There's a reason why some of us picked dates in November and December 2018. The date is when the House votes on impeachment, not when the Senate has their vote on conviction or when a new President actually takes over. My thinking is that the Republicans lose the House in the November 2018 elections, and they hold a symbolic impeachment vote in the lame duck session in December, to take the wind out of efforts by the new Democratic House to really investigate. "We already had an impeachment vote, what more do you want?" The Senate vote to convict requires a two thirds majority, so that's not happening unless Trump is so toxic that even red state Republicans have to go against him or face electoral doom. And if the shit he and his team have already done isn't enough, I can't imagine what will be enough. So realistically, he is sticking around for his full term.
Have we forgotten not only have people heard Trump say "nigger," but there is tape of Trump saying it and other shit while filming "The Apprentice?" Mark Burnett simply wouldn't let it come out.
For the record I selected on or before Jan 20, 2020. If only I'd suspect that it'll prolly take until Jan 21st 2019 with a Dem controlled house from the 2018 election.
But then no repug would vote against Trump, they might if they can get Ryan to serve the last 2 years.
I remember reading that here. But I've never heard it and I have my doubts that it actually exists/will ever see the light of day. On the one hand it would be a game changer. On the other, the people who would be offended by it (AKA all sane people) are already motivated against Trump. I don't know how many minds it would change. There is no bottom.
I've heard Burnett say it in an interview, and that if he knew then what he knows now, he would make sure he had a copy of the tape. He just didn't think 45 would become so influential in politics. Burnett also said there is more stuff, as well. But the legal agreement is more strict than most he has experienced.
There will be a few furrowed (white) brows, some tsk tsking in high places, but after the soundbytes are duly recorded, cheering will proceed unimpeded in those circles.
I remember Tom Arnold being associated with the tape in some form or another. EDIT: Wait found a source http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...-to-have-footage-of-1482252896-htmlstory.html And a blurb about why it hasn't surfaced to date: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/donald-trump-apprentice-outtakes
FYI, The New Yorker this week (or last?) has a legal wonky article stating that Mueller is unlikely to come up with a "this guy must be impeached, it's an obvious felony" crime. Instead, he'll have various suggestions of bad intentions and bad behavior, meaning it will up to Congress to decide if such things are impeachable. And you know how that vote will turn out.
That was Jeffrey Toobin. He was on NPR's Fresh Air yesterday. https://www.npr.org/2017/12/07/5690...rth-a-crime-legal-reporter-says-it-s-complica GROSS: You know, it's just - if the president did obstruct justice like that to protect himself, what does it say if he can't be held responsible for that until he leaves the White House? TOOBIN: Well, he can be held responsible, by the House of Representatives, by impeaching him. And that's, I think, the proper forum for it. Now, we are at a political moment where, certainly, the Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives will never investigate the president for obstruction of justice in an impeachment proceeding. But that's not to say that's the right decision. But I don't think it's accurate to say that, well, he can obstruct justice and then there are no consequences. Impeachment is a very serious consequence, and it is available to the House of Representatives today. It's just that they choose not to exercise it. But constitutionally and legally and politically, they could do it tomorrow. GROSS: So the fact remains that it's possible that the president could have obstructed justice and face no consequences while he's in office? TOOBIN: Absolutely
I know it has been said before, too many times to probably be worth repeating, but I feel compelled to do so anyway: impeachment of the President is a political process, not a legal (at least in the conventional imagining of the term) one. I remain of the opinion that it will happen next year, though my confidence has diminished a little bit. But Mueller's efficiency is the basis on which I think sufficient information will be brought forth to make the impeachment process politically viable.
Yes, that is where The New Yorker ended up. After doing a bunch of eye-bleeding legal analysis, the article ended by quoting Jerry Ford, who said that the definition of an impeachable offense is what Congress decides is an impeachable offense.
Which makes it especially stupid that the Dems have decided that now would be a great time to clean house and be the perfectionist morality party.
I will say this, it won't impress Republicans. They will take the fact that Democrats are resigning and Republicans are not as proof that the Democrats are the guilty party.
Well yeah, if you're lower-level GOP and nuts, the rules are probably pretty similar for the parties. It's easy for the GOP to drop a Congressman. Not so easy a Senator or Presidential candidate. Plus, Franks was really out there.
What are you talking about? Franken is just as easily replaced as Frank. MN Governor is going to post a Dem to replace him..
Not so sure. It's a political process and we're so polarized that there's no way we're getting to 2/3 to convict in the Senate anyway, short of evidence piling up to such an extent that partisan composition no longer matters. I think the house cleaning makes perfectly good sense if you want to increase your chances at the House in the midterms. We're making a play for white moderate suburbia here. Not every person living there. Just a couple points. If we're pitching for a R+4 district and the generic ballot says Dems are favored nationally by 8, I'd feel a lot better if that can be ginned up to 10. The House is what matters right now. Not Trump's removal or the Senate. We need one chamber to shut down the policy agenda and we need that chamber to even get the impeachment trial kicked over to the Senate.
Credit to Knave for this in the Franken thread: SOURCES: @CNN and @washingtonpost working on exposing 20-30 congressional members 4 sexual harassment. #DC— Michael Trujillo (@mikehtrujillo) December 7, 2017
A purple state in a VERY anti-Republican/pro-Democratic election cycle and while there is already a Senate and Governor election scheduled. If the Democratic wave plays out the way it currently looks, losing Franken this year probably couldn't have worked out better for the Dems.