Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Jeff Greenfield: 5 Ways Impeachment Could Play Out - We're in unprecedented territory
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/29/donald-trump-impeachment-guide-228756
By JEFF GREENFIELD September 29, 2019
f you’re looking at history to provide a guide to the impending impeachment saga … don’t. With only three past examples, involving three very different controversies, there’s thin gruel that will provide little nourishment. So let’s turn to a different tool: the concept of an infinite number of universes, where events play out in different ways, depending on everything from consequential decisions to random chance. Modesty forbids asserting that any of the outcomes listed below will happen; only that they might.
Some of these universes may seem improbable or even fanciful, I know. But before you dismiss them all, ask yourself this question: Would the universe we are living in now have seemed any less fanciful three years ago?
IN UNIVERSE ONE
The House provides a forum for a deliberate look at a narrow set of facts. The template is the Senate Watergate Committee, which began poking into Watergate and other “presidential campaign activities” in the spring of 1973. It was a select committee of seven members, with nary an ideologue in sight. (Chairman Sam Ervin was a conservative Democrat; ranking member Howard Baker was a moderate Republican.) Over 319 hours, the nation learned of John Dean’s “cancer on the presidency” and the revelation that there was a taping system inside the White House. Notably, much of the questioning was done by staff counsel, which made for less political bloviation and more targeted inquiry.
So in this scenario, instead of having six committees channel their findings to the Judiciary Committee, Speaker Nancy Pelosi changes her mind and creates a similar select committee, whose staff lawyers do the lion’s share of the questioning, focused on the issue raised by the whistleblower: Did the president withhold desperately needed military aid to pressure Ukraine into damaging a potential political opponent.
In this universe, there is at least a chance of laying out the facts in a clear frame, enabling the public to grasp the essence of the case for impeachment. That in turn moves public opinion to the point where some congressional Republicans begin to recalculate the benefits and cost of a pro-impeachment vote.
</snip>
By JEFF GREENFIELD September 29, 2019
f you’re looking at history to provide a guide to the impending impeachment saga … don’t. With only three past examples, involving three very different controversies, there’s thin gruel that will provide little nourishment. So let’s turn to a different tool: the concept of an infinite number of universes, where events play out in different ways, depending on everything from consequential decisions to random chance. Modesty forbids asserting that any of the outcomes listed below will happen; only that they might.
Some of these universes may seem improbable or even fanciful, I know. But before you dismiss them all, ask yourself this question: Would the universe we are living in now have seemed any less fanciful three years ago?
IN UNIVERSE ONE
The House provides a forum for a deliberate look at a narrow set of facts. The template is the Senate Watergate Committee, which began poking into Watergate and other “presidential campaign activities” in the spring of 1973. It was a select committee of seven members, with nary an ideologue in sight. (Chairman Sam Ervin was a conservative Democrat; ranking member Howard Baker was a moderate Republican.) Over 319 hours, the nation learned of John Dean’s “cancer on the presidency” and the revelation that there was a taping system inside the White House. Notably, much of the questioning was done by staff counsel, which made for less political bloviation and more targeted inquiry.
So in this scenario, instead of having six committees channel their findings to the Judiciary Committee, Speaker Nancy Pelosi changes her mind and creates a similar select committee, whose staff lawyers do the lion’s share of the questioning, focused on the issue raised by the whistleblower: Did the president withhold desperately needed military aid to pressure Ukraine into damaging a potential political opponent.
In this universe, there is at least a chance of laying out the facts in a clear frame, enabling the public to grasp the essence of the case for impeachment. That in turn moves public opinion to the point where some congressional Republicans begin to recalculate the benefits and cost of a pro-impeachment vote.
</snip>
Great read - Greenfield's a good journalist.
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
