Home        About Dan        News        Books        Forum        Art
Page 1 of 1 1
Topic Options
#169658 - 02/03/20 03:50 PM On Impeachment and Missing the point
jryan Online   content

Registered: 06/08/07
Posts: 8602
Loc: Oakton VA
I'm not going to intentionally walk all over better legal minds than myself, but there is a rather obvious point that seems to be missed in the argument over impeachment, what constitutes an impeachable offense, and how each stage of the impeachment process can be, or should be, administered.

For all the hand wringing on both sides of how the other party is dispensing their duties, I really agree in principle with both sides.

* Yes, the House impeachment process is entirely up to the House to decide.

* Yes, the Senate Trial is entirely up to the Senate to decide.

* Yes, there is no set standard that defines what an impeachable offense actually is.

But, in all of the purposeful vagueness of the impeachment standards written into the Constitution, there is, I would argue, one and only one standard that is clear and unavoidable:

67 Votes to Remove.

Yes, the House can do whatever they want... but it needs to convince 67 Senators to successfully remove a president/

The House can run a one sided investigation meant to engineer a pre-ordained House vote... In fact, to run the investigation you have to be the majority in the House already, so you have to really screw up to not get the simple majority neede dto pass articles of impeachment...

.. But you need 67 votes to remove. You can hold the majority in the Senate and still need a product from the House sufficient to sway a sizable number of the opposing party.

So, how serious do the crimes need to be to successfully remove a president from office? Sufficiently serious to garner 67 votes in the senate. As history has shown, that is a high bar indeed.
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” - Richard Feynman

#169659 - 02/03/20 11:30 PM Re: On Impeachment and Missing the point [Re: jryan]
jmill Offline
Full Shrike

Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 5701
Loc: Earth

After watching this disaster unfold, the bottom line for me is that this "impeachment" was nakedly political from beginning to end.

Whatever else I may or may not know for certain, I do know this: the Founding Fathers never intended for impeachment to be simply because one party didn't like the other party's president. There has to be some kind of crime, period.

And as for quid pro quo, the original "charge", that happens every day of a president's term. ALL politics is a form negotiations in one way or another, and that's what the Democrats accused Trump of doing: negotiating with whatever he had at hand. If Joe Biden thinks this foofaraw is over because he and his son didn't have to testify, he better think again. He hasn't heard the last of this, and I believe it's ultimately going to sink his campaign, if Bernie Sanders doesn't do it first.
"Long is the way and hard that out of Hell leads up to light." -John Milton

Page 1 of 1 1

Hop to:

Generated in 0.027 seconds in which 0.003 seconds were spent on a total of 13 queries. Zlib compression disabled.

Home    Books    Curtis on Publishing   Previews    Bio    Bibliography    Snapshots     Foreign News    Reader's Forum    Art