• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Donald Impeachment

Good find there. I didn’t realize that about the Nixon situation - the Clinton was slightly different because they’d already had an independent counsel investigate (so the committee side of things were pretty perfunctory). I was thinking more along the lines of needing a vote to “legalize” any subpoena power

The best phrasing I suppose is there is no requirement that they have such an inquiry nor is there any law or regulation providing that a failure to hold a vote to approve the inquiry allows the WH to ignore issued subpoenas.

Yes, there are no written rules for conducting an impeachment. There are three for three precedents that a House resolution marks the formal start of impeachment proceedings.

The Clinton impeachment was preceded by the Starr Report. The Nixon one by the earlier Senate select committee (chaired by Sen Sam Ervin) inquiry into Watergate break-in and subsequent coverup.

Both of those were large investigations into the conduct of the president and those around him.
 

Graham has become a truly pathetic figure. Of course he's contemptuous and spineless and all that, but he might as well just get on his knees and grovel at this point for Trump's favor, because that's what he has been reduced to. Pitiful.
 
The House needs to minimize the possible loopholes for Trump to use. IDK what is delaying the formal House Resolution establishing impeachment proceedings. The only thing that makes sense is that Pelosi doesn't want Nadler (Judiciary Committee chair) as the face of the proceedings.


To circumvent that, have the resolution create a select committee to do all the hearings, chaired by somebody else, and then have that committee refer the findings to Judiciary for final wording. The Judiciary Committee has provided the venue for formal drafting of articles of impeachment in the three previous impeachments. Follow precedent here, to limit Trump's loopholes.
 
Regicide is what Joe diGenova called it. It is not what conservatives are now calling it.

yeah, you're right. He was given a platform on the most watched news service and Right Wing propaganda machine and no one denounced or even challenged him.
 
Right. As I said, regicide is what diGenova called it. It is not what conservatives are calling it.

source.gif
 
I say just pass an article of impeachment for habitual obstruction of congressional oversight and attach this 8 page letter as exhibit A, then attach all his bullshit assertions of executive privilege as exhibits B-Z, and roll with it (along with articles for the Ukraine and China stuff). I don't see the point of dragging this out or giving the packed SCOTUS a chance to rule on it - the last thing we need is more legal precedent for an authoritarian executive branch. Get it on McConnell's plate by Halloween, let him have his show trial and rubber stamp Trump's behavior, and spend 2020 running ads showing that Senate Republicans are on board with Trump's lawlessness. The American people have got to decide whether they want our experiment in democracy to end as an authoritarian banana republic or not. I still have some faith that we'll make the right decisions in November 2020.
 
The House needs to minimize the possible loopholes for Trump to use. IDK what is delaying the formal House Resolution establishing impeachment proceedings. The only thing that makes sense is that Pelosi doesn't want Nadler (Judiciary Committee chair) as the face of the proceedings.


To circumvent that, have the resolution create a select committee to do all the hearings, chaired by somebody else, and then have that committee refer the findings to Judiciary for final wording. The Judiciary Committee has provided the venue for formal drafting of articles of impeachment in the three previous impeachments. Follow precedent here, to limit Trump's loopholes.

Protecting membership from having to make what might be an un-popular vote in their particular district.
 
I say just pass an article of impeachment for habitual obstruction of congressional oversight and attach this 8 page letter as exhibit A, then attach all his bullshit assertions of executive privilege as exhibits B-Z, and roll with it (along with articles for the Ukraine and China stuff). I don't see the point of dragging this out or giving the packed SCOTUS a chance to rule on it - the last thing we need is more legal precedent for an authoritarian executive branch. Get it on McConnell's plate by Halloween, let him have his show trial and rubber stamp Trump's behavior, and spend 2020 running ads showing that Senate Republicans are on board with Trump's lawlessness. The American people have got to decide whether they want our experiment in democracy to end as an authoritarian banana republic or not. I still have some faith that we'll make the right decisions in November 2020.

You are more hopeful than I am. Trump has urinated all over the constitution, and we're already going down the banana republic road. And I disagree about impeachment. It should be done thoroughly and methodically and putting all the evidence out there - I'm glad Pelosi has Schiff doing it and not Nadler. Whether any Pubs will do the right thing, we'll see, though I doubt it.
 
That’s just weak.

Yeah if a democrat votes against it I don’t want them rerunning and if they’re going to lose because they voted for it, it just shows how stupid our populace truly is (and it truly is stupid on balance).

If a first or second year associate wrote a letter the “caliber” of the one we saw yesterday and it went out of the office to opposing counsel they’d either be put on probation or fired. It’s just 8 pages of trash unsupported by citation or actual precedent
 
Back
Top