Donald Trump

There is Still Time to Fix the House Impeachment Process

Trump has been impeached, but there is still time to put a stronger case before the Senate.

|

Some have complained that the sole article of impeachment adopted by the House lumps together the events of January 6 and Trump's phone call to Georgia election officials. They think those should be separate charges, in part because the phone call is clear and direct by itself. It occurs to me that it is not too late for the House to split its article of impeachment, if it were inclined to do so. It is also not too late for the House to add additional articles of impeachment, either because Trump does new things or to address past behavior.

There is a broader question about when exactly the House has impeached someone and what actions are necessary for impeachment. I had a series of posts on this when the House slow-walked the articles during the first impeachment. The key moments of House impeachment are when the House adopts a resolution of impeachment and when the House informs the Senate of an impeachment. Neither of those moments requires actual articles of impeachment. The articles of impeachment can be drafted later and/or separately, and they have been in the past.

The articles of impeachment are needed for the Senate trial. They provide the basis for the Senate to evaluate a specific factual and legal allegation and the basis for the officer to mount a defense against a specific allegation. The Senate ultimately votes on whether to convict an officer on each separate article of impeachment (it is sufficient for conviction and removal that one article get a two-thirds vote in the participating senators). The articles are needed for trial, and the Senate will not proceed with a trial without articles of impeachment alleging specific impeachable offenses.

Moreover, current standing Senate rules direct the Senate process to start rolling when the House notifies the Senate that managers have been appointed and articles are ready to be exhibited. Everything else is just backdrop to triggering a Senate impeachment trial.

All of this suggests that it is not too late for the House to revise how it wants to proceed going into the impeachment trial. It could change the line-up of managers by adding a GOP member to the team—which it absolutely should. The House made a mistake by pursuing a highly partisan impeachment process the first time around. It should not repeat that mistake this time, especially when there are now Republicans open to impeachment and a more realistic prospect of securing Republican votes to convict in the Senate. An impeachment trial is, in part, a political process. In order to convict, the House needs to win over Republican senators. It will be harder to win votes to convict from Republican senators if the House leans into partisanship in presenting its impeachment case.

The House could draft new articles of impeachment and have a floor vote on them. It could redraft the existing article of impeachment and have a floor vote to adopt the new version. Trump has already been impeached regardless (probably), but that does not mean that the articles of impeachment are written in stone.

The House could hold impeachment hearings and start explaining to the public why some of the anticipated defenses to the impeachment are wrong or start laying out for the public the facts that support an impeachment.

But until the House formally presents the articles of impeachment to the Senate, the process of preparing for an impeachment trial is not done and there is room to make improvements in how it wants to present the case. Not that I expect the House to do any of this. The House has not yet demonstrated that it is very good at putting together a presidential impeachment.

NEXT: How the National Constitution Center "Constitution Drafting" Project Revealed Potential Areas of Consensus on Constitutional Reform

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It seems likely to be headed for a party-line vote. Why put a lot of effort into something that isn’t going to change that fact?

    1. Because TDS strikes hard. Trump has said so many rude, crude, lewd and loud things, and hurt so many feelings, that they have to kick him on the way out. Ilya Somin, I think, said he preferred Biden because Trump spent too much, which is indicative of TDS, not reality.

      Just TDS, nothing else.

      1. Yeah, one thing Trumpistas are full of is cold hard logic, not feelings!

        TDS, indeed.

        1. Yes, you’ve got it too. More horrified by Trump’s mean tweets that Democrat burning, looting, and murdering? TDS. By definition.

          1. Which Democrat burned, looted and murdered? What a silly charge, and the misspelling also makes one think *someone* is pretty deranged…

            1. Guess you’ve been so locked down at the behest of your Democrat masters that you only turned the TV on when they told you to.

              1. And yet you didn’t supply this oh so obvious answer…

                1. Stupid question. Unless you’re asserting that it was the Republican branches of BLM and Antifa that have been rioting. But that would also be stupid.

                  1. ” Unless you’re asserting that it was the Republican branches of BLM and Antifa that have been rioting. ”

                    In Washington? Yeah, that was Republicans. But their pipe bombs didn’t go off.

      2. After everything that has happened, I had assumed we would stop hearing about TDS. He’s every bit as craven and pathetic as his most ambitious detractors said.

        Do you sincerely believe that the only explanation for criticisms of the President is derangement?

        1. I think the call to Georgia election officials and the lead up the riots are legitimate reasons to impeach if the goal is to bar Trump from running again later.

          However, Trump is out of office in 5 days no matter what happens, so why the rush?

          1. so why the rush?

            Classic sign of a party not being as secure in their position (here, post-term impeachment) as they pretend on the surface.

          2. “However, Trump is out of office in 5 days no matter what happens, so why the rush?”

            Probably because of political posturing, blood in the water, President is in his weakest state of his presidency, and so on. I suppose since the question of whether you can impeach a person who is no longer an office holder is unsettled, the House has some incentive to get the impeachments issued before the President resigns or leaves office, to apply maximum pressure on the Senate to try the impeachments. Senator Blount, as an example, was formally impeached only after he had been expelled from the Senate, and the Senate later used that as a basis for declining to exercise jurisdiction over his impeachment trial. I don’t think the issue is settled at all.

            As to whether I think there’s a rush, no. They shouldn’t waste time with the impeachment at all, since the Senate Republicans are going to postpone the trial, and I doubt even with recent events that there are sufficient votes.

            1. “I don’t think the issue is settled at all”

              No, it’s not settled at all, but since the courts won’t review impeachment decisions, only the Senate can settle it.

              Or maybe it can never be “settled” since a decision on the issue by the Senate of the Nth Congress can’t be binding on the N+1th Congress’ Senate.

        2. There are lots of reasons someone might oppose Trump. But claiming that Biden will be more libertarian, a la Somin, or that there is a possibility of bipartisan condemnation of Trump, a la both Somin and Whittington, reflects levels of political ignorance so profound that they constitute evidence of derangement.

          1. The President’s platform looks like Bernie Sanders’s. He’s not libertarian on trade, immigration, or debt service. He’s closer to libertarian on regulation. He’s very libertarian on war and judicial nominees. Biden will probably be closer to the libertarian position on trade, immigration, and debt service. Probably slightly behind on regulation. War may be a wash. And significantly less libertarian on judicial nominees. Count me among the people who think Biden will be more libertarian than the President. What’s your pitch?

            There have already been bipartisan condemnation of the President so I don’t know what you’re on about there.

            1. ” He’s not libertarian on trade, immigration, or debt service.”

              Of course, neither was Trump.

        3. “Do you sincerely believe that the only explanation for criticisms of the President is derangement?”

          Wow. No one ever said that, there’s always been lots to criticize about Trump. TDS reflected the fact that many of the criticisms were outlandish and distracted from the legitimate criticisms.

          1. If the existence of nut-pickable excesses justifies crying “TDS,” then any criticism of anyone, anywhere should be chalked up to derangement. No group or movement of significant size is nut free.

            When it comes to critiques of Trump, the relevant overreach is the knee-jerk, profligate use of a TDS label for predominantly valid complaints about arguably the most complaint-worthy president in American history.

        4. “Do you sincerely believe that the only explanation for criticisms of the President is derangement?”

          I do. And I continue to criticize the President for being deranged.

    2. It’s actually starting to implode — and perhaps there are still some Democratic Senators with enough honor not to impeach him for something he didn’t do.

      The FBI has admitted it knew a couple weeks before, wrote a memo to other LEOs the day before, but didn’t tell Trump.

      They’ve arrested a BLM activist who was the true instigator.

      There’s a lot more — FOUR Inspector Generals are investigating their agencies failings.

      1. “They’ve arrested a leftist activist (none of the reports I’ve seen say BLM specifically) who claims to have been there as an observer.

        1. His presence is amply confirmed, it’s that he was there as an observer that’s merely claimed. Do observers usually brag about breaking windows on the record? Or say, “Let’s burn this shit down!”?

          Here’s the DOJ’s affidavit against him.

          From other sources he has a police record of involvement in BLM riots, and was founder of Insurgence USA, a particularly violent ofshoot of BLM.

          1. “From other sources …”
            What are those sources exactly?

          2. ” Or say, “Let’s burn this shit down!”?”

            Do you have any source for that other than the DOJ affidavit? Because cops lie.

            1. they cited a youtube video. that’s called evidence. you can see it yourself.

              1. They mention a YouTube video, they don’t include a link to it, so no, I can’t go see it for myself. And remember, cops lie.

      2. “They’ve arrested a BLM activist who was the true instigator.”

        Pure delusion.

      3. “It’s actually starting to implode — and perhaps there are still some Democratic Senators with enough honor not to impeach him for something he didn’t do.”

        Senators don’t impeach, there, Ed, Representatives do.

    3. Romney, Murkowski, Sasse and Toomey will all likely vote to convict. Collins is a toss-up. It will ultimately come down to McConnell: if he votes to convict, expect a large swath of the caucus to fall in behind him.

      1. Forgot about Sasse, weasel that he is, in my count below.

        He sucked up to Trump until the primary then immediately turned on him.

        But he has [silly] president ambitions so I still bet he won’t convict.

        1. Bob from Ohio : Forgot about Sasse, weasel that he is, in my count below. He sucked up to Trump until the primary then immediately turned on him.

          This begs a question : If Senator Sasse is a “weasel” for the reasons given, what should we make of Trump’s perfidy to Pence? Betrayal seldom comes so crude, coarse & ugly.

          1. If the guy’s a weasel, why did Bob’s party nominate him, and vote for him? Because he’s THEIR weasel.

  2. There’s still time to land a pointless, vindictive last attack as Trump is walking away!

    We’re The Good Guys.

    1. Ben, Crusader against Enmity and Division, says only pointless, vindictive (and ultimately deadly) charges of ‘Stop the Steal’ are ok. Holding people responsible for same means he has to drop the Virtue Hammer!

      1. So you are all in favor of throwing Democrat mayors and governors in jail then, for all the Antifa/BLM support they gave, for all the burning, looting, and murdering they turned a blind eye to or explicitly encourages, all the police protection they withdrew to give free rein to the autonomous zones, all the arrests they dismissed.

        Right?

        1. Oh my but you’re upset! Can we stipulate that trying to stop the transition of the Presidential administration is a bigger deal than what you’re talking about? Because that’s kind of the heart of the impeachment effort, y’know.

          1. Can we stipulate that physical acts are worse than words?

            How about turning over city areas to autonomous zones in direct violation of the Constitution, Article IV Section 4?

            The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

            You’re a fan of Big Government. Why do you approve of No Government as sanctioned by those Democrat mayors?

            1. Ah, I notice you won’t answer my direct question but instead pose your own. Kind of…deranged, isn’t it?

              1. If my suggestion to stipulate the opposite of what you wanted to stipulate wasn’t obvious enough to you, then I can’t do any better, and apparently neither can you.

                1. You seem to be missing or struggling with the initial question, so I’ll repost it

                  Can we stipulate that trying to stop the transition of the Presidential administration is a bigger deal than what you’re talking about?

                  1. “You’re a poopy face.”
                    “No, YOU’RE a poopy face.”

                    Just fuck already.

                  2. Fully exercising your rights is not stopping anything.

                    1. “Fully exercising your rights is not stopping anything.”

                      Your mileage may vary. Considerably.

                      If you own property, one of the rights you enjoy is the right to exclude others from it. How, exactly, do you exercise that right without stopping anything?
                      Or do private property laws work differently in Iowa?

            2. Can we stipulate two months trying to subvert a legitimate election on no grounds whatsoever & using every mean possible is a problem? An impeachment-worthy problem? Remember, the rioting was only Trump’s last tactic :

              Trump began preparing a campaign to nullify an election he expected to lose long before Election Day. Two months of continuous lying followed the vote, as he harangued his supporters with charges of voting fraud not supported by the slightest evidence. DJT used the most incendiary rhetoric imaginable in attacking the very core of this country’s democracy. He filed scores of lawsuits as PR stunts, not bothering to disguise their vacuity. He pressured lawmakers in multiple states to throw out legitimate votes. He demanded the Vice President intervene unconstitutionally to change an election DJT lost.

              And when none of that worked? He summoned a mob to Washington, fired them up with apocalyptic exhortations & lies, then sent them off to disrupt the congressional session certifying the election. As his mob rioted, he sat watching the mayhem on TV, ignoring calls from congressional leaders under siege inside the building. Aides had to beg Trump to issue even the mildest plea for the violence to stop.

              Two months doing everything possible to prevent the legal, legitimate and peaceful transfer of power – the very core principle of our constitutional government – certainly qualifies as valid grounds for impeachment & conviction. We don’t want another president of either party copying Trump’s sleazy playbook over a lost election.

              1. No, we can’t stipulate that, because “no grounds” isn’t the same thing as “grounds I just dismiss”.

                We can’t stipulate that, because the extent to which the election was actually legitimate is exactly what we want to contest.

                We can’t stipulate that, because he did NOT summon a mob to Washington. The event was actually organized by others, he was just a speaker, and as far as 99.9+% of the attendees went, it was a just a peaceful protest.

                We can’t stipulate that because he send them off with an admonition to peacefully protest.

                We can’t stipulate claims about his behavior from anonymous sources, after 4 years of the media publishing anonymously sourced lies.

                If that crap were true, you’d have a good case for impeachment, but if that crap were true, you’d have a good case for criminally prosecuting him and putting him in prison for the rest of his life, too.

                1. Brett Bellmore : If that crap were true, you’d have a good case for impeachment

                  Glad to see you on the record.

                  1. Yeah, if the hysterical claims were true, impeachment would be too good for him.

                    Heck, I’ve said that if you could produce even one scrap of evidence he was in communications with the actual rioters, an email saying “Rough Pelosi up while you’re at it”, or even, “Sneak out her podium, it would look good in my trophy room”, go for treason charges, and execute him.

                    The problem is that they ARE hysterical charges.

                    1. And how ’bout if the descriptions of Trump shunning calls from people trapped inside the building are true? What if aides really had to beg him to take action? What if he was watching the riot and describing the rioters as his guys?

                      Right now you hide behind your “fake news” shtick, but how long can that last? I guarantee there were people in that room with Trump who are not prepared to lie for him. What will you say when they testify?

                      If there’s one thing we’ve learned from years of dealing with the Cult is they’ve got their shifting two-step dance down pat. Today deny Trump action “A” occurred, writing it off as fake news. Insisting it couldn’t have happened. Insisting it’s all an outrageous lie.

                      Then when it’s proved true after all? Suddenly it becomes no big deal. Trump described the rioters as his guys because they were. It would be good to know if you would find that a “big deal” now.

                    2. When grb’s fantasy becomes real then grb is going to expect you to agree it’s not just a complete fantasy any more.

                    3. How about if the anonymous sources are right?

                      Well, concluding that would kind of require actual evidence, now, wouldn’t it? Because I’ll start taking anonymous sources seriously as soon as they start putting their names on the line.

                      Seriously, after the last 4 years, why would anyone trust an account based on an anonymous source? Hell, after the last few decades?

                      Anonymous accounts mean nothing. If the past suggests anything, the journalists are just making them up half the time, and pretending to be credulous the other half.

                2. Why impeach? The DC district attorney can arrest him and charge him with a real crime.

                  Of course the problem is, crimes require elements, and no elements are present. Even wild eyed leftist prosecutors wont attempt such folly and expose themself to embarrassment and ridicule

                  1. I don’t think an attempt to subvert & overturn legitimate election results is precisely described in the criminal code.

                    On the other hand, impeachment was designed for that kind of behavior.

                  2. “Why impeach? The DC district attorney can arrest him and charge him with a real crime.”

                    No, dimwit, he can’t. Sitting Presidents are immune from criminal prosecution.

              2. “Trump began preparing a campaign to nullify an election he expected to lose long before Election Day. Two months of continuous lying followed the vote, as he harangued his supporters with charges of voting fraud not supported by the slightest evidence.”

                Before the election, President Trump tried to solicit a bit of voter fraud himself. Here in North Carolina, he “suggested” that his supporters should all try to vote twice for him. Coincidentally, he “won” in this state.

            3. Can we stipulate that physical acts are worse than words?

              No, we can’t, not as you mean it. Who was worse: Hitler or a random member of the SS? Or, if it hurts your feelings to hear analogies to Hitler, who was worse: Stalin or a random KGB agent?

          2. Are you insane?

            They could have killed Pence and all 535 members of Congress, burnt the building flat, and Joe BiteMe would still become President on January 20th.

            The states would have sent another copy of their votes — to Weather Mountain — where the Continuity of Government would have read them.

            What do you think would have happened if the Soviets had nuked DC — or if the Iranians do in the future? Yes, there are plans…

            1. They will always have another made-up story, another bogeyman, another false melodramatic talking-point.

            2. Gosh, Dr. Ed 2. You mean the Qanon nutjobs who stormed the Capitol because they thought this was the Storm in which they were going to save the country for their God Emperor Trump hadn’t thought things all the way through?

              1. The protest was meant to be exactly that. A protest, designed to bring more attention to the protesters views that the election irregularities needed to be further investigated.

                1. Right. The people who erected a gallows in front of the Capitol and chanted “Hang Mike Pence” were obviously just trying to bring attention to whether changes to voting procedures due to the Coronavirus were improperly made by state officials and should instead have required approval by their state legislatures.

                  1. They hanged Mike Pence? When?

                    1. I said they hanged Mike Pence? When?

                    2. What are you trying to say?

                2. Armchair Lawyer : “…the protesters views that the election irregularities needed to be further investigated”

                  Uh huh. Let’s review :

                  (1) Six months before the election, Trump says (with a smirk) he’ll claim fraud.

                  (2) Three months before the election, Trump says (with a smirk) he’ll claim fraud.

                  (3) One month before the election, Trump says (with a smirk) he’ll claim fraud.

                  (4) After the vote, Trump says …..”fraud”

                  His cult army of dupes were automatically triggered into spittle-spraying indignation & rage. Pavlov’s dogs showed more thoughtful consideration and restraint when their little bell was tinkled. This was oh-so really about “more attention to the view that the election irregularities needed to be further investigated”

                  Yep. That’s the description for it. Righto.

            3. “What do you think would have happened if the Soviets had nuked DC — or if the Iranians do in the future? Yes, there are plans…”

              In that case, Trump will still be to blame, for telling the Iranians that we would have no complaint if they wanted to restart their efforts to develop an atomic bomb.

        2. “So you are all in favor of throwing Democrat mayors and governors in jail then…”

          An impeachment does not send a person to jail. But for the record, I’m certainly in favor of voting out mayors and governors (of any political stripe) for supporting violence or ignoring burning, looting, and murdering.

      2. I don’t matter at all.

        You keep showing everyone you have nothing of substance to say.

        1. Surely your one sentence bromides are so chock-full-a substance!

          1. As yours are?

            1. Yes, people are saying they are. Lots of people.

              (That’s good enough for you, right? Usually…)

          2. 2 sentences. And it concisely makes a point that people capable of introspection might want to consider. Who do they really want to be?

            You go ahead and keep flailing away though.

            1. I urge people to go look at Ben Crusader Against Enmity and Division’s posts here 1/6 and before…Instructive as to what a complete fake he is.

        2. “I don’t matter at all.”

          True enough.

        3. “I don’t matter at all.”

          Nothing to argue with here.

    2. “There’s still time to land a pointless, vindictive last attack as Trump is walking away! ”

      Two details that escaped you.
      Impeaching and convicting Trump isn’t pointless, and he wasn’t walking away.

        1. Healing the country and bringing people together, are we, Ben?

          1. That response is for James P and Jason C. They are personally and specifically invited to fuck off and stop talking at me. Low (apparent) IQ trolls and unrestrained haters aren’t “the country” yet.

            1. Salty little Trumper. 🙂

  3. “The House made a mistake by pursuing a highly partisan impeachment process the first time around.”

    Show trials are never non-partisan.

    1. political trials tend towards the partisan.

  4. The problem is that these are not discrete events. Trump’s regular, consistent, continuous unprecedented, hyperbolic and mostly downright recklessly silly ‘election fraud’ campaign to sooth his massive, fragile, snowflake ego includes the atrocious Georgia call and the Capitol speech.

    1. Trump’s words and lawsuits, no matter how silly and vexatious, were not anywhere near as harmful as all the Democrat-sanctioned burning, looting, and murdering this spring, summer, and fall.

      1. Not as harmful to our Republic? I’m afraid you’re going to have to show your math there.

        And, let’s be clear, all you’ve got *at best* here is ‘my guy is not *as bad* as your guys!’ Is that a good Presidential impeachment defense?

        1. Months of burning, looting, and murdering is certainly worse than two months of tweets and lawsuits.

          1. Don’t think about context much, d’ya?

            1. I’m sure the dead people, the people whose businesses were burned and looted, they all cared mightily about your Democratic mayors and governors providing the right context, same as encouraging them to all go maskless and ignore social distancing, while outdoor dining was banned for lack of masks while eating and lack of social distancing.

              Yes, all that context right over your head.

              1. OK, you know you’re exposing yourself as a total fake on the social distancing thing right? Next your going to complain that the protests weren’t diverse enough, and that really, really bothers you!

          2. Depends on what is being burned and/or looted and who is being murdered.

            the burning of the library of Alexandria is also worse than the January 6 botched insurrection, but that in no way excuses the plotters of the would-be revolution.

        2. I guess you don’t count still boarded up areas in cities as harm. But to each her own.
          Both are harmful; both should be punished decisively. But that is not happening here in Oaktown. The mayor is still waiting for “the big appointment” from her friend Ms Harris

          1. Good grief.

            Of course a boarded up business is harm.

            But do you really not get that a *boarded up Capitol attacked during a key, and always uncontroversial transfer of federal power on democratic principles* is kind of a bigger deal? I mean, what in the holy hell do you people believe in?

            1. No I am not as much of an alarmist as you. Boarded up cities ae many. The persistence has been week or months. The shopkeepers harmed are many. The Orange Asshole is gone in several days. Chill!

              1. It’s nice you want to give the powerful such a pass. Ever such with authoritarians.

                1. You consider 10 years of jail time “a pass?”
                  Wow, you’re weird.

                2. I would far prefer him prosecuted rather than a slap on his ego.

              2. ” The Orange Asshole is gone in several days. Chill!”

                Chill about the Orange Asshole planning to stay beyond the next several days?
                Your logic astounds.

        3. The Democrats challenged in Congress and in Court the last THREE Republican Presidential elections!

          1. Oh.My.God.

            No, wait, the weren’t in any way as commensurate as what Trump did.

            Bad faith or ignorance?

          2. By that low bar, the GOP’s done the same thing back to Carter, between Birtherism and Bill Clinton.

          3. I mean, no, they didn’t, but you do you.

            1. Yes, they did – Senate Democrats objected to Trump in 2017, Bush in 2004, and Bush in 2000.

              This is public records stuff – who do you think you are fooling by lying about this?

              1. The assertion was that the Democrats challenged the last three Republican wins in both Congress and the Courts.

                Your accusation that he is lying in his response comes after you mentioned challenges in Congress, but no challenges in the courts for those same elections.

                Perhaps you should provide the rest of your evidence. You know, the stuff dealing with the court challenges for those same elections? Good luck.

              2. someone needs a refresher on why “some Democrats” is not equal to “the Democrats”

      2. So impeach them too! Why do you keep changing the subject?

        1. Because what they did isn’t impeachable!
          Call it in bad taste, foolish, say it reveals the depravity of their souls, whatever – but we should not be impeaching AOC or Pelosi or Bush or any of those loudmouthed whackjobs for non-criminal speech.

          1. I don’t remember AOC or Pelosi or Bush running a systematic campaign to overturn legitimate election results.

      3. I mean, World War II was pretty bad too. Are we also supposed to not impeach Trump because WWII happened?

        1. Not sure what WWII has to do with Trump’s efforts to prevent a peaceful transfer of presidential power after he lost the election.

          1. BECAUSE HE’S LITERALLY ORANGE HITLER!!!!!

  5. Another jew from Princeton who is so clueless to realize that the pointless impeachment actions by his fellow jews does nothing for America….but jews don’t care about America, they just do everything to f*ck it up. There is not a 2/3 majority to convict, so what is the moron from Princeton suggesting? Waste government time supporting a jewish agenda with no ability to achieve its goal for the sole purpose of attacking Trump? Or he is just begging 2A to replace the nut jobs on the left. His post has no purpose but to show what an idiot he is. Princeton, home of the jews.

    1. So the people who voted for impeachment are Jews? Ilhan Omar sure had me fooled.

    2. Not to dignify this with a response, but I’m kind of amused at the claim that someone named “Keith Whittington” is Jewish. I mean, I’m not obsessed with Jews like our troll here so I don’t know for sure, but that doesn’t sound very Jewish to me.

      1. It was changed at Ellis Island from Yitzhak Whittington.

    3. Get bent, fuckface.

  6. “but there is still time to put a stronger case before the Senate.”

    That would require there to BE a stronger case. Sometimes you’re stuck with a weak case because that’s all you’ve got, the guy you’re trying to railroad just happens not to be guilty.

    1. The writer’s arguing for a stronger case suggests why there is antipathy to just relying on the criminal prosecution of DJT on 21 January.
      I still find that a far better solution both for optics and for allowing Mr Biden and the country to get on with more important matters.

      1. The antipathy to just relying on criminal prosecution is that he gets due process, discovery, witnesses, and you can’t identify anything he did that was actually criminal. So he’s pretty likely to be cleared of all charges unless he’s stupid enough to ask for a jury trial in D.C.

      2. “I still find that a far better solution both for optics and for allowing Mr Biden and the country to get on with more important matters.”

        But impeaching Trump again is more important to the Democrats than anything else, like dealing with the economic crisis, massive unemployment, and violent crime. Maybe they’ll get around to actually helping the people some day, but it’ll be revenge and show trials for the foreseeable future.

        1. By that ‘logic,’ pushing through a SCOTUS judge was more important to the GOP than anything else, like dealing with the economic crisis, massive unemployment, and violent crime.

          1. Well, it was. Just like it was more important to some Republicans to whine about Presidential election than it was to make sure they’d win the two Georgia Senate seats, and keep control of the Senate.

        2. “But impeaching Trump again is more important to the Democrats than anything else, like dealing with the economic crisis, massive unemployment, and violent crime.”

          Two-thirds of the things you want them to focus on were caused by the person you want them to leave alone.
          You’re like the real estate agent who wants to get on with listing the house before taking the murdered bodies of the previous owners out or doing any cleaning.

    2. Brett Bellmore : “Sometimes you’re stuck with a weak case because that’s all you’ve got..”

      And sometimes you’re impeaching a politician because he tried to overturn an election he lost & stop the legitimate, legal, orderly transfer of power.

    3. ” Sometimes you’re stuck with a weak case because that’s all you’ve got, the guy you’re trying to railroad just happens not to be guilty.”

      Sometimes, but not this time.

  7. I disagree. If you divide it up then the Trumpers will look at each individual article and say that in isolation it does not warrant impeachment. The motivation about this impeachment is not one phone call, or one lie, or one speech, but the summation of all of them that turned his supporters into terrorists.

    1. It’s all irrelevant. Either DJT goes to jail or he’s free.
      He is never getting elected or appointed to any office no matter what.

      1. I think that it is important for the Senate to firmly say that a multi-month long campaign to lie about an election which culminated on an attack on the EC certification is unacceptable. And the only way to say that is with a conviction.

        1. Lying is impeachable? Who told the lie of the decade??? If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Plus, my favorite, your health insurance premiums are going down.

          1. Lying with intent of undermining a clean and legal election for over two months and whipping your supporters into a frenzy, while also pressuring state and federal officials to violate the law and constitution taken as a whole is impeachable. You are proving my point about how this all needs to be presented as a package.

          2. “Lying is impeachable?”

            Of course. Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury.

          3. ” Who told the lie of the decade??? If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Plus, my favorite, your health insurance premiums are going down.”

            Lying involves saying something knowing it’s not true. Like you saying that anyone told you that your health insurance premiums were going down.

            And THAT beats out “…and Mexico will pay for it!” as your favorite?

        2. Gosh, simply stunning that you think the Republican president should be impeached. Who would have believed it?

          1. I also believe Clinton should have been convicted.

            1. I don’t. Clinton clearly committed a crime in office but the country didn’t want him impeached. Since impeachment is a political process, you shouldn’t/can’t impeach with the public closely divided on it.

              Same with the first Trump impeachment. And this one. The country was/is roughly 50/50 split on it. So you shouldn’t impeach.

              1. Impeachment is not a plebiscite.

                1. True. But a duly elected President shouldn’t be removed because he pisses off the opposition party either. There needs to be some consensus in the country that (s)he should be removed among people beyond the opposition party.

                  Polls I’ve seen suggest that Republicans and independents are both opposed to impeachment #2 by varying amounts. In that case you don’t remove.

                  Nixon quit because he’d lost his own party, or at least enough of it such that its leaders went to him to tell him he’d lose.

                  Interesting question – how does what Trump did last week compare to Nixon’s hi-jinx? Worse? Comparable? Not as bad?

                  1. Nixon was bad, but Trump is worse because he convinced half the population that a clean election was not trustworthy. That cuts to the heart of our democracy and will have long lasting damage.

                    1. Trump most certainly did NOT convince “half the population” that the election was fraudulent.

                      More than he should have, but not 50% of the US.

                    2. What proportion starts to get impeachable then, in your estimation?

                    3. I don’t know that there is a specific number. Up in the 60s somewhere maybe.

                      It needs to have a sense about it that the country as a whole wants it done. Like with Nixon.

                      In the other three modern era cases it’s just one party pushing.

                    4. “What proportion starts to get impeachable then, in your estimation?”

                      When you get enough to storm the capitol.

                  2. “Nixon quit because he’d lost his own party, or at least enough of it such that its leaders went to him to tell him he’d lose.”

                    Beyond party, Nixon liked to assume that he had a majority of American voters behind him, the silent majority, that wasn’t all up in arms about Watergate shenanigans. What losing his party’s Senators told him was that he’d lost the silent majority.

                    “Interesting question – how does what Trump did last week compare to Nixon’s hi-jinx? Worse? Comparable? Not as bad?”

                    The first time around it was the same. This time was worse. Nixon and his CREEP at least thought he had to win the election to stay in office, while Donnie’s creeps thought they could find a way to keep him in office after losing the election.

              2. Not having the polling data to support it is a horrible argument against impeachment. The only poll that matters is the one in the House and the one in the Senate.

                1. It’s not a horrible argument at all. Impeachment and removal is a drastic action, so drastic that it’s never been done in the history of the country. It cancels the will of the people as given in an election.

                  You don’t undo an election without the support of a substantial portion of the country. 50/50 don’t cut it, especially when the independents disfavor it by a double digit margin as is currently the case.

                  I mean, what’s the difference between Trump doing what he did and impeaching against the will of the people? You’re the seditionist now.

                  1. Remember we have no such thing as official polling data. So to base an impeachment on unofficial polling data would lead to a wide range of problems.

                  2. “You don’t undo an election without the support of a substantial portion of the country.”

                    Impeachment doesn’t undo an election. Had the Senate convicted the first time around, Pence would be President, not Hillary.

            2. Clint11on was guilty of perjury, but only because he got asked a question under oath that should not have been asked.
              Under ordinary circumstances being guilty of perjury should be disqualifying for public office, but not in Clinton’s case. The fact that nobody who wasn’t a Republican could see that didn’t slow Gingrich down, and it caused him to take his eyes off the job he was supposed to be doing. Gingrich’s inability to work with Clinton cost us the chance to get bin Laden before 9/11. Not sure getting bin Laden at that point would have actually stopped the execution of the 9/11 attack, but missing the chance certainly didn’t help.

      2. “He is never getting elected or appointed to any office no matter what.”

        That’s what the Dems thought in 2016.

  8. House doesn’t care to make a stronger case. They just want to put the GOP on the spot.

  9. Case falling apart already?

  10. “The House has not yet demonstrated that it is very good at putting together a presidential impeachment.”

    They’ve put together two open and shut cases. But they went to a jury that would not convict no matter what the evidence. Grounds for a new trial or judgment NOV, if this was a court.

    1. If your case is only open and shut if presented to people who already think the defendant guilty, it’s a piss poor case.

      1. If the case is only NOT open and shut if you’ve gone to a jury determined not to convict, you don’t have a complaint with the case, but rather with the jury.

    2. Well, if this were a court double jeopardy would apply, so you couldn’t have a new trial or JNOV.

      1. If this is regarded as a criminal trial, which it isn’t.

  11. I think we need a lot more facts here.

    1. “John Sullivan” was arrested for invading the capital. The problem is, he’s not a Trump supporter. He’s a liberal activist who was actively inciting the protestors.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/left-wing-activist-charged-in-capitol-riot

      1. No longer calling him Antifa, I see. Throw the book at him

        There’s an avalanche of evidence on the other side, so really what this does is underscore how outcome oriented and straw-grasping you have become.

        1. What evidence is that?

          1. The reporting on all the charging documents for the many Trump and QAnon insurrectionists that show their violent plans.

            1. This guy comes across as pretty violent, but I wouldn’t take him for a Trump supporter.

              1. Keep harping on that one guy. Really what this does is underscore how outcome oriented and straw-grasping you have become.

              2. “While the vast majority of the roughly 100 people hit with federal charges appear to be supporters of President Donald Trump and some backed known right-wing organizations, Sullivan is the first person to be charged who appears to have been active in liberal causes”

                Will MAGA outpace 100-1 against Antifa? I’d say there’re good odds on 200-1 or 300-1, maybe even 400-1. But you’ll always have John Sullivan to clutch dear to your heart. (you’re welcome to him)

              3. “This guy comes across as pretty violent, but I wouldn’t take him for a Trump supporter.”

                Remember when that one guy stormed the capitol and chased all the capitol police into hiding. Brett Bellmore remembers that.

      2. “2. Beyond this arrest, there are reports of other provocateurs.”

        There are also reports of arrests of people with rightwing bonafides.

    1. So is your theory that all of the other people the FBI arrested were only there because of John Sullivan?

      1. I think that’s a pretty silly strawman. You think we’re claiming he was running around like the Flash doing everything?

        I think it’s clear there was a fairly small, coordinated group behind the worst of this. I wouldn’t be surprised if Mr “Tear him out of office” Sullivan were party to it, but that’s far from proven; Some of the perps seem to have right-wing records, too.

        What we do know is that there was a small group conspiring to pull this off, that the FBI were tracking them, and failed to stop them. Wouldn’t be the first time the FBI decided to give some wacked out lunatics enough rope to hang themselves with, and then fumbled the part where they’re supposed to arrest them before they commit the crime the FBI had been egging on.

        1. “I think that’s a pretty silly strawman. You think we’re claiming he was running around like the Flash doing everything?”

          I don’t understand why you think anyone cares otherwise. Since almost everyone who has been arrested was pretty explicitly there in support of Trump, unless you think that the one non-MAGA dude who got arrested inspired all the others to break in and riot, it doesn’t in any way detract from the idea that Trump instigated the violence.

          I guess a possible alternative theory is that even if all the MAGA guys hadn’t been breaking in trying to kidnap and execute the Congressfolk and the Vice President that Sullivan would have rushed the Capitol on his own, therefore clearly Trump’s not at fault. But that seems like an even more preposterous claim than that Sullivan got everyone else to do it, so I’ve ignoring it.

          1. They took down a US flag to fly a Trump flag. No way a REAL American Trump supporter would do THAT, so the whole thing is obviously fake. The fact that one prominent rioter expressly asked Trump for a pardon also doesn’t fit the narrative that these were Trump’s supporters.

        2. Gotta admire Brett’s tin-foil-hat concision. In one post he manages to install Sullivan as the riot mastermind (though allowing that’s “far from proven”), gracefully concede some of the rioters have right-wing records (currently running at a 100-1 rate), and round off by making the riot an FBI plot (alas, by tragic mismanagement).

          I only wonder he didn’t squeeze Soros into the narrative.

        3. “What we do know is that there was a small group conspiring to pull this off, that the FBI were tracking them, and failed to stop them.”

          Gosh, Brett, it’s almost like the FBI works for the President.

    2. “1. “John Sullivan” was arrested for invading the capital. The problem is, he’s not a Trump supporter. He’s a liberal activist who was actively inciting the protestors. ”

      Sure, they wouldn’t have done it except for the agents provacateur. That’s why when you arrest them, they suicide.

  12. Actually, there’s still time to impeach him a THIRD time.

    There is nothing that says you can’t have concurrent impeachments, and why not go full Kangaroo Kort here?

    One other thought here — the USSS is good and hopefully can prevent the likely inevitable efforts, but what do you think would happen were someone to assassinate him? The security outside the White House isn’t as good because it has never needed to be — because it hasn’t had to be.

    But if you’re going to be trying him post-Presidency, he’s going to be a very public figure and hence attracting the nuts. Do you have any idea what would happen politically were he assassinated in the midst of this Senate lynching? Hint: What did MLK2’s supporters do when he was assassinated?

    Hint: The USMC had to mount machine guns on the Capitol steps…

    1. Dr. Ed 2 : Do you have any idea what would happen politically were he assassinated in the midst of this Senate lynching?

      Is my imagination, or has Dr. Ed’s political porn fantasies gotten more lurid, sordid & absurd since the election was certified? God alone knows what he’ll dream-up for Inauguration Day.

      1. Disturbing as it is, I’m sure the Secret Service will notice if Eddie packs up to go from Maine to Florida.

    2. “Actually, there’s still time to impeach him a THIRD time.”

      the second one seems to have done the job, and gotten him to work on packing up his stuff (and as much of our stuff as he can fit in the luggage)

      “But if you’re going to be trying him post-Presidency, he’s going to be a very public figure and hence attracting the nuts.”

      Unlike now?

      “Do you have any idea what would happen politically were he assassinated in the midst of this Senate lynching? ”

      The Trumpistas would, of course, insist he was still alive.

  13. One more time.

    Who are the 17 pubs who will vote to convict? No one with an IQ above room temperature thinks there is a realistic chance to convict.

    1. Over under is 5 I’d say.

      Romney, Murcowski, Collins, maybe Toomey. Who else?

      Nobody up in 2022 [other than Murcowski] or who wants to be president.

      1. I’d been thinking 3 were more likely; Two years won’t be enough for the fire this sets to die out, it would just give the base more time to settle on who to replace you with.

        1. I guess we’ll see when the votes are counted. Or is that a huge fraudulent conspiracy, too? Frankly, we won in a landslide.

    2. “Who are the 17 pubs who will vote to convict?”

      Didn’t learn anything last November? Still counting your votes before they’re cast?

  14. Haha. This is a literal rush to judgment.

    1. Maybe not much of a rush, Pelosi is sitting on transmitting the impeachment resolution, just like she did with the last one. Could be months before she sends it to the Senate.

      1. Yep. The Democrats are going to play this out for as long as they can, probably hoping for violence.

        1. Hilarious. Trump spends two months telling crude incendiary lies, yet his cult bootlickers insist he’s blameless for the dupes who rioted while screaming his propaganda.

          Yet a mere delay in the impeachment trial is a leftist incitement to violence. You people really have no shame, do you?

          1. They have no shame, nor concept of the difference between truth and lies, nor any commitment to the values of this country.

            1. “nor any commitment to the values of this country.”

              As a former GOP member, this is what rings most true with me. What happened to all the reverence for the constitution, the founders, tradition?

              They give up the principled conservative position on free association and property rights — the “principled” basis for opposing the civil rights act, mind you — as soon as social media sites start cutting services to insurrectionists. They gave up on the founders when they nominated a man who would have been literally murdered by some of our duelist founders, had they met him. They gave up on tradition when they let him off the hook on the emoluments issue.

              1. “As a former GOP member, this is what rings most true with me. What happened to all the reverence for the constitution, the founders, tradition? ”

                those go out to the curb if they work against what the GOP members want RIGHT Frickin’ NOW.

      2. McConnell said he’s not going to bring the Senate back early, so there’s no point sending the resolution over until they return.

      3. the longer she waits the more partisan political it will look. Let the team of US Attorney for DC do its work.

      4. ” Pelosi is sitting on transmitting the impeachment resolution, just like she did with the last one. Could be months before she sends it to the Senate.”

        There’s currently no Senate to send it to.

  15. Maybe the lesson which should have been learned here was that the whole impeachment thing was a farce that simply should not have happened. It was perpetuated by children responding to an emotion situation who wanted the “bad man” held responsible. That makes for poor governance, which is the end product here.

    The House can cure this whole situation by rescinding the articles of impeachment saving us all a ton of wasted effort. I know the only people upset about it will be the media who are going to ride the impeachment for Trump money making content for another month. They will just have to hop on the unemployment lines a little bit earlier. At least they can take advantage of the $300/week by doing so.

    1. Riiight. They can rescind articles of impeachment against President Literally Hitler.

      In theory they could, in reality impeaching Trump plays really well with their base, and rescinding the articles would be about as politically toxic for them as voting in favor of them is for Republicans.

      1. I did not say that is what they were going to do, just could do. I suspect a year from now when midterms are shaping up though they are going to really wish they did rescind them before it goes to the Senate.

        1. You have a lot of wishful thinking going on here. Try not to let it color your judgment.

      2. Alternately :

        Trump can cure this whole situation by apologizing to the nation for trying to subvert an election, admit his fraud nonsense was lying start to finish, ask forgiveness from election officials in states like Michigan & Georgia for trying to bully them into illegal & unethical acts, and offer contrition to poor pathetic Mike Pence, who didn’t deserve to have a howling mob sicced on him after four years of dog-like devotion.

        The final cathartic step would be a nationwide address where Trump begs forgiveness for undermining the foundations of our democracy with his narcissistic obsessive lying.

        The heart of America would melt at hearing Trump’s mea culpa (though some of us would worry it was an attempt to make him creditable for ’24)

        1. That would never happen.

          1. Agreed. He’d be more likely to brag about working for Putin than he would be to apologize for something.

            1. Suppose President Biden offers Mr. Trump a full pardon for the crimes he confesses to.

      3. “In theory they could, in reality impeaching Trump plays really well with their base”

        It’s also going over well with nonpartisans, at least some of them.

        Whereas pretending Trump is innocent convinces nobody.

    2. “I know the only people upset about it will be the media who are going to ride the impeachment for Trump money making content for another month.”

      Statements like this one are the proof we use to demonstrate that you actually don’t know anything.

    3. ” an emotion situation who wanted the “bad man” held responsible.”

      Interesting summary. No spin here. Nope. None.

  16. Someday, someone will write about the irony of impeaching Trump for not putting the country ahead of his personal belief that fraud was afoot, like Nixon did in 1960, while simultaneously obliterating the tradition of putting the country first by not prosecuting the outgoing administration for relatively petty crimes and misdemeanors.

    1. I’m sure you’re right. After all, last year Alan Dershowitz was effectively arguing that Nixon shouldn’t have been impeached either. You can always find someone to write something.

    2. That is if anything objective still exists after the virtual book burnings are done.

      1. The objective always exists.
        For instance : The election was not stolen. Trump’s fraud allegations are lies.

        See how simple that is?

        1. Trump’s fraud allegations are not lies. They are confessions.

      2. “That is if anything objective still exists after the virtual book burnings are done.”

        As if you maintained any connections to the objective truth in the first place.

    3. ” simultaneously obliterating the tradition of putting the country first by not prosecuting the outgoing administration for relatively petty crimes and misdemeanors.”

      Solicitation of vote fraud is neither petty nor a misdemeanor, and Trump was recorded doing it twice. Once in North Carolina and then a second time in Georgia.

  17. Really, it’s rather ridiculous for the Senate to be able to, upon conviction on articles of impeachment, bar the “defendant” from holding an elected office in the future. If the voters want to put someone that was impeached back into office, they should be able to do so. Why should the judgment of the Senate today override the judgement of the voters a decade from now?

    Should Congress have the power to ban random citizens from office if they think they are not suited for office? I think not. There is no legal reason that Charlie Manson couldn’t have been elected President (the logistics might have been interesting – would California have had to release him from prison and take him back into custody at the end of his term? Would he have had to address the nation from his prison cell?). The vast majority of people who are unfit to serve as President are not subject to impeachment and banning from public elected office — why do we care about disqualifying the 0.0000003% while not disqualifying the other 5% that aren’t fit?

    I understand the “removal from office” aspect as there is no “national recall” mechanism through which the voters can decide to remove a President mid-term and such removal may be appropriate in some cases.

    Let the voters decide – they are the ones who are supposed to have the power as they are the ones governed.

    1. It’s literally in the Constitutional text, dude.

      1. Not seeing where he said they “can’t”…

        1. Not seeing where anyone else said he said “they can’t”.

    2. “Should Congress have the power to ban random citizens from office if they think they are not suited for office? I think not.”

      Nor do they have, or claim to have, this power.

      ” There is no legal reason that Charlie Manson couldn’t have been elected President”

      Unless you count the technicality that he didn’t win the Electoral College, and Biden did.

  18. One should hope there is still time to fix them, because they currently exist in a sad and unpersuasive state.

    Although, our professor has not provided us with a coherent vision for getting to a persuasive state in this pamphlet.

  19. Hatred driven lunacy.

    1. Trump in a nutshell.

    1. He’s still walking around with that FAKE Hawaiian birth certificate.

  20. I suspect there will be no trial:
    (a) The articles of impeachment are quite flimsy.
    (b) A Senate trial would give further voice to Trump and his supporters to make their case which would directly undermine recent actions by combined political and corporate censors on the left.

    1. The fact that you think there’s more than one leads me to question whether you’ve read it, which further leads me to question the basis for your assertion.

    2. “(b) A Senate trial would give further voice to Trump and his supporters to make their case which would directly undermine recent actions by combined political and corporate censors on the left.”

      Giving Trump a platform to continue to complain about his delusion devalues Trump and his apologists. Give him all the rope he needs.

  21. That is if anything objective still exists after the virtual book burnings are done.
    harikat tanzif falal bialriyad

Please to post comments