Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[eschatological]

To impeach Pence, you'd have to start a separate impeachment inquiry. And, even if he's implicated in this, anything Pence has done will look like such a small thing compared to the utter corruption of Trump that no Democrat will want to "waste time" on it and lose focus on the Trump impeachment.

- - - Updated - - -

Let me float an idea. Just curious people's thought.

What if instead of passing Articles of Impeachment, Democrats turn their evidence into an argument for a Censure Resolution. They say "we know Republicans won't vote to remove under any circumstance, so let's see if they vote to endorse this behavior or not in a symbolic manner".

And what if they basically ambush Republicans with this at the 11th hour. After expecting an impeachment trial where the outcome is a foregone conclusion because of partisanship, what if they drop a bomb on Republicans by taking that off the table, but putting them unexpectedly in a situation where the could vote against trump but not remove him.

What do you think?

The big flaw I see is that Mitch McConnell would not be compelled to take a Censure resolution up. So maybe more broadly, what do you think of Censure which could possibly pass versus removal which won't.

They censured Clinton when they couldn't convict. And it made little to no difference to how the Clinton White House did business. I largely feel censure is meaningless, and all it can do is anger progressives, and make conservatives smug at the "liberal capitulation." The symbolic nature will be lost on everyone.

[Breccia]

The big flaw I see is that Mitch McConnell would not be compelled to take a Censure resolution up. So maybe more broadly, what do you think of Censure which could possibly pass versus removal which won't.

Your former party is too far gone. At this point, I doubt the GOP would even sign a bill that says "We acknowledge Trump made at least one mistake".

[draynay]

Let me float an idea. Just curious people's thought.

What if instead of passing Articles of Impeachment, Democrats turn their evidence into an argument for a Censure Resolution. They say "we know Republicans won't vote to remove under any circumstance, so let's see if they vote to endorse this behavior or not in a symbolic manner".

And what if they basically ambush Republicans with this at the 11th hour. After expecting an impeachment trial where the outcome is a foregone conclusion because of partisanship, what if they drop a bomb on Republicans by taking that off the table, but putting them unexpectedly in a situation where the could vote against trump but not remove him.

What do you think?

The big flaw I see is that Mitch McConnell would not be compelled to take a Censure resolution up. So maybe more broadly, what do you think of Censure which could possibly pass versus removal which won't.

So... replacing one symbolic gesture with another that serves no purpose except to help some Republicans save face? Is there some benefit I'm missing? Last I checked being censured doesn't stop you from appearing on a $20 bill.

[Resurgo]

Let me float an idea. Just curious people's thought.

What if instead of passing Articles of Impeachment, Democrats turn their evidence into an argument for a Censure Resolution. They say "we know Republicans won't vote to remove under any circumstance, so let's see if they vote to endorse this behavior or not in a symbolic manner".

And what if they basically ambush Republicans with this at the 11th hour. After expecting an impeachment trial where the outcome is a foregone conclusion because of partisanship, what if they drop a bomb on Republicans by taking that off the table, but putting them unexpectedly in a situation where the could vote against trump but not remove him.

What do you think?

The big flaw I see is that Mitch McConnell would not be compelled to take a Censure resolution up. So maybe more broadly, what do you think of Censure which could possibly pass versus removal which won't.

That would (IMO) backfire.
Dems would look like they lost a spine.
GoP would pounce on that as proof they had nothing to begin with.

[akris15]

What do you think?

The big flaw I see is that Mitch McConnell would not be compelled to take a Censure resolution up. So maybe more broadly, what do you think of Censure which could possibly pass versus removal which won't.

You answered your own question McConnell won't put anyone in the Senate in danger with any vote against Trump unless he specifically has too even if its a "lesser" resolution. It also turns the Democrats base against them making them look weak and allow Republicans to make the case...well Dems are trying to salvage this farce.

[Elegiac]

What do you think?

No, for the same reason we aren't just sitting back and letting the election decide if Trump should remain in office.

President Bonespurs committed a legal offense of such a heinous nature that the Founders, a group of people whose intent is the subject of intensely heated debate, saw fit to codify into the Constitution that doing so shall result in removal from office.. Like...this isn't a subject of vague interpretation like "general welfare" or "necessary and proper" - it's flat out bribery and abuse of the position. They are giving a clear imperative that a President that does this exact thing needs to be removed.

That merits the ultimate sanction available, even if it all it amounts to is going through the motions in the House. I'd rather not have another "peace in our time" moment if Pelosi walks away with a successful censure resolution. It might look good on paper, but history will remember otherwise.

[StarDog]

Impeachment question. Now that Pence is directly implicated (and you guys didn't have faith that we could get Pence at the same time ), will we have to have two impeachment hearings to toss Trump and Pence out or can we group them together BOGO style.

McConnell would never allow this in a million years. (And to be clear, if Trump is removed, it will be because Mitch ALLOWED it to happen).

If Trump is kicked out (either a vote in the Senate or--much more likely--resignation), there will be an unspoken gentleman's agreement that Democrats take their well earned win and not push their luck.

[Edge-]

https://www.motherjones.com/politics...iden-and-2016/

Giulinai, still Trump's personal lawyer and acting at his direction, is still working on his Ukraine/Biden investigations that kicked off this whole thing.

[Thelxi]

I'm not sure Jordan and Stefanik were smart choices for the GOP. Their loud and indignant behavior is in constant danger of running out of steam and backfiring.

[Elegiac]

https://www.motherjones.com/politics...iden-and-2016/

Giulinai, still Trump's personal lawyer and acting at his direction, is still working on his Ukraine/Biden investigations that kicked off this whole thing.

One wonders how much dirt America's Mayor has on people in the administration and the GOP that literally none of them are telling him to shut up.

[cubby]

Let me float an idea. Just curious people's thought.

What if instead of passing Articles of Impeachment, Democrats turn their evidence into an argument for a Censure Resolution. They say "we know Republicans won't vote to remove under any circumstance, so let's see if they vote to endorse this behavior or not in a symbolic manner".

And what if they basically ambush Republicans with this at the 11th hour. After expecting an impeachment trial where the outcome is a foregone conclusion because of partisanship, what if they drop a bomb on Republicans by taking that off the table, but putting them unexpectedly in a situation where the could vote against trump but not remove him.

What do you think?

The big flaw I see is that Mitch McConnell would not be compelled to take a Censure resolution up. So maybe more broadly, what do you think of Censure which could possibly pass versus removal which won't.

I think you answered it with the McConnell movement. He wouldn't be required to do anything with it, so he won't - and will just let it die over the holidays.

[wunksta]

I think you answered it with the McConnell movement. He wouldn't be required to do anything with it, so he won't - and will just let it die over the holidays.

What are the chances it reaches the Senate before Christmas?

[cubby]

What are the chances it reaches the Senate before Christmas?

Given that Pelosi has become a Master Political Strategist, I believe she will wait until after the holidays to deliver formal Articles. If she delivers them before the break, there is a good chance the topic could die down. But if Schiff continues to gather evidence and the Democrats "review all the evidence before delivering an accurate set of charges against the Resident" then she can keep the narrative going in her favor through to the new year. Then dump it on McConnell with all eyes on him, forcing him to move on them properly.

[Breccia]

What are the chances it reaches the Senate before Christmas?

Govt funding runs out Dec 20. So...small.

[PACOX]

I'm not sure Jordan and Stefanik were smart choices for the GOP. Their loud and indignant behavior is in constant danger of running out of steam and backfiring.

They are smart choices if your only objective is to rile up the painfully uninformed.

[Xeones]

Impeachment question. Now that Pence is directly implicated (and you guys didn't have faith that we could get Pence at the same time ), will we have to have two impeachment hearings to toss Trump and Pence out or can we group them together BOGO style.

If Senate Republicans made a deal to get rid of trump and not press pence on what he knew I'd be in favor of taking it. Trump is an immediate danger to the nation.

[Edge-]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/lev-pa...investigations

Lev Parnas, an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, helped arrange meetings and calls in Europe for Rep. Devin Nunes in 2018, Parnas’ lawyer Ed MacMahon told The Daily Beast.

Nunes aide Derek Harvey participated in the meetings, the lawyer said, which were arranged to help Nunes’ investigative work. MacMahon didn’t specify what those investigations entailed.

Huh, so Lev Parnas, not an unfamiliar name, was working with Nunes as well.

Curious.

[Thelxi]

They are smart choices if your only objective is to rile up the painfully uninformed.

Yeah but that is my point. When you are that loud and constantly forced to change your story and actually participate in what you are trying to paint as a joke, even the stupid people might get a clue. People can actually see them behave in real time now not just in the context of carefully selected drumrolls and sounbites.

[Gestopft]

Huh, so Lev Parnas, not an unfamiliar name, was working with Nunes as well.

Nunes, who was giving the WH info on the Mueller investigation?! That Nunes? Couldn't be!

[Orbitus]

Is Castor really the best lawyer the GOP could find?

Where'd he get his certificate, a cereal box mail in promotion?

When the best lawyers you can find, know that defending Trump, somehow comes and bites you in the ass eventually, then you don't want to work for them or with Trump. So, yes, this is the best they can find.