Evan Mcmullin pulled 21.54% as an independent in Utah. Throw that in with the votes that Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich got, and you have a very real chance of winning the primary, or at least siphoning enough votes to deny the primary to Trump. Someone who mimics his milquetoast policies could easily win many R states.
This is another possibility – IIRC Gary Johnson came close last time to being on the main debate stage. Him or a McMuffin getting on the debate stage would kill trump in the general, but I’d prefer to get him out during the primary.
I think that people here do not recognize the political COST of losing a trial in the Senate. Prosecutors don’t bring cases to a court that they think that they can’t WIN in that court. Impeaching Clinton was popular among the conservative base of the Republican party, but many believe that it cost the GOP in the long term. It plays right into Trump’s narrative that his failures to get much of anything done are due to Democratic partisainship. I simply don’t think that it is politically tennable to attempt impeachment more than once.
This is truely an example of the old saying: Don’t wrestle a pig. You end up covered in shit and the pig loves it. Trump would LOVE to be found innocent in the Senate. That alone is enough reason to take a long, hard skeptical look at the prospect of impeachment.
Yes, many believe that but there is no evidence from the real world to support that. Clinton’s popularity was very high the week they started impeachment and dwindled slowly downward over the course of impeachment and the republicans won the next election. I’m not saying impeachment caused Clinton’s dwindling popularity or that is caused the republicans to win. But it certainly didn’t cause either of those things to not happen.
And prosecutors ought to bring charges if they think the evidence is strong enough, even if they think the defendant has enough money to hire lawyers who will allow them to prevail. The justice system is two-tiered enough without all of us just conceding the point.
But courts are at least theoretically impartial. The process of impeachment and trial for removal from office is an EXPLICITLY political one. So analogies to criminal courts only get you so far.
I don’t think the words, “This shall be a political process” are written in the constitution, so I think the word “explicitly” is a bad fit here. We may all accept that elected representatives act in their own political interests, but in theory they are elected to represent their constituents in governing the country. Putting party before country is definitely not the intent of the constitution.
I just don’t see that happening. If there were one strong challenger and nobody else challenged, it’s a possibility. But I think that loyalty to the Fuhrer will be very strong.
Perhaps you are right, that is overstated. But the decision to have it done by the legislators rather than by the supreme court or a jury seem to make that intention clear to me.
In the usual case, the House can file contempt charges, which go to a lower federal court. And thus can be appealed. The authority of the House to subpoena is based on prior case law and a Congressional Act. The power to subpoena and the power to hold someone in Contempt of Congress are not explicitly a Constitutional power.
If there is a Constitutional authority, then the Supreme Court can hear the case. As it becomes an issue on the separation of powers, violating a SCOTUS ruling on the separation of powers can quickly turn into a justification to impeach on the grounds of abuse of power.
It is also more difficult for agencies to resist requests for information when executing an explicit Constitutional power. Asking for tax returns doesn’t turn into "I won’t give them to you because you don’t have a good enough reason ".
I suspect Democrats don’t want to go down impeachment because this whole thing has been about brinksmanship. It wasn’t that long ago when Eric Holder refused a subpoena and was held in Contempt of Congress. Each side takes turns playing this game, and Pelosi is all about playing the game.
republicans could have, you know, presented an actual plan. instead they wasted their time on something even most of their constituents didn’t want them to do.
impeachment is the opposite. significant portions of their constituents want 45 held accountable. and this can do that.
the process of impeachment at the very least opens new doors. the process of attempting to get rid of what was once a republican health plan? it did nothing. again and again.
yeah, i was happy they wasted their time. i think it’s part of why they lost the house. if the democrats do nothing prepare for them to get squashed. cause nothing rallies voters like voting for people who won’t even try. once.
so yeah. i laughed at the republicans. i also cried. because at least they have some guts
I just heard a PodSaveAmerica episode that went through the pros and cons, and they came down on the side of impeachment. I was a little disappointed with their dismissal of the “political” argument, but I think their arguments for impeachment were compelling. I’m now 94% in that camp.
The decision of whether or not to impeach because it is the right thing to do for good government is one thing. However, on the question of whether it is politically savvy, I can’t think of anyone alive today who has a better handle on this than Nancy Pelosi.
