely “he’s dirty, we tried to show the country how dirty he is, and this is his revenge for us trying to show you.” The impeachment charade is nothing more than the next phase of the big push to neuter the president and save their jobs if/when he can clear the decks enough to legally go after those who have been trying to execute a coup against a sitting president. It is self interested, short sighted, and perfectly in line with their previous actions. They thought they had the brass ring with Hillary, but when she lost they had to find another avenue. They want all the marbles and they’re tired of waiting.
I think that they originally thought 1, 2, and/or 3. But, now it difficult for them to back down.
I think it makes sense that they will simply keep delaying the matter, while hoping for a miracle.
huxley,
There is definitely projection at play. They know they are corrupt and assume djt is also corrupt. In his business career I think MBunge is correct about putting his toes a micron away from the line.
Reasons 4 and 1, in that order. Beyond that the Dems are winging it and hoping for a fortuitous bounce.
#: The Dems hope that their Never-Trump accomplices ( Romney, Ryan, et. al.) will blackmail enough Republican Senators to impeach Trump
All of Neo’s reasons make sense. I also like Bibliophile’s theory plus this: The Democrats want to make sure they Trump doesn’t have a successful presidency. There’s also the thought that the constant stress will have to eventually impact the health of this relatively old man. Additionally politicians on both side of the aisle want outsiders to realize what the cost of entering the political arena will be for them.
There’s also the thought that the constant stress will have to eventually impact the health of this relatively old man.
Eva Marie: Good point, to which I would add: They also hoped to provoke him emotionally into damaging his presidency and maybe the country. The Angry White Man.
But again, he fooled them as he fooled me. He has much more self-control than his tweets let on.
I don’t know how Trump keeps his energy going the way he does. If he could figure a way to bottle that and sell it, he would make a few $ bil easy.
Barry Meislin on November 25, 2019 at 3:51 pm said: (and amended later)
I would add #8:
“They firmly believe that….”
They will face no consequences if they fail. (That is, there is no down side; they can only “win”.)
* * *
The evidence they have on hand includes, but is not limited to, the IRS subversion, the Awan “oopsie” with Pakistanis purloining national secrets wholesale, Hillary’s server, and the Kavanaugh smears.
AFAIK, no Democrat has lost so much as a penny, or a pinch of reputation with the Left.
Why shouldn’t they roll the dice again?
RGB’s seat is the payoff.
However, M. Bibliophile makes a good case for the pre-emptive nuking of the President.
M. Bibliophile on November 25, 2019 at 8:19 pm said:
I have a theory I haven’t seen anywhere else: they are pushing impeachment as an insurance policy. They know they’re dirty. They know we know they’re dirty. They are preparing for any eventual indictments by prearranging a PR offensive, namely “he’s dirty, we tried to show the country how dirty he is, and this is his revenge for us trying to show you.”
* * *
https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2019/11/Screen-Shot-2019-11-17-at-5.28.01-PM.png?w=1000&ssl=1
https://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-empire-strikes-back/
(Anton agrees with Barry)
“He has much more self-control than his tweets let on.”
Undoubtedly Trump is sometimes just letting off steam in his tweets – wouldn’t you if you were up against what he has to deal with? – but his tweets and more importantly his actions are much more purposeful than many people think. He doesn’t go out of his way to reveal those purposes at the time, a tactic he probably acquired to throw his opponents off the track. Though sometimes he also throws his supporters off the track :).
Rush Limbaugh has another idea. He posits that Pelosi will try to cut her losses and go down another track. It goes something like this:
We proved he abused his power in dealings with the Ukraine and has shown contempt for the House and obstructed our investigations. He’s guilty and would be impeached and removed except for all those corrupt Republican Senators who won’t vote to remove him. He’s guilty and the Republicans are too corrupt to do their Constitutional duty. Therefore, we will not waste time with a trial. We are confident that the people will recognize his guilt, see the corruption of the Republicans, and will vote him out next November.
Well, its a way for her to cut their losses. I doubt she/they will do it. This is now a Crusade. It’s about faith, not reason. On to the trial. Where they stand to lose big. Really big.
https://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-empire-strikes-back/
(Anton agrees with M.Bibliophile)
(thanks to sdferr for linking the Anton posts; I surely do like the way that man writes!)
“To ordinary Americans—assuming any are paying attention—it looks as though Trump is being impeached for delaying by nine weeks aid that the Obama Administration refused to provide Ukraine for three years. How many Americans think he deserves to be removed for that?”
Michael Anton – November 24th, 2019
Huxley: “They also hoped to provoke him emotionally into damaging his presidency and maybe the country. The Angry White Man.”
Yes. That’s exactly right. He’s an amazing man to be able to respond the way he does.
(4) very much their base demands it, plus
(5b) the BASE is crazy, even if Pelosi and Schiff and Hillary and Biden et al are not.
Similarly, (8b) suffer NO bad consequences from their (crazy) base.
The Favor Bank of unwritten but very real corruption is terrible.
Hillary and her Clinton Bribery Foundation.
Her illegal emails were to make it easier to handle both Bribery Foundation (MOST) important work along with Sec. State “access” work. The Steele junk was the sloppy, not-really needed insurance policy.
Where are the indictments?
The DOJ & FBI are too full of corrupt Dem deep staters who support the Favor Bank corruption.
Trump, alone, “cant’ fire them all”.
There is a lot of projection going on. They assume Trump is doing what they would do and obviously have done, with Hunter Biden and the Steel Dossier being two examples. But there is another big factor.
IMO it is the well defined psychological defense mechanism of Denial. Contrary evidence is invisible to them. It is totally blocked. They really believe they are right.
The Denial is a response to an undefined relentless fear. Things are not working. Our side is losing. The religious fundamentalists are taking over. This is reinforced by academia. A belief of persecution logically explained by experts.
Denial and Projection result in an unforced belief that they are right and can actually convince others. They really believe women in Handmaid Tale dress is convincing. It says everything to them.
“They really believe they are right.”
Indeed they do. And it’s so obvious that everyone should believe so.
But, but the election was not won by she who should have won it. Who deserved to win it. Who must have won it. Who really did win it.
Therefore, “Reality” is wrong. Has taken a wrong turn; has been distorted, perverted, warped, stolen, bribed…by very evil people; led by ONE who is the epitome of evil.
And they—HE—MUST NOT be allowed to get away with it.
Therefore, everything and anything is permitted to be done, to be said, to be written in order to destroy this evil. This terrible thing that has been done to the United States of America.
And anything that stands in the way of destroying this evil—whether it be the Constitution, or laws, or conscience or common sense—is itself evil and must be eradicated.
And they repeat all this again and again ad infinitum.
The MSM, especially, blares out the cultic message without cease. Launches the attacks without cease. Repeats and embellishes the lies of omission and commission without cease (the lies that MUST be true…or at least “accurate”…).
Because (once again) everything and anything is permitted to be done—and written and said—to destroy this evil.
Moreover, they—who in the previous eight years in power—have weaponized government agencies and departments, who have the media firmly spinning in their favor, who believe that THEY ARE the future of the country and hence cannot believe that they have actually LOST an election—feel compelled to read “1984” so as to “make sense” of what has happened; what is happening; what will happen. (It’s almost funny….)
Clearly, their Prime Directive is “Don’t know thyself”…. (Or maybe they know themselves all too well?)
(Of course, problems are always so much easier to solve when it’s somebody else’s fault….)
House Dem now sees no ‘value’ in impeachment, as polls show falling support among independents
“There’s no way around that.”
Still moronic, I see. The plain way around it is that the proposition is not true. Dummy.
sdferr: Yes, I’m seeing a definite uptick on the Censure Option for Pelosi’s Choice.
It may leave the base frustrated, but it allows Democrats a minor moral victory, while avoiding the pitfalls of a Senate trial or an electoral disaster for their candidates in red regions.
Trump will still crow exoneration and let slip the dogs of nyah-nyah.
Related (H/T Powerline blog):
“Why House Dems bent on half-arsed impeachment”
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1119/lowry112619.php3
File under: Hypocrisy unbound.
“Lawrence represents a heavily Democratic district that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won with a roughly 60% margin in the 2016 presidential election. The district has not been represented by a Republican since 1948.” — Washington Examiner
All of the above, plus #8, suggested by J.T.Young over on American Spectator.
8. The inquiry doesn’t only damage Trump; the repeated references to corruption in the Ukraine damage Biden. This weakens him as a candidate, which will strengthen the position of more leftist candidates within the Democratic party. So even if Trump wins, the Leftists also win.
From Rush Limbaugh via J.J.
“He’s guilty and would be impeached and removed except for all those corrupt Republican Senators who won’t vote to remove him. He’s guilty and the Republicans are too corrupt to do their Constitutional duty.”
Ah ha. Control of the Senate could be a factor. There are three avenues going forward.
1) Pelosi stops short of impeachment and referral to the Senate (that’s Rush’s theory).
2) Trump’s impeached and it’s referred to the Senate where judge McConnell dismisses the case.
3) It’s referred to the Senate, there’s a trial and all or almost all GOP senators vote to acquit.
With 1) the Dems can claim that the GOP senators hypothetically would have voted to acquit (those corrupt SoB’s), but it’s a weak campaign claim.
With 2) McConnell probably wouldn’t dismiss without consulting his party members. So now the campaign claim is a little stronger.
But the campaign against GOP senators is the strongest if they force them to vote against convicting Trump. This all is moot if public sentiment really turns against impeachment.
AesopFan on November 26, 2019 at 12:15 am said:
The excerpt from Anton. I suspect that the vast majority of us underestimate the extent to which the environment in DC functions as a vast transactional array of threats and bribes.
A classic example is conviction of Gov. Blagojevich. He attempted to sell a Senate seat for roughly $1M. Not a wad of cash of course, but 3 years of a sinecure at $330K/year. Plausible deniability. His response then and even now was/is, “What? You think this is unusual?” I’m amazed at how cheap these jokers are.
Then there is the secondary issue that the prosecutors really overstepped their bounds by trying the case in the media before the trial. I want to care about prosecutorial abuses, but find it hard to do so when they take out a snake.
Sometimes it’s difficult to determine what is corrupt. Trump had to buy concrete from mob-controlled unionized companies, or he wouldn’t have gotten his buildings in NYC built. In return (in addition to the 20% higher cost), he insisted that the concrete be the “best damn concrete poured in New York.” And he got it. Was he corrupt for doing that?
According to the JewishWorld article (by Rich Lowry), linked by Barry Meislin:
The House is preparing to send a flagrantly incomplete factual record to the Senate as the basis of an effort to remove a sitting president for the first time in our history.
Pelosi has affected a posture of heavy-heartedness since the outset of the process, saying that “there’s no joy in this” and urging a somber spirit as Democrats pursue the facts wherever they may take them — so long as that isn’t too far into an election year.
–Rich Lowry, “Why House Dems bent on half-arsed impeachment”
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1119/lowry112619.php3
Hmm. I wonder how good Lowry’s sources are.
“…saying that ‘there’s no joy in this’ and urging a somber spirit…”
Hey, it’s the old “Son, this’ll hurt me a lot more than it’ll hurt you” trick!!
Oh those compassionate Dems!!!… Those pillars of thoughtfulness. Those paragons of consideration….
Are Lowry’s sources good? Not sure he needs sources. All he has to be able to do is read (outside the MSM) and work it out for himself—though granted, that does seem to be supremely difficult for a lot of people these days…
He is partisan, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be fair; for example, as far as “a flagrantly incomplete factual record” goes, I think he’s being rather charitable….
Ha, Rep. Lawrence has flipped back or backflipped into resuming her firm support for impeachment. Best we not ask.