Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Of Impeachment and Accountability
Never Trump Republicans and their Democratic co-conspirators have another trick up their sleeves. Knowing that they probably do not have the votes to convict and remove the President in the Senate, they are desperately searching for a way to pull it off and they think they’ve found it: A secret vote and/or a generous reading of the two-thirds rule.
Pushed by people like lobbyist Juleanna Glover (formerly of the Bush 43 Administration and Bill Kristol acolyte), Laurence Tribe and former Sen. Jeff Flake, the operating theory is that if Senators were freed from accountability to their voters there would be 30 to 35 Republicans in the Senate ready to vote “yes” on conviction.
The other pipe dream is that the Constitution only demands a two-thirds majority of the Senators present. For every Senator that refuses to attend it brings that two-thirds number lower. But staying away is the same as a yes vote.
Jim Geraghty points out at National Review, “If Trump really is an unconstitutional menace who is abusing the power of the presidency for his personal interests, stopping him ought to be worth losing a Senate seat. And if this action isn’t worth losing a Senate seat over, then it’s hard to see how it is worth removing a president.”
A secret ballot after secret proceedings in the House sounds like a recipe for disaster. How do you think the public would react?
Published in Politics
I’d like to think so, but I think there will be some online shouting and that will be the extent of it.
I don’t have a problem with the Clinton Foundation being fully investigated. The Trump Foundation was shut down. I wouldn’t object to the same about the Clinton Foundation.
Thank you. What a great series of books!
However, did any Democrats support chants against W?
If memory serves, when Democrats started to chant “Lock him up!” they were shut down.
That would have been a miscarriage of justice. And let’s not forget those who wanted Reagan locked up.
Until Trump, Presidents and Senators were magnanimous to former Presidents.
I think if Trump were removed this way, he’d win in the Supreme Court. I also think voters would turn the House and Senate upside-down regardless of party . . .
I agree. Democrat for the first, and Republican for the second . . .
The Senate is the sole judge of impeachment so the Courts would not intervene. But, the vote to have a secret ballot would be a public vote, and heaven help anyone who votes for the secret ballot.
The Venona intelligence being received by the FBI would have had to have been known by J. Edgar Hoover. It is my theory, based on no evidence, that JEH was feeding McCarthy with the distilled results of that intelligence in such a way as to prevent the Soviets from figuring out the source. Every so often, Tailgunner Joe went off the beaten path, but a whole lot of his accusations were borne out eventually. Alger Hiss was KGB|
There is another alternative that has come up. Impeachment in the House is a two step procedure. First the voting of Articles of Impeachment, and second the referral to the Senate. The second step is 99.9% automatic. But Lindsey Graham has said that his mind is made up despite his oath, and McConnell has said that he will defer wholly to the White House. Pelosi could withhold the vote to refer the Articles to the Senate until a majority of the Senate agrees in writing that a fair trial will take place.
😊
This is absurd. Where do you get this crap about “despite his oath?” In a criminal trial you’d move this to another jurisdiction because the jury pool has been tainted. But the jury is set by the Constitution and they’ve been watching this farce for three years! Again, you’re playing the Democrats game here. “Graham and McConnell have opinions! RECUSE! RECUSE!!”
Secondly, Pelosi has no say whatsoever about how the Senate wishes to conduct its own business. Me thinks that your idea of a “fair” trial is one that is preordained to go your way.
I think they would. The Dems actions against Trump are already unprecedented (Secret votes? Really?), so it wouldn’t surprise me if more unprecedented events took place . . .
I like to think the majority of Amercians (even ordinary Democrat voters) have a sense of fairness, and an understanding that allowing an outrageous, unfair attack on Trump along with secret ballots could easily be applied to them in a “woke” future . . .
Whoa! What the heck would happen if the Dems refused to immediately refer the Articles to the Senate?
You asked what would happen with the if there was a secret ballot in the Senate. I am being topical by asking what would happen if the Democrats voted for impeachment, but held back on referring the articles.
Somewhere this morning I saw the term “powder keg” used. Seems about right. I’ll throw in “tar and feathers” too…in the very real sense. Very painful.
Gary’s correct on this. The courts have no jurisdiction on impeachment. The Senate has a set of rules for impeachment trials; I don’t anticipate them voting new rules for DJT. The Constitution states that “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings…”
The extent of anger for and against the Trump Administration is far beyond what I ever remembered of any other administration. Are we the most conflicted country since 1968? Or since 1861? Or since 1776? This all does not feel right or normal.
Powder keg seems right. Like 1968, 1861 and 1776.
Change begins with you.
Perhaps all of us, instead of just Gary or Drew.
We have several full-blown Communists in our Legislature and roughly half the country sees them as “thought leaders.” I wouldn’t mind a little 2019 McCarthyism.
And calling yourself a “Country-First Republican” is narcissism at it’s finest.
Gary, I think this is the way things will turn out. Donald Trump’s father isn’t around to loan him money this time.
Way off-topic, but I don’t think DJT could even appear on a ballot in 2024 if he were the incumbent. The COTUS specifies the requirements for President. Courts have struck down any ballot-access requirements that stray from the COTUS. A recent example is California’s attempt to make the release of tax returns a requirement for appearing on a primary ballot. A district court struck that down. So if there were an attempt to list DJT for a 3rd terms, a court challenge would remove him from the ballot would succeed.
Update: Alcee Hastings was a Federal judge who was impeached and removed from office. The courts did take up his case, all the way up to the Supreme Court (where the conviction was upheld). Hastings still got elected to the House of Representatives, and I believe is still there.
Yes, the courts will take up Trump’s case because it is so important. Unlike Hstings, I believe Trump will prevail, the remedy being returned to office.
I’ve been wondering how long it would be for the zealots (Or activists. Or bots. whatever they are anyway) to start talking about Trump the forever president. Looks like that insanity has started.
I think people were angrier in the 60s. It’s just today we have the internet and 24/7 news acting as an amplifier and feedback loop for the anger currently on the ground.
Like someone said in regard to the Left losing on Brexit (paraphrasing):
“Sneering at people who disagree with you is not how you win the argument.”
I think that you are right.