Impeachment

[Are_grits_groceries]

This is going to be an arduous and politically explosive process. There are ZERO Republicans who will fulfill their constitutional duty. When Nixon was impeached, there were some and that made it a little easier.

Once this starts, we will be on a train that may just runaway. Do not underestimate the tricks in DC that will be used and the Trumpkins throughout the country.

They charges should be investigated and the strongest ones laid out and broadcast far and wide. We cannot afford to go forward with a even a somewhat weak charge. They will beat that one to death.
IMO there should be constitutional lawyers(or those best qualified) preparing the case to be as thorough and tight as possible. It should be done with all deliberate speed.
Mueller’s report helps but Congress has to see the unredacted version. Who knows what awaits there?

In addition, it is time for the Dems and the chairs to lay down the hammer on not receiving documents and other problems that are processes mandated by our laws. They need to study the rules used in Congress and find ANY point that can be used against Trump and the GOP. Then they should be on national news EVERY DAY forcefully pointing out the refusal of the GOP to adhere to the rules. Trumpkins won’t care but the other voters who can decide the election will hear it and take note.

In addition, every effort should be made to get McConnell out of office. Taking over the senate would be best, but turn the rules on him like he twists them now. His announcement that he will block everything if Trump is elected is tantamount to blackmail and whatever else.

Do not make it easy on Trump. AND the Dems have got to get people out front strongly pushing the message. I would not use Pelosi or Schumer except to introduce newer faces. There are several people who can present a relatable but stern front. Katie Porter comes to mind. Barbara Lee is another.

These are just some suggestions. I know you can pick everything apart. We CANNOT go into this without being fully prepared and anticipating as much as possible.

I do not believe this will be as easy as 1-2-3 and off to the Senate it will go.

[Trumpocalypse]

1. The House needs to investigate Trump

until so much is exposed that the public demands his impeachment and the republicans in the Senate will have no choice but to vote to convict him.

[Chin music]

3. +1+1

When the goods are out in the sunlight, like a good episode of NCIS...it will be so obvious, and the chips will fall. How many Dems have switched to Repub? None. How many Repubs have switched to Dem? ALOT. And there's no telling that more of that won't happen just in itself.. We don't have 2 years until the next election.
Whens trumps next private/no interpreter meeting w putin? You can bet theyre slicing up the country and all of us, each time. If we let him, he will. Silence and doing nothing is akin to saying, "It's ok."

[Chin music]

2. Nothing worth having is easy. Pretty sure nobody is jumping the gun. It's been a painfully long 2

years. We've all got a pretty good picture of what seems to be going on. THAT was the LONGEST two years of my life. Including the years i had cancer.
Sounds a little like,,....bc it's hard and not a perfect deal so, we should wait some more or just let those trumpkins keep destroying us bc, hey, we dont have a perfect package yet. They are counting on folks to dither. Please don't be one.
I'm in the 'pull the ripcord' camp. Let's go. Have faith. The gop is the closest thing to evil Ive seen in my lifetime.
Elizabeth Warren is an EXTREMELY well versed individual. She and Kamala and others wouldnt have said yes, if the time wasnt right.
What's it going to take? The grid going down for a few months and only trumps govt w the electricity on? Imagine how effed we'd be then. It's WAY past time. I hear your concerns but, just bc mconnel threatens, doesn't mean he wins. He may die of a stroke tomorrow. Nobody knows what tomorrow holds. WE ordain our future. I for one, and tired of waiting. TWO YEARS.
We have to be so vigilant. We have to be strong. We have to MAKE the case and get rid of this scar on our country.

[Are_grits_groceries]

5. I am not saying take years.

However, they have to take the info and put it in the proper form for whatever use it’s meant for. They cannot go off half-ready.

[Chin music]

6. Mueller did that. How much collation is needed?

Any local prosecutor could make the case based on TRMS, let alone the dicta in the Mueller Report He laid it all out. The redactions , make it crystal clear, should we be able to read them someday. (I bet).

[Are_grits_groceries]

7. The only thing worse than impeaching Trump,

would be to make such a mess of it that voters throw their hands up.
The House has to see the unredacted report. And they have to work with those versed in impeachment to make the tightest case.
Mueller did a tremendous amount of legwork and preparation, that does not mean it’s a slam dunk.

We are not talking about some local prosecution. You are talking about high stakes constitutional law that is not a slam dunk. It would seem to be but never assume anything with all the shenanigans going on.

I am not saying dawdle. I am saying tighten everything down, plan it out, and be ready for the long haul. And I do mean long haul considering the election is coming up.

[Chin music]

8. There's always an election coming up. Can we get the JUICE we paid for this last election?

You know, the Blue Wave? Why all the falderal about the next election, if the LAST one didn't really pan out...yet?
I agree...tighten it up...WHILE they're impeaching him

[ehrnst]

15. You "paid for juice?" I thought we elected the most qualified Dems to do a job, and do it right.

They've been in control for less than four months, and they have information that we don't have, and most have experience in congress we don't have.

If our Democratic leaders are simply supposed to do what we tell them to we could replace the caucus with facebook polls to determine what their next course of action is.

They have email addresses and phone numbers so we can let them know what is on our minds, and give them a good idea of what would represent their constituents want, but I voted for someone to go spend their full working day doing their damn job without checking in with me before every meeting.

[malaise]

4. Good post

Nice to see you sis

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. Won't get the unredacted report without an impeachment inquiry

It's the only way to circumvent Trump's obstruction, and an inquiry needs to start now, so that a methodical, relentless, merciless (to those who would defy subpoenas) investigation can get the truth to the American public before the primaries begin.

[ehrnst]

11. The unredacted report has been subpoeneaed.

They have until May 1 to turn it over. IF they miss that deadline, next steps are in place.

If we do not honor the deadline in the subpoena, and bring down the consequence on them before they are required to comply, we have no credibility to dangle a "or else" over their head.

If someone says to you, pay this bill by Friday, or I report it to the credit bureau, then on Tuesday they report you to the credit bureau, what reason do you have to pay the bill at all?

If we subpoena a witness to testify on Friday, then hold the hearings on Tuesday, and charge them with contempt for saying they are not ready, on Tuesday we are legally in the wrong, not the witness.

And before you start... why May 1, and not the next day? Because there are procedures, and just because you are impatient doesn't nullify procedures. When one subpoenaes something, there are often guidelines in how much time is considered reasonable for someone to comply. And just because you think that's longer than reasonable doesn't make it legally accurate.

I'm not a laywer, and do not know the specifics of the turnaround time on the subpoena, but I don't think it was lightly determined, and that our representatives want to give Barr any more time that absolutely necessary. I'm certain that there is strategy behind this subpoena for the unredacted report IF what you say is grounded in fact and it is indeed futile and pointless outside impeachment hearings.

If you think that our Pelosi and Nadler don't know the law like you do, concerning the futility of this subpoena, please contact them, and let us know their response.

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. In many of my other posts I've suggested the end of May for opening an Impeachment inquiry

This would give time for Meuller’s and Barr’s scheduled testimonies, and all relevant subpoenas to be issued and responded to (or ignored).

By the end of May, the obstructionists will have been given enough rope to hang themselves, at which time Congress should proceed methodically, relentlessly, and mercilessly to uncover the truth.

[ehrnst]

13. That doesn't support your claim there is no way to get the unredacted report other than impeachment.

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. It has been documented numerous times

Most recently by Lawrence Tribe on MSNBC last night, that an impeachment inquiry (not the same as the act of impeachment itself) is the only certain way, with legal precedent behind it, to obtain grand jury records (known as Rule 6e material) as well as evidence related to “ongoing matters” which make up a large portion of the redactions. This is because an impeachment inquiry is considered a “judicial process” and exempt from restrictions on disclosing Rule 6e material.

Regular congressional subpoenas or investigations do not carry this legal weight, and thus Trump can “run out the clock” with numerous obstructions and court delays.

[ehrnst]

18. Tribe's analysis has been disputed by two former assistant prosecutors for Watergate

Philip Allen Lacovara and Laurence H. Tribe’s April 9 Tuesday Opinion essay, “Want the full Mueller report? Open impeachment hearings.,” claimed that no exception to Rule 6(e) allows release of grand jury material to the House Judiciary Committee as long as the House speaker disapproves inquiry into President Trump’s possible impeachment. We disagree.

Rule 6(e) was amended in 2002 to permit “an attorney for the government [to] . . . disclose any grand-jury matter involving . . . a threat of attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power . . . to any appropriate federal . . . official, for the purpose of preventing or responding to such threat or activities.”

This exception allows transmission by a government attorney, without court intervention, of the Mueller report and its underlying evidence to the House committee. The attorney general is “an attorney for the government.” Any Russian meddling in our 2016 elections and beyond involves “grave hostile acts of a foreign power.” Any attempted coverup of Russian meddling “involves” the meddling and thus also falls within the exception. Members of the House committee are “appropriate federal officials” to receive grand jury material given their responsibility to “prevent or respond to” the Russian meddling and any coverup thereof through the committee’s historical jurisdiction over impeachment of federal officials and civil and criminal proceedings generally.

Grand jury secrecy is a nonissue in this case and should not stand in the way of disclosure of the full Mueller report and its underlying evidence to the House Judiciary Committee.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-has-a-clear-legal-path-to-the-full-mueller-report/2019/04/15/1678e6f2-5d31-11e9-98d4-844088d135f2_story.html

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. This is the first I've heard of this

You should post this in its own thread to educate the rest of DU.

It does appear that Congress is not invoking this 2002 Rule,either formally via subpoenas, or informally in press appearances.

It also appears that the interpretation of this 2002 rule regarding what constitutes a “threat” is up to the AG, whereas the legal precedent is clear that if Congress opens an impeachment inquiry, Rule 6e is suspended, regardless of the position of the AG.

[ehrnst]

20. There's already an OP on it:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212018262

It does appear that Congress is not invoking this 2002 Rule,either formally via subpoenas, or informally in press appearances.

This exception allows transmission by a government attorney, without court intervention, of the Mueller report and its underlying evidence to the House committee.

This does not require that a government attorney transmit the report, it makes it legal for one to do so, and prevents the AG from stopping a government attorney who wishes to do so. Now, if no one chooses to do so, it is then appropriate for congress to subpoeana it, which is what they have done.

[H2O Man]

10. Recommended.

Very well said. While I do not agree with you on every point, I respect your reasoning. This is exactly the level of discussion that we should be engaging in, both here on DU, and as a nation. I thank you for that.

[Stuart G]

14. I disagree..Some Republicans will vote for impeachment of Trump in the Senate

..That is, if it gets that far. Why say that? If a Republican is going to vote for impeachment, and that vote will destroy his/her career forever..and he/she knows that, then why destroy it now?
..Why not wait till the vote. For awhile, that person can enjoy the benefits of being a republican. Once he/she takes that vote, it is over for that person. Given the climate in politics today, certainly those who will side with the country on that important vote, can wait to declare their vote. What appears to be, isn't what always is. When that vote comes, if it comes, there will be some republicans, (no one knows how many), who will vote for impeachment to get rid of the ..."Liar and ConMan"...that is my opinion..

[Justice]

16. People forget or don't know Watergate timeframe

Took more than a year after John Dean was fired and testifies to Congress for Nixon to resign. A year after we knew about the existence of tapes for the tapes to be released. But the pressure on Nixon kept growing and growing. The House should investigate, conduct public hearings, let the facts come out.

June, 1972: Break in at Watergate Hotel.

April, 1973: Haldeman, Ehrlichman, AG Kleindienst resign. John Dean is fired.

June, 1973 John Dean testifies to Congress.

July, 1973: Butterfield testifies to Congress that there are tapes - Nixon recorded calls and conversations.

October, 1973: Saturday Night Massacre occurs

July, 1974: The Supreme Court rules Nixon must turn over tapes. Rejects executive privilege argument.

July, 1974: House Judiciary Committee passes the first of three articles of impeachment, charging obstruction of justice.

August, 1974: Nixon resigns.