In declaring that he won’t be voting to allow witness testimony in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee made some interesting observations. First, he acknowledged that the House Democrats had proven that Trump “ask[ed] a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and…with[held] United States aid to encourage that investigation.” Second, he said that this crime did not rise to a level requiring removal from office. Third, he said that Trump’s blanket noncooperation with the investigation wasn’t even close to being an impeachable offense. While it’s still possible that the Senate will deadlock at 50-50 on the witness question, forcing Chief Justice John Roberts to decide whether or not to break the tie, Alexander’s position probably spells the end of this sad saga in the Senate.
If so, the House Democrats will have some difficult choices to make. They could essentially move on and get back to the ordinary business of working on the budget and passing bills that Trump won’t sign. Or, they could decide to hold a trial of their own, with the potential to impeach Trump a second time before the November election.
If they make the latter decision, they will risk looking obsessed. But, given the stakes, they might feel they have no other choice. They will almost certainly want to hear from John Bolton, who is likely to cooperate this time around. They may also want to hear from Lev Parnas, assuming they can do so without screwing up his prosecution by the Department of Justice. They will also want to vindicate, if possible, their right to get witnesses and documents from the administration, so they’ll have to pursue a legal angle as well. Above all, they’ll want to make sure the full story is told so that people can fairly judge what the Senate did in refusing to look further into the matter themselves before acquitting the president.
For this purpose, they could set up a special committee to basically compile a full investigation unencumbered by time constraints. You could think of it as their own special investigator or prosecutor. Their mission would be to document everything for history in a final report, and the report could make recommendations for people who should be charged or even for new impeachment articles to be passed.
This report might not be complete before the November election, especially given the legal delays in getting resolution on witnesses and documents, but Trump could be impeached even in a second term and even if he is defeated. If he’s guilty, he should not be able to run for or hold high office again.
As time goes by, more information will come out through Freedom of Information Requests and people deciding to talk about what they know, as well as through victories in court. Trump’s acquittal will likely look worse and worse with each passing month and year, and the Senate’s behavior will suffer a similar fate.
This will benefit the Democrats politically, but more importantly, the House Democrats cannot allow this result to stand since it eviscerates Congress’s power to hold a president accountable. As an institution, they need to fight back. Unfortunately, this is something they should be obsessed about and they should be willing to take whatever hit comes along with that.
Those “should be”‘s are doing a lot of the heavy lifting in your last sentence. Keep in mind that the first impeachment would never have happened if about 8 Reps from moderate districts had not decided to start the ball rolling. Will they now try to keep it rolling? Or will they (or others) cave in to what they see as the inevitable?
Yeah, they should probably just announce that they’re going to make a final report on it and not talk about re-impeaching him.
As a rule I’m pretty cynical about the average Democratic Rep because I don’t think they’re fighting people and I don’t think they’re part of a fighting organization. As a rule, they’re all about following the polls whereas the Republicans are all about moving the polls. That’s been true for 40+ years and the advantages of the latter over the former are clear.
That said, I will give those 8 a lot of credit because what they did took some guts. They didn’t know what was going to happen, they could have got their asses handed to them in their districts but they took a chance and did the right thing. And by doing the right thing they changed the political landscape, at least for a while.
But now they know what’s going to happen: in spite of the presentation of an irrefutable case (the Republicans didn’t even try to refute it) Trump is going to walk. You think they’re going to take that risk a second time? Or even if they did, you think the rest of the caucus would back them? Show me where the self interest lies in their doing what you’re hoping for.
Oh great. I saw Ken Starr on the tv today. I was in the gym and whenever I looked up, there he was. Wonder if he had the Clinton-Lewinski file tucked under his jacket. That image alone made me want another impeachment.
They have to keep fighting for another reason – the 2020 election. The way to win the next election is to make it 100% about Donald Trump and the corruption of Donald Trump. Investigating this down to the last nut and bolt will serve the same media purpose as a phoney Benghazi investigation did for Republicans in 2016. It is very valid to spend the next several months completing this investigation. If the next election is about Trump, Dems will win top to bottom. If it is about anything else, Trump wins.
If Democrats let this election become a referendum on Bernie Sanders and his political revolution, we are all fucking lost.
If thats the angle Biden is probably the worst pick to deliver that message bar maybe Bloomers.
Why? I think the worst- by far- is Bernie Sanders. Both he and Trump would love to argue about his political revolution and his agenda. Whether it is a good idea to nationalize 16% of the economy and to double federal spending. That is the entire Sanders pitch, is it not? He will defend his agenda.
It is incredibly stupid to make the 2020 election about whether the American electorate is ready for Bernie’s brand of democratic socialism. The referendum must be about Trump. If it is a referendum on Bernie, we lose.
Screw all the Democratic issues. Anti-Trump with every word. Ask me about healthcare and I talk about Trump’s healthcare sabotage. Ask me about immigration and I talk about babies in cages. Ask me about the economy and I talk the Trump tax cuts. Whatever the topic I target Trump’s corruption.
Any candidate willing to spend 100% of his message going after Trump, is okay. Anyone who has the discipline to keep attacking Republicans and Trump is fine. Bernie spends more time attacking Democrats than Republicans.
I get your point about nationalizing insurance companies or at least a part of them. Still, how many people really want to stick up for those bastards? Do you work for one? They may drive more people into bankruptcy than they are worth. Time to kick the fucks to the curb is kinda the message I hear.
I am Canadian so I have no dog in this fight. Whether or not a majority of voters will vote to kick the fucks to the curb is not the question. It is whether we are prepared to bet democracy on that proposal. Are we prepared to endure another four years of Trump on the proposition that the American electorate will go for socialized medicine?
That will be the issue if Sanders is nominated. That – and his so-called political revolution – is not the hill I want to die on. (Partly because I know how easy it is to lose that fight. It is almost surely an electoral loser, IMO) The hill I want Democrats to die on is “Donald Trump is a corrupt sleaze bag who deserves to be thrown out of office.” I want zero distractions from that message. Attack, attack, attack. Fuck policy.
Bernie Sanders is a walking distraction. His presence (and the Republicans messaging) will turn the election into a referendum on him instead of Trump and with that, it becomes 1972 all over again.
Keep investigations going. Also keep hammering home a simple point: The House is getting things done (legislation and investigating what in any sane era would be impeachable offenses by a certain combover). The Senate just won’t get the job done.
Agreed. The House Democrats have proved that they can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Also, good for town halls in swing districts when folks get angry that “nothing is getting done and you’re all the same”. The response should be, “We passed X and Y and Z. Senator Republican is too chicken to force it for a vote. We need a good partner in the Senate, and Senator Republican is not.”