Folks PLEASE! STOP attacking the Dems for not impeaching TODAY

[StarfishSaver]

House rules have very strict processes for this and they must be followed. Pelosi cannot just draft a bill and put it on the floor today. There is an incredible amount of work that must be done to get an impeachment measure ready to be voted on. And there are very strict timelines and notice requirements that must be adhered to. Among other things, bills usually cannot be voted on until several days after they are drafted, introduced and circulated. The fastest track is about 2 days, not counting weekends.

The House Members, committees and staff are busting their butts, working around the clock to get this done. And they are doing it less than 48 hours after having to barricade against a terrorist attack, working in offices where they're still picking up glass and trying to assess damage. Many of these staffers are probably traumatized and getting counseling from Congressional Employee Assistance, yet they're still there working. And let's not even talk about the fact that they're doing it while trying not to catch a virus that could kill them.

Congressional procedure is very complicated and doesn't always occur on the timeline we want or plain view. So please don't assume that if you can't see the work happening or if they're not voting right this minute on the floor that nothing is happening, they're not doing their jobs, or they're not taking this a seriously as you are.

These people are working as hard and as fast as they can under conditions I doubt many of us would ever be able to withstand. So please stop criticizing and second-guessing them, especially if you don't fully understand the details of the rules and processes they're operating under.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

1. Thank you. nt

[DownriverDem]

92. Another reason why

we need to bring back Civics Class to the High Schools.

[dlk]

120. There should be a civics requirement for every high school diploma

A democracy’s survival depends on a well-educated citizenry.

[Mr.Bill]

134. The last four years

have shown us there needs to be a civics requirement to be president.

[dlk]

150. Exactly

[Pobeka]

2. Thank you for that. Very helpful! n/t

[BannonsLiver]

3. Thanks. The other thread was a disgrace.

[wnylib]

62. I must have missed it. I have not

seen any criticisms of Dems about impeachment. Been too busy on other threads, I guess.

I don't know the specific details of the impeachment process, but I do know that it's time-consuming. That's one reason why I hoped that we could go the 25th route. I am confident that Madam Speaker and the rest of the House Dems will come through.

[orangecrush]

91. The only disgrace

Is what the mob of criminals did at the Capitol.

Wanting to see them rapidly dealt with is NOT A DISGRACE.

[BannonsLiver]

125. Stomping your feet and attacking Dems because it's not happening today is a fucking disgrace.

And I couldn’t care less that you think otherwise either.

[orangecrush]

156. It shows.

Buh bye!

[soldierant]

202. Amen, BannonsLiver.

You are in the right.

Demanding impossible - or unconstitutional - things is not helpful. It just gets in the way of actual decision making and action.

[sagesnow]

4. Thank you for posting this

Patience is not always DU virtue. Helps to know that something is at least in the works on Capitol Hill.

[malaise]

5. THIS

Speaker Pelosi has just ordered all CH flags to be flown at half staff for the deaths

[COL Mustard]

72. I Read It Is For The Death Of The Capitol Police Officer

I hope it isn't for the thugs who died.

[oldsoftie]

179. It is. nt

[onenote]

6. Yep

Contrary to what some people apparently think, drafting animpeachment resolution involves more than writing "Should Trump be impeached, yes or no?"

[Under The Radar]

7. Republicans have to pull the trigger on this one.

Democrats would be better served to offer support to republicans in their civil war

[wiggs]

57. Yes, once again relying on gop to do the right thing...which almost never works. This time though,

I bet they are nervous as hell that there isn't ANOTHER tragedy or incident to remind everyone that they allowed this to happen. I bet there is huge gop pressure on the WH that the next couple of weeks is smooth...and I'm interested to find out how they will manage that with their sociopathic, narcissistic, dangerous cult leader.

Deals being cut w Ivanka and Jared to keep him inactive in exchange for....? Offers from RNC and Adelson and Kochs to be quiet in exchange for a couple of billion? Have letters from cabinet and pence invoking the 25th ALREADY been written and copies placed on all the Trumps' desks for contemplation along with summaries of investigations? Is the highly illegal Georgia phone call being used as threat? Pardons dangled along with promise not to challenge family and self pardons as long as Trump doesn't talk to anyone or make an appearance over the next 12 days?

Does anyone think these kinds of conversations aren't going on?

[Under The Radar]

60. I doubt anyone in government

Would follow his orders without a level headed group stoping them, and likely lead by Pence.
Trumps concession speech last night was forced by the threat of removal by the 25th.
That is probably the best “deal” that he has cut in his life.

[marble falls]

8. We have to careful that we don't wreck our Democraric principles saving our Democracy ...

... as the RW is trying to do.

[sheshe2]

9. Once again, thank you.

[FreepFryer]

10. How about this compromise for those who would still demand instant gratification?

Everyone who was attacked at gunpoint by their political rivals Wednesday, and survived to perform their official function in Congress today gets to bitch and moan, if they still think it’s appropriate.

[StarfishSaver]

11. And everyone who wasn't has to STFU for 48 hours about it?

Works for me!

[ShazzieB]

33. Me, too!

[former9thward]

12. The House and Senate are adjourned until after the inaugeration

https://theweek.com/speedreads/959509/impeachment-seemingly-table-house-senate-depart-until-inauguration

[StarfishSaver]

15. Adjournment means they don't have votes but are subject to the call of the chair

They are still working. Pelosi and the relevant Members and staff are preparing articles of Impeachment and she's going to call them back into session to vote on them next week, which is the absolute quickest it can be done.

[former9thward]

17. Do you really think that Biden will allow impeachment drama

to be occurring at the same time of his inauguration? I don't.

[marble falls]

96. Why not? This isn't about a ceremony, this is about the continuation of democracy ...

... and the transfer of power An impeachment is part of this transfer.

[former9thward]

181. He just had a press conference

And was asked that question. He said the best way to move forward is for him to be sworn in on Jan. 20

[chowder66]

36. +1

[Bernardo de La Paz]

23. tRump can be impeached after Inauguration, I'm told & thus barred from ever holding office again. nt

[StarfishSaver]

26. No, he can't

He won't be president anymore so he can't be impeached.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

116. Yes he can. The Constitution allows it. You won't be able to show where it disallows it.

https://www.justsecurity.org/74107/the-constitutions-option-for-impeachment-after-a-president-leaves-office/

Removal from office is only one punishment that can be imposed. Barring is another.

[StarfishSaver]

119. I don't agree with this analysis

I don't believe that an ex-president can be impeached since Congress only has the power to impeach government officers and a former president is not a government officer. The Senate's power is limited to conviction and removal and barring the president from holding office. But since former president cannot be removed from office, they cannot be removed and disqualified. Once a president leaves office, the Senate no longer has any jurisdiction over them.

[onenote]

194. It is an unresolved question.

There are arguments -- and scholarly views -- on both sides of the issue. So no one can definitively say whether a "former" office holder can be impeached.

The closest thing to a precedent on the matter is the impeachment of William Belknap in 1876. With impeachment likely, he resigned in March, but the House went forward and impeached him. The Senate conducted a trial. By a majority vote, they rejected the argument that they lacked jurisdiction due to Belknap's resignation, but on a vote to convict, they failed to achieve the required 2/3 majority. While it is thought that concerns over the jurisdictional issue influenced the vote on conviction, the only available precedent indicates that the House and Senate were of the view that a resignation does not stop an impeachment or subsequent trial from taking place -- and no court has had an opportunity to pass on the question.

I lean in the direction that it is within the permissible boundaries of the constitution since it would otherwise allow an officeholder to negate Congress' authority to deny an office holder the right to hold office in the future.

[StarfishSaver]

196. It's unresolved in the courts, but I don't think a court would ever rule that an ex-president could

be impeached, convicted and disqualified.

What would have stopped a Republican Congress from impeaching and disqualifying a Democratic president from any federal office a after he left office? Or even maybe more likely, from impeaching and disqualifying a former Cabinet member whose political career they want to destroy (Pete Buttigieg)?

The more I think about it, the more I believe that Congress could actually impeach a former president, since impeachment is a political and legislative act that has no legal import beyond serving as a prerequisite for conviction and removal. And I guess the Senate could go ahead and hold a trial and convict them if they wanted - again, that has no legal meaning. But they couldn't impose any penalty since they can't be removed from office and I doubt they would have the power to ban a former official from ever serving again since they no longer have any jurisdiction over them (I also believe the language of the Constitution requires the disqualification to be done in conjunction with removal and can't be done independently unless done along with a removal). I believe that would have to be done while they're still in office, or not at all.

[onenote]

208. The main thing that stops a Congress from doing what you feat

Is the same thing that stands in the way of Congress pulling off a completely partisan impeachment— the need for a 2/3 vote to convict. In the last 100 years one party has had 2/3 of the senate for only a handful of years— almost all of which we’re doing the FDR years when the Democrats party was really two parties.

[CaptainTruth]

78. Where does "barred from ever holding office" come from?

I've seen it repeated dozens of times on social media that if he's impeached he'll be barred from ever holding office again yet I can't find any Constitutional or legal basis for it.

He's already been impeached. Impeachment (a function of the House only) doesn't prevent anyone from holding office. Conviction in the Senate is what prevents someone from holding office.

I would appreciate clarification because I've seen this repeated a lot, often by Twitter accounts that look like bots trying to spread misinformation.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

117. Technically, as a conviction punishment

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/07/we-must-impeach-trump-and-bar-him-from-holding-office-again-now

Yet Article I Section VII clarifies that removal is not the only punishment impeachment can bring. It reads: “Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” This clause shows definitively that the Senate can inflict a penalty that would prevent Trump from holding office again. Under established Senate practice, that vote to disqualify would require only a simple majority vote in the Senate, less than the two-thirds vote required for conviction.

Two historical precedents have established this procedure. In 1862, a federal judge named West Hughes Humphreys was impeached by the House. When it came time for the Senate to pronounce judgement, the body determined that the decisions of whether to remove and whether to disqualify were separable. The Senate first voted by two-thirds majority to convict and remove Humphreys, and then took a second vote, under a simple majority requirement, to disqualify him from future federal office. In an eerie foreshadowing of what we just witnessed with Trump, one impeachment article accused Humphreys of acting “in disregard of his duties as a citizen…Humphreys endeavor[ed] by public speech to incite revolt and rebellion’ against the United States.”

[servermsh]

13. I agree. Really only Pence can save us from some imminent bad act

Or perhaps others refusing to follow orders and waiting to be fired.

Also, remember, Democrats will be taking control of the Senate at some point (perhaps after January 20th). There is an advantage to having the impeachment trial run by Democrats.

[sweetloukillbot]

16. That's something I wondered - will the impeachment trial continue if he's out of office?

Just to prevent him from running again?

[former9thward]

18. Impeachment does not prevent anyone from running again.

Unless you think there are 67 votes in the Senate to convict.

[housecat]

22. True, but prison might

[former9thward]

30. Interestingly it doesn't

IN 1920 Eugene Debs, the Socialist party candidate, received almost a million votes. He was imprisoned in the Atlanta penitentiary at the time. President Wilson had put him there for "sedition" during WW I.

[housecat]

206. I was thinking about very long term prison

[sweetloukillbot]

28. That's kind of where I was going

IF there is a trial. And IF he is convicted. THEN they can bar him from running for office.
My question was whether the process could continue, when Democrats controlled the Senate, in order to convict and block him from running again.

[StarfishSaver]

35. The Senate can only bar him from future office AFTER voting to remove him

If he's out of office, they can't remove him, so they can't bar him from office in the future.

[StarfishSaver]

20. No. Once he's out of office, impeachment lapses

The House will likely impeach him next week. I don't know if the Senate will start a trial at that point, but I doubt it will. But who knows? If he gets worse, they may.

But if there's no trial or conviction before 1/20, he'll leave office having been impeached twice.

[sweetloukillbot]

48. Makes sense - thanks

Still, will be nice to have him be able to say no one has gotten more impeachments than him.

[fwvinson]

85. And, this time, force these RWMFs, especially

Donald J Trump, to get in front of the congress and testify.

[cbdo2007]

19. This is another dangerous rule here...if they are both hell bent on doing something, nobody can stop

them with immediate action.

[lark]

14. I appreciate your calming facts and information.

Thank you!!

[housecat]

21. True in normal times, but this is an exigent circumstance

[StarfishSaver]

27. The rules still apply. That's the point of rules.

[happy feet]

24. Thank-you

For saying what shouldn’t need to be said to the back benchers

[Bettie]

25. Knowing the ball is rollling is

enough for me right now.

[mcar]

29. Didn't we go through this a year ago?

You'd think people might have learned something.

[StarfishSaver]

38. You would think that, wouldn't you?

[3825-87867]

31. Mixed Emotions!

There's an old Milton Berle joke (he was a famous comedian from the 30s to the 60s) who penned the joke:

A Mixed Emotion is seeing your mother-in-law drive off a cliff in your brand new Cadillac! (no slam today at moms-in-law, it was a time period thing. Today to be PC we would sub in Trump instead of dear Mom!)

Remember, it was the times.

[FSogol]

32. Great post. Wanna put pressure on someone? Pressure Pence and the cabinet to 25th Trumpy.

They could do that today.

[StarfishSaver]

40. Thank you

The propensity for some Dems to waste their time and energy to attack the people on our side is pretty annoying.

[llashram]

34. this

I have an idea who's so insistent with this course of action, I will mute my counsel...

[yaesu]

37. I'm not in a rush to remove tRump, he is small potatoes & my main objective for him being

impeached is to keep him from ever holding office again. My main concern is with the seditious mob, foreign agents that committed the terrorist act, I want swift action for their arrest & imprisonment, than go after the GOP, tRump & foreign countries for instigating this coup. Lastly, we need to go after the deep pockets who funded this, follow the money.

[TheRickles]

39. How long would it take to vote on censuring the President?

It might be a good, and quick, first step as the plans are being laid for impeachment.

[StarfishSaver]

41. It would take as long as an impeachment vote

The process is the same.

[3825-87867]

51. Yeah, but in the meanwhile how about

a nice public gathering of politicians condemning trump for the press and the world to see could be arranged post-haste and might assuage some.

[StarfishSaver]

53. Politicians have been condemning Trump out the wazoo

The world knows where they stand We don't have time for politicians to gather for some kind of dog and pony show that's not even necessary.

We need to just let them do their jobs and stop demanding they put on public displays for our satisfaction.

[3825-87867]

73. Not looking for a "dog and pony show"

But it's amazing how many are always available for interviews by the press!

Really 'sorry' if you took this to mean "dog and Pony show!"

[TheRickles]

84. Do you have a link that outlines the process? Thanks.

I haven't been able to find any information that addresses this question. Since it's only a resolution and since the penalty of being censured isn't as harsh as with impeachment (and possible conviction), it seems that the process would be simpler.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

90. Try govinfo.gov. lots of info on house practices.

[TheRickles]

95. Thanks, but that site seems to be an archive of documents, with not processes or principles

I found over 14,000(!) links for "censure", 12k for "censure resolution", etc. They seem to be the actual articles that were introduced for a vote by Congress, but I couldn't find a description of the process itself by which a censure resolution is introduced.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

112. You may be right. I found house practice for impeachment but

Perhaps it was more of a record on how it's been done in past like you say. It's funny to read that all these things have to happen but not documented anywhere.

[StarfishSaver]

114. Here are the House rules

https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/116-House-Rules-Clerk-V2.pdf

[MoonlitKnight]

127. Committee of the Whole House

They can take it up on the floor by going into Committee of the Whole House.

The House can act quickly if the Speaker wants to and has the votes.

Unanimous consent is a Senate thing.

The Speaker has a reason for delay and I trust her. But I don’t think it is logistical or procedural.

[StarfishSaver]

128. Yes, she can. That's what she's doing

But unless it goes on the suspension calendar with 2/3 vote to suspend the rules, she has to do it through regular order.

And even the suspension calendar is limited to the days on which it can be taken up.

Everything the Speaker is doing is based on logic and procedure.

[MoonlitKnight]

158. No need to suspend the rules

And a quorum is only 100. But yes, it looks like Monday is the earliest without suspension of the rules.

And even if it did require a 2/3 vote - you proceed and make them vote.

I appreciate your posts - very much. And you are correct about a lot. But there are ways to do this quickly so I suspect this isn’t a rules issue. There is something we are not aware of that is going on. At best is that we don’t have enough committed votes. I will trust the Speaker but feel that pressure to keep the momentum is good.

[StarfishSaver]

159. We are in agreement

My point is to try to explain to people who are insisting that the House could impeach today or this weekend that that cannot be done and the absolute earliest it can happen is next week.

[TheRickles]

180. Thanks for your expertise, Moonlit and Starfish, but my question still feels unresolved:

Are the procedural points you've raised as applicable to a Motion to Censure as they are to a Motion to Impeach? In other words, is there a method by which the censure process might somehow be quicker than the impeachment process?

[StarfishSaver]

182. Yes, the procedure is pretty much the same.

Normally censure would be much quicker and easier than impeachment. But given how they're fast tracking impeachment, the timeframe is about the same and censure, at this point, wouldn't be any quicker than impeachment.

I hope that helps.

[TheRickles]

184. Thank you, that makes a lot of sense.

I'd always had the impression that somehow censure was a quick and dirty way to punish someone, but not with the current impeachment focus and logjam.

Perhaps you've mentioned this previously, but how did you come by your expertise in such legislative arcana? It's much appreciated.

[StarfishSaver]

186. Censure normally is much quicker and dirtier. Just not right now

I got my expertise from working in the arena for decades. I'm glad you find it helpful.

[GentleAlien]

42. Two perspectives..

Perspective 1 ) The idea was first floated in December (or was it late November) after his repeated failures to prove fraud but consistent conspiracy-mongering - it should have been done already - and things won't have to come to this point!

Perspective 2 ) A proactive Impeachment would have made him even a bigger martyr, and given his followers additional ammo. The timing is better now because the country is generally appalled at his actions and there's greater bipartisan support now!

[AllyCat]

45. Welcome to DU!

[AllyCat]

43. Okay. Thank you. This is a helpful explanation.

I think we are all just frightened for our democracy and our leaders (all of them...even the ones we don't agree with). We need action yesterday and the GOP again, is cowering before these morons and allowing them to steal our democracy from us and cause death and destruction in the process.

I hope our leaders are kept safe until this can happen.

[niyad]

44. Thank you! As much as I want that murdering, wannabe tyrant gone yesterday, there are procedures

which must be followed.

We can always hope for a resignation. Or a stroke.

[SlogginThroughIt]

46. It's like

It’s like if someone were to complain that their house hasn’t been rebuilt by the builder minutes after the firefighters put out the flames.

[Nasruddin]

80. It's like

If someone were to complain that the police are standing around filling out their paperwork first while they guy trying to kill someone was reloading his Glock.

[stopdiggin]

193. an admirable bit of snark

not so great as an analogy. 25th is probably more what you're looking for. But in that case -- we can't really be screaming at the Dems.

(by the way, Starfish knows about 100 times more about this stuff than a lot of people posting on this board. you might want to listen -- and learn.)
---- ----

[judesedit]

47. I think we're mainly worried about Dumpy having the nuclear codes.

He's probably already given state secrets to Pooty and helped him hack for more. What the dems are doing is certainly appreciated, but after yesterday people are freaked out about the lunatic's instability, huge ego, and penchant for revenge.

[StarfishSaver]

52. Impeaching him today won't take the nuclear codes away from him

[judesedit]

153. What will?

[StarfishSaver]

155. A Senate conviction removing him from office or invoking the 25th Amendment taking away his powers

[Red Oak]

49. I strongly disagree. Dems need to get a backbone and get the job done.

This "be patient" is a load of B.S. We have a treasonous President that must be impeached.

I'm fine with House leadership and Senate leadership laying out a plan, even if that plan takes days (we have 11 1/2 left), but I am not fine with a plan that is morphing, changing and delaying if the result is the all-to-typical Democratic "oh, so sorry we couldn't get it done".

Leadership needs to lay out the plan. Then let everyone know what the plan is. Then get it done, busted up offices or no. 24 x7 until Trump is impeached. You need a computer - go buy one. Paper works, too. No excuses. Get it done.

Trump needs to be impeached and he needs to see it coming.

Next: Make the Republican senators and Republican representatives that supported this treason pay for their actions. A bunch of hugs and singing kumbaya is not going to rid the United States of Trumpism. We can hug after they know the Dems mean business.

After that: Facebook, Twitter, Rupert Murdoch (Fox News), Bain Capital (iHeart media , Rush Limbaugh). Sue the shit out of them for defamation (Dominion, et. al.) and incitement to riot.

[StarfishSaver]

55. It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. These are just plain facts.

But perhaps you contact Pelosi's office and share your plan with her since you seem so certain that it's better than the strategy she has mapped out.

[Red Oak]

86. You know what the plan is? No - you don't.

You seem OK with foot dragging and making excuses. It's not time for that. It is time for action.

Is impeachment going to happen? You don't know that either.

It's not time to be patient. It's time for the Dems to have a backbone and get the job done. 24 x7. Make the plan. Let everyone know what the plan is and what time frame is and get Trump impeached.

[SunSeeker]

157. +1

[StarfishSaver]

164. No. I don't know what the plan is. And neither does anyone else

But based on my experience and knowledge - not to mention facts that have already come out - I do know there is a plan. And unlike some other people here, I don't assume that my not knowing what the plan is means that they don't have one and therefore I need to go online to tell them what they need to do.

[WinstonSmith4740]

50. Thank you!

If anyone wants to be pissed off, go holler at the gutless men in his administration who won't invoke the 25th Amendment to get an obviously deranged man away from the levers of power.

I'm not one for praying, but I'm chanting hard right now that all the nuclear codes were changed months back and they never told him.

[KPN]

54. Oh please!

[Ponietz]

56. You may be correct

Subtext: In this emergency Congress can’t act in a timely manner to protect the nation.

His Excrescence will have doubled down by mid-next week and this story will be back page news.

Seizing the initiative is the difference between victory and defeat.

[StarfishSaver]

58. Congress can act more quickly only if they have unanimous consent

Pelosi knows that and has already explored that possibility. That ain't happening.

Why is it that folks here, most of whom have never even been on the Hill much less worked there or gained any experience there think they know better than Pelosi and her team how this should be done? Do you think she's stupid? Or clueless? Or scared? Or unwilling to take the most effective course of action?

What's with all the second guessing and lecturing from the cheap seats?

[NurseJackie]

59. Many apparently think so. (Amazing, isn't it?)

Do you think she's stupid? Or clueless? Or scared? Or unwilling to take the most effective course of action?

Many apparently think so. (Amazing, isn't it?)

[WinstonSmith4740]

63. It is amazing, isn't it?

I think we all understand the outrage of watching our government damn near meltdown and wanting to do something NOW, jumping over the procedures makes us no better than the mob we condemn. This kind of reminds me of the post I'm sure we've all seen on Facebook about how all these medical experts are telling us to wear masks, but that guy who couldn't pass science in high school is saying it's a hoax, so who do I believe?

He's done. Nobody is going to follow his orders. Now it's obvious why he was making the changes in the Defense Department that he did right after the election, but the military brass has been over him for a while now. The figurehead that he appointed to run Defense is toast. Not only the lack of response, but now the fact that requests for additional force made BEFORE THE FACT was turned down by the powers that be made the coup obvious. I seriously doubt any order he issues would be followed, but like I said in my first post...I sure as hell hope they've changed the launch codes and never told him.

Pelosi is as sharp as a tack, and knows her stuff. Yes, she's pissed me off in the past, but there's nobody I would trust more navigating these waters right now.

[Nasruddin]

137. No no and no

He's done. Nobody is going to follow his orders.

There is always another junior narc around (eg Josh Hawley) who looks in the mirror and sees Caesar, & thinks he can ride the tiger and emerge triumphant when the tiger drops.

This has happened time and time again in the past four years - in fact it's happened before in Mr Trump's life, I am sure. He's been whipped completely several times, but others have found him useful and tried to trade on him (maybe they came out ok, or maybe not - Mark Burnett did ok).

Even a severely crippled lame duck president still has plenty of things he can do - even if he doesn't realize it himself, the ambitious narcs around him will know.

Mr Trump's got to go and go now. There is not a second to waste.

[GentleAlien]

64. Not sure if I agree here, this is uncharted territory for most of Congress anyway

A third rate Comedian like Bill Maher was able to predict the current situation almost perfectly, years before it actually happened. I don't know how much readiness our leaders had shown to meet this challenge. Can you point to any *new* measures that they had prepared, differently from, say 2008, to ensure an orderly transition and an aggressive PR campaign to counter the propaganda?

While I am hopeful that the timing might still work out, I don't see much proactive thinking behind it. That to me is management-101 (not necessarily politics 101).

[Red Oak]

97. Agreed. This is a new day.

Senior leadership and their aides need to understand that and act like it. Surely there are plans. If not, 24 x 7 until you have some. Put them in place and let's go.

This is not the 80's or 90's Congress. Trumpism must be exorcised from the American fabric. Let's go. Time is not on your side.

Sen Schumer - you have seditionists in the Senate. How are you going to make them pay? Rep. Pelosi - same thing in the House. You also have 11 1/2 days to impeach Pres. Trump.

[StarfishSaver]

100. Perhaps you should run for Congress given you seem to think you know how this should be done

It's the least you can do given your expectation that everyone else "understand that it's a new day and act like it."

[Red Oak]

130. Or we could sit on our thumbs -

Your recommendation?

Pacification?

[StarfishSaver]

132. If you think those are the only two options, no wonder your assessment makes no sense

[Red Oak]

131. Krugman

Appeasement Got Us Where We Are

It’s time to stand up to the fascists among us.

[link:https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/opinion/donald-trump-fascism.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage|


Patience won't cut it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

188. I'm just glad the window so small!!!

[stopdiggin]

195. good article. but says not a single thing about a hard time frame

on impeachment. Come to think of it -- neither have any of your posts.

Standing in the middle of the street and screaming, "We Must Act Now!" -- does not constitute constructive action -- or a game plan.

[Nasruddin]

139. Perhaps you should call your Congressman and tell him/her how this should be done

That's the best I can do today, & I have.

Running for congress is something for another day, a long time for now, & personally not required in my district - maybe yours.

[mcar]

172. Schumer isn't Majority Leader yet

What, specifically, can he do right now to "make them pay"?

[StarfishSaver]

99. This isn't about whether you agree or not. It's the law. They can't just do whatever they please

But your second-guessing, without any knowledge or experience of how the process works or meaningful recommendation of what they could actually do different, is noted.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

109. Oh please. The truth is that they are doing political analysis

Which impeachment language to use. Which Republicans would support and what language they'd need. How do they garner the most support over this weekend. All very valid exercises that we all can understand without these lectures and claims we are just too uninformed.

[Ponietz]

65. Let us not harangue one another and we can converse on Wednesday

[Laura PourMeADrink]

110. Exactly. Sure do miss two sided open discussion

[Ponietz]

124. It seems to me sometimes...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

129. Lobbyists imho. Perfect clip.

[TwilightZone]

81. "What's with all the second guessing "

For some, nothing is ever good enough. I often think that some of their motives should be a tad suspect.

[Mr.Bill]

138. I know I read here last night that a certain member of Congress

who I will not name said that they were going to do it today. Maybe that's why some people think it should happen.

[StarfishSaver]

140. Sigh ...

Maybe they meant the process was starting today.

Unfortunately, some people think that unless Congress is on the floor voting, nothing is happening.

[Mr.Bill]

144. I'm just saying

some people in Congress need to think about what they are saying. People tend to take words seriously when they come from a member of Congress. Some of our newer members of Congress have made great strides in this area, some still need some work.

[StarfishSaver]

147. I agree

I was just trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. But you're right - sometimes they just talkey too much.

They can learn from the Master, Madam Speaker. Can anyone ever remember a time in which she misspoke or said too much or made a promise she didn't keep or wrote a check she couldn't cash? Be like Nancy.

[Mr.Bill]

149. There's a reason she's called "Speaker" of the House. n/t

[mcar]

171. Random posters on internet sites always know more than the person,

Dare I say woman, in charge.

[StarfishSaver]

176. Ordinarily, I'd find it a waste of time to argue with these people

They are so certain they know the law better than lawyers and understand legislative process and strategy than the Speaker of the House and elected Democrats, and nothing I say is going to change their minds. But I push back so that people reading their posts don't get screwed up with misinformation.

[mcar]

178. I appreciate your efforts

[greatauntoftriplets]

61. Thanks again for being the voice of reason.

IMO, the House is moving quickly (the Democrats, anyway). My preference is still for the 25th amendment, but since Pence is stonewalling on that.... this is what we have.

[spanone]

66. K&R

[wendyb-NC]

67. Thank you, Starfishsaver

you are so right. Although I'd like to have seen him jerked out of his oval office chair, years ago, it doesn't happen that way as you explained. We must trust our leaders in congress to proceed in a right and just manner, according the rules.

[Lasher]

68. There's just not enough time for impeachment and removal.

Last edited Fri Jan 8, 2021, 02:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Even if you could get a majority in the House, you would have to get unanimous consent to suspend Senate rules. Otherwise there's not enough time left. For the life of me I can't imagine any scenario where there would not be a single GOP Senator who would object.

[drray23]

74. you only need majority in the house.

The 2/3 is for senate to convict.

[Lasher]

115. You are correct.

Thanks for the education. I will update my upthread reply.

[IsItJustMe]

69. I think people are so utterly angry and disgusted by these nasty people that they want to see

justice done now.

It's understandable after what we have witnessed. People actually defecating on the walls.

How low can these mofo's go? Wait, don't answer that!!!

[StarfishSaver]

101. I understand people are angry and frustrated - I am, too

But once the process is explained to them, I generally expect intelligent people to rationally take that into account and climb down off the ceiling instead of doubling down and continuing to argue about something they obviously know little about.

[IsItJustMe]

146. You are right. We all need to take a deep breath and allow the process to work itself out.

Anything else will just cause further frustration and high blood pressure.

Patience is truly a virtue.

Not ignorance, as many in the GOP believe.

[CaptainTruth]

70. Thank you!

I also get frustrated with folks who insist something must happen "NOW!!!" when they have no real idea what they're asking for.

I say if it's important enough to complain about, it's important enough to learn about.

[StarfishSaver]

103. Many of these people don't seem to realize how much they sound like

the very people they're condemning. The only difference is that they want our leaders to bend and break the rules to achieve the ends that WE want.

[Red Oak]

141. Oh BS. I am not pushing for rules to be broken. Get a grip.

I want the Dems to push hard and get the job done.

Trump should not be allowed to run for office again, ever. He should be impeached for incitement at a minimum that caused two people to be killed, one a police officer that was murdered. Not to mention letting foreign operatives into Congressional offices or stopping the rapid deployment of the National Guard. Note any differences between the response this week and the BLM protests?

Leadership has the ability to bring impeachment to a vote and leadership should sure as hell should, given their combined longevity in their roles, know how to get this done as quickly as possible. They have 11 days now.

They need to get the job done, not mealy mouth around. No excuses. Get it done.

[StarfishSaver]

142. Why do you think I was referring to you?

[mcar]

173. Looks like that's what they are doing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/impeachment-trump-congress/2021/01/08/2a0d83ca-51c3-11eb-b96e-0e54447b23a1_story.html

[Laura PourMeADrink]

190. +1,000,000

[stopdiggin]

197. ANYTHING in there refute what the OP said? (nt)

[AwakeAtLast]

71. We shouldn't be attacking Dems right now PERIOD! n/t

[Laura PourMeADrink]

75. Translation:. They have to agree on which bill to introduce

Link to tweet

?s=20

[StarfishSaver]

106. Cicilline and Ihan drafted two separate bills, neither of which they have yet introduced

Random bills being drafted by Members is not enough to get a workable bill drafted and voted on by the entire House.

Asking for fast track impeachment is one thing. Demanding fast track impeachment while completely ignorant of or ignoring the fact that the House is indeed fast-tracking the process and accusing them of not doing anything because they assume that unless they're doing it on the teevee where we can all see it, no work is getting done is worthy of comment and criticism, whether you appreciate it or not.

You claim that you all recognize the complexities, but it is obvious that many of you don't. Otherwise, folks wouldn't be making the incorrect assumptions, unreasonable demands, misplaced criticisms and, yes, attacks against Dems that are flying around the board this morning.

[bucolic_frolic]

77. Impeach Trump again so Senate GOP is responsible for 12 days plus 2024

Trump needs impeachemnt zip-tied around his ankles. No recurrence. No 2024 revival. And no Jr. either.

Trump-free in '23!

[patphil]

79. I am aware that time is very short, but the process must start, even if it never reaches the Senate.

At least the House can go on record of impeaching Trump for his part in this insurrection.
It will be another permanent stain on Trump's already dismal record of crimes and failed actions and inactions.
Not to mention his deliberate rejection of the both the Constitution, and traditions of government, and his determination to weaken the nation in any and every way he could.

History must show the depth of his lawlessness. A last minute impeachment is worth it, even if it takes another week to complete.
This process would also put all those Republicans in the House on record for either supporting or rejecting the impeachment of Trump for inciting this insurrection.

[pandr32]

82. Thank you! Reality bites sometimes.

[Progressive dog]

83. I missed the other thread

but Thanks for this one. You don't fix assaults on the rule of law by ignoring the law or the rules.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

87. Glad I slept through such attacks.

[calimary]

88. GUYS, BEST thing to do:

Call, write, message your Reps. If they’re Dems, your message needs to be: “DO IT. This is what WE demand. We have your back!”

If they’re GOP, CALL THEM ANYWAY. And tell them to DO IT ANYWAY. You’re COP now. NOT GOP. COP. Country Over Party.

[orangecrush]

94. Already done.

[orangecrush]

93. No one is attacking Democrats.

Expressing desire for justice is not an attack.

[SunSeeker]

170. Thank you! nt

[orangecrush]

191. You're welcome!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

187. Go back, it always comes down to that accusation. Always.

[orangecrush]

189. Yup.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

198. It's the swarm/disrupt/squelch strategy

[orangecrush]

211. Yes.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

102. How about they work through the weekend?

Instead, they'll probably adjourn early this afternoon, straggle back midday Monday, bring the impeachment thing up for a vote on Wednesday or so. A whopping week before Inauguration Day. Meanwhile, Trump can continue to damage every single hour he remains in office.

There really ought to be a stronger sense of urgency to get him out of office.

Especially given how quickly the Senate moved to replace RBG. Maybe look upon that as a model to speed things up.

[StarfishSaver]

107. They ARE working through the weekend

House work is more than just voting on the House floor. There is a lot of prep work that has to be done in order to get a bill ready to be voted on on the floor. Just because you don't see them making floor speeches on CSpan doesn't mean they aren't working.

And, FYI - the Senate took six weeks to replace RBG. They didn't do it in two days, so that comparison is just weird.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

108. The RBG replacement felt like two days.

They severely limited the actual time normally taken to vet a new Supreme Court Justice.

Since there were articles of impeachment drafted just a year ago, why not just bring them back up for a vote?

[StarfishSaver]

111. RBG died on September 18. Her hearings began on October 12. was confirmed on October 26

The articles of impeachment have to be specific and must describe with particularity exactly what they're impeaching him for, which includes his recent wrongdoing, not acts he was already impeached on.

Those have to be drafted, agreed up generally among the body to make sure the votes are there and then formally introduced. Then a certain number of days have to pass before they can be voted on.

Impeachment normally takes months. Doing it in a few days is a Herculean effort. Expecting it to be done in a day or two is not only unreasonable, but is demanding the impossible, legislatively, practically and legally.

[Hekate]

104. Thanks, Star

[PatrickforO]

105. Well, yeah. Starfish is right. Just elevating the discussion as has been done

serves to box Trump in these last few days so the possibility of him doing other destructive stuff is minimized.

My understanding is they are giving the spineless worm Pence and Trump's cabinet the chance to invoke the 25th, and if not then impeachment hearings may begin as soon as tomorrow.

That is fine, because as long as the monster is closely watched and boxed in, the main objective is realized.

I suspect the House may vote to impeach, which will permanently mark Trump as the only president impeached twice. That will be good, and then don't forget the justice system and IRS will grind him to dust after he leaves office, not to mention the numerous civil suits from people Trump ripped off, and women who allege sexual assault, and investigations by various state Attorneys General.

In addition let's not forget Ghastly, that lady who was Epstein's sidekick. When that comes to trial, if she is permitted to live that long, many big name people will be compromised.

The Republican brand has lost some major cred. Trump's brand is so rusty it is falling apart. And we have Biden coming in with some really bright, really strong people on his team. I watched the DOJ presser he did and was pretty impressed. I'm thinking Trump will end up paying the piper big time.

[BrightKnight]

113. I'm going to trust the leadership to deal with it.

I am sure they get it an know a lot more than I do.

[BobTheSubgenius]

118. And between the time of the attack and now, there were some minor bureaucratic issues.

Finishing the tally of the EC, for one. Sort of important.

[StarfishSaver]

122. NO. They should have stopped everything and voted to impeach right then and there

or something ...

[LiberalFighter]

121. Too many times people think what they want can be done with a snap of the fingers.

They live in another world.

[StarfishSaver]

123. And then they want to argue about House rules without even bothering to read them.

[LiberalFighter]

133. The rules are there for a reason. To reduce chaos.

[StarfishSaver]

135. Funny how some people insist we should just disregard the rules because they think the ends are just

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

[Nasruddin]

151. Article I

My quick scan of Article I doesn't show any rule that impeachment requires many working days, notices, and meetings before it can be voted on.

Admittedly, I am not a constitutional lawyer so perhaps there's some hidden meaning I've missed.

However, based on that scanning, I have to conclude these "rules" are rules that the House set for itself. In which case it is free to change them when they become a hindrance to doing the right thing.

It's not the 18th century, we do not have to send out the circuit riders to roust the delegates in the home cabins in the backwoods of Tennessee. It's the 21st century and we can take advantage of that - mostly.

[StarfishSaver]

154. Impeachment is a legislative process governed by House rules, not the Constitution (except that the

rules can't conflict with the Constitution)

The House can change its rules at any time, but such changes are also a legislative process that have to be voted on through the normal course of legislative business. Pelosi can't just change the rules on her own. The House would have to come together to vote on the rule change. And many rule changes require a super-majority.

Under House rules as they now stand, any piece of legislation to be voted on must be placed on the calendar a certain number of days in advance of the vote. That rule can be suspended - and often it is for less important pieces of legislation - if 2/3 of the House votes to put the legislation on the Suspension Calendar. There's no way 2/3 of the House will agree to put impeachment on the Suspension Calendar. And even if they did, the vote to suspend couldn't happen until Monday at the earliest.

I hope that's helpful.

[summer_in_TX]

126. Don't forget that the US Capitol is now a crime scene.

Evidence has to be gathered from that huge complex (and other areas where devices were planted too). It has to be thoroughly swept for "bugs." Then and only then can things start being set to rights, cleaning and repairs be done.

Votes can only be taken in the Capitol in person.

Under those circumstances a vote by mid-week next week seems like quite a quick timetable.

We all know that Trump is capable of absolutely anything. Mary Trump warned us. I'm quite sure our Democratic leadership knows it as well and are working as swiftly as possible.

[backscatter712]

136. I'd say Pelosi & the House Dems are doing great under the circumstances.

Pelosi & Schumer came out strong. I doubt they'd come out for impeachment if they didn't have the support to get it through the House, and get at least close to a conviction in the Senate. The Dems will vote to convict unanimously, so this'll put Moscow Mitch & the Senate Republicans on the spot - they'll be signing their names on Trump's crimes if they vote to acquit.

[OneBlueSky]

143. in a crisis situation endangering the very foundations of our democracy & maybe the planet itself

suspend the rules!!! . . .

it's that critical . . . there's a mad man in the White House who's running out of ways to get what he wants! . . . what he's not running out of are tools that he could use to make a dangerous situation disastrous and irreparable, (e.g. bombers, aircraft carriers, missiles, and nuclear weapons, to name a few) . . .

this is no time to be bound by the rules . . .

imho, of course . . .

[usajumpedtheshark]

145. You could use a less confrontational approach when addressing the entire membership of the forums

Attacking is a horrible word to use just because forum members have a different opinion than yours. Perhaps the following would have been a better approach:

Folks Please Understand that the Impeachment process is going as fast as it can given the chaos of the last few days.

Members of Congress, leaders of business, former administration members, former presidents have all called for IMMEDIATE removal. So it shouldn't be hard to understand the frustrations of forum members with the speed of the process.

[StarfishSaver]

148. Thank you for your advice on how I should express myself

I will give your suggestion the consideration it merits.

[usajumpedtheshark]

160. (sigh) I did not tell you how you "should" communicate

I suggested that you could use less inflammatory language when you take it upon yourself to tell others how they should behave.
Of course, if you prefer to use imperative language and causing friction within the forums, my suggestion has no merit.

[Ferrets are Cool]

152. K and R

[FelineOverlord]

161. Folks PLEASE! STOP attacking the Dems for not impeaching TODAY

Link to tweet

[StarfishSaver]

162. Sounds like he's just as tired as I am of the Dems being criticized for not doing anything

when, in reality, they are all over it.

[MyNameGoesHere]

163. Hmm. Checks schedule.. Uh no. Can't do it.

[Cha]

165. TY.. GD.. I'm so sick of Dems being

attacked on this board for doing their jobs.

[ecstatic]

166. 48 hours after Wednesday's terror attack is today.

trump is a criminal who must be held accountable immediately--not a week after his attempted coup, which cost 5 lives.

trump held back reinforcements for nearly 2 hours before a frustrated Pence broke the chain of command (i.e. suspended the rules) to order the National Guard himself.

So as you can see, the rules are sometimes bent in emergencies. We're in one right now.

If the situation were reversed, do you think there'd be a delay?

I have made my view on this known to my congressman and Speaker Pelosi as well. Without pressure from us, they won't do anything.

[SunSeeker]

168. Thank you.

[StarfishSaver]

177. Kind of hard to draft and pass Articles of Impeachment when you're barricaded in the House chamber

as a marauding, armed mob is trying to break in to kill you and then right after you get up, brush yourselves off and spend most of the rest of the night in session confirming the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

So, let's not count Wednesday, ok?

Jeez!

[SunSeeker]

169. StarfishSaver PLEASE! STOP attacking the DUers for wanting impeachment TODAY

Their pressure and that of other rightfully outraged Americans is why impeachment is happening at all.

This pressure is CRUCIAL to the process, it is not an "attack on Dems."

[ecstatic]

175. I agree! Democrats have to toughen up if we're going to undo the harm that trump & mitch have

done. The future of our country is in their hands!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

192. Always happens. Lectures and denigration

[D23MIURG23]

174. I hear you. This is really not the optimal tool for this job IMO.

Its supposed to be the 25th amendment that takes care of a president who is out of control, but unfortunately his cabinet are also unfit for office.

[StarfishSaver]

183. Exactly

This should definitely be a 25th Amendment process. But the president's men and women have caved so the Congress is stepping in with whatever tools it has. And impeachment is not designed to immediately remove an imminently dangerous president. It's designed to punish and remove a president who has committed crimes. The 25th Amendment is supposed to be the safety mechanism for protecting us from imminent harm. It's not working.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

199. True. And they won't do that. How would you possibly explain

years of supporting a man who is unfit?

Some of them will support impeachment, if it's worded correctly. But, unfortunately I hear it now, Republicans saying no... " Yes, he riled up that crowd, but tempers are high, and things will cool off, just another couple days. "

[D23MIURG23]

212. Republican senators can come up with a bad excuse for not convicting, if they want one...

but I'm guardedly optimistic about the prospect of selling impeachment to them.

I think they'll do whatever they think is in their best interest, and the best interest of their party, and right now, I think that is removing Trump. They don't have much to lose because his base is already pissed. If they don't publicly break with him they are going to end up owning the next crazy thing he does, and alienating everyone else in the country. Also, the last crazy thing he did literally risked their lives.

I know some of them will double down and continue courting the crazies, but I'm betting that a return to something approximating normal is sounding pretty good to some of them right now. And only a handful of them followed him into electoral vote challenges so that's a somewhat hopeful sign that they haven't completely lost the plot.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

213. Great points,! Don't care why or how they got here., Just

STFU and vote "aye'!!!!

[betsuni]

185. K&R

[usajumpedtheshark]

200. IMMEDIATE REMOVAL - that is the phrase that has been used by a large number of people

Congressman Adam Schiff said, "Donald Trump lit the fuse which exploded yesterday at the Capitol. Every day that he remains in office, he is a danger to the Republic, and he should leave office IMMEDIATELY through resignation, the 25th Amendment or impeachment." (Emphasis added) [link:https://democraticunderground.com/100214861800|]

Former Presidents, retired generals, leaders of business, former political leaders have all called for immediate action.

Yes, impeachment takes a certain amount of time, but it is also true that most people don't equate immediate removal with sometime next week.

[StarfishSaver]

201. Even if he were impeached today, there's no way he would be removed before next week

Schiff knows that. I surely don't think he meant that Trump should be impeached and removed in the next few days. People need to use some discernment and common sense in interpreting what leaders say. But I also don't think any of the people on this board calling for the House to impeach today or who insist the fact that they haven't done it today means they're dragging their feet or doing nothing are basing their information on anything that Adam Schiff said.

[usajumpedtheshark]

203. I agree. I am sure the leadership is doing all they can to achieve removal.

I would love to have Trump out of office, but I would settle for neutralizing his ability to act if it would allow Congress to craft an effective federal response to halting Covid 19 and reducing the impact on citizens' lives. Just my current opinion.

[AmyStrange]

204. Thank you

-

Some people just LIKE to complain.
=========

[AmyStrange]

205. House Democrats to Introduce Article of Impeachment Against Trump (on Monday)...

-

House Democrats to Introduce Article of Impeachment Against Trump

WASHINGTON—House Democrats plan to introduce an article of impeachment against President Trump on Monday, according to two Democratic aides, as lawmakers intensified calls to remove him from office after he encouraged a mob that later stormed the Capitol in an effort to disrupt the certification of his election loss to President-elect Joe Biden.

[SNIP]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-democrats-to-introduce-article-of-impeachment-against-trump/ar-BB1cArh1?ocid=msedgntp
==============

[AmyStrange]

207. Speaker Pelosi threatens impeachment if Trump refuses to step down 'immediately'

-

Speaker Pelosi threatens impeachment if Trump refuses to step down ‘immediately’

The effort to impeach President Donald Trump for a second time in a little more than a year gained steam on Friday as a growing number of Democrats in Congress signaled their support for the move.

[SNIP]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/speaker-pelosi-threatens-impeachment-if-trump-refuses-to-step-down-immediately/ar-BB1cACTF?ocid=msedgntp
==============

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

209. Thanks for the info. I wish DU had a kind of General Discussion stickey area or similar

where laws and rules relevant to current events could give a quick reference for us. So often many of us jump on the bandwagon, out of righteous anger reccing OPs that reflect a poor understanding of such things. I'd volunteer to organize of submit items, but I don't believe I have the expertise necessary.

Sure, people can google stuff on their own, but so often conflicting info is found that way.

[catrose]

210. Samantha Corbin on Twitter said that they were ready to go this weekend but needed unanimous consent

McCarthy blocked it. I haven't confirmed it, but it sounds on brand.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

214. Well that sucks