The same question can be asked. What's the point of impeachment of he will not be removed from office? a footnote in history?
Let’s get our “to be sure” paragraph out of the way. To be sure, Trump’s approval rating in Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin is in the low to mid-40s, and his disapproval is above 50 percent, which is ominous. (Apparently Pennsylvania Republicans are particularly nervous about 2020.) He’s narrowly underwater in Arizona and Florida. His approval rating in Georgia, Indiana, and North Carolina is barely ahead of his disapproval rating. In Minnesota, a state Trump lost by only two percentage points in 2016, Trump’s approval is just 37 percent. If Trump’s share of the vote is equal to the percentage of Americans who currently approve of him, he’s toast.
Trump refusing to respect the role of congress in oversight is going to far. If he stops advisors from being subpoenaed. then he should be impeached.
Because the rule of law and the Constitution require it. It's how we address the Separation of Powers and restrain a imperious President.
People won't watch hearings. They'll hear the spin of their chosen partisan network on the hearings and dismiss the whole thing as 2020 politicking. Which it is. But an impeachment has stakes, so people will be riveted. If you want the people to learn what he did, impeach and have a trial. Also, hearings are a vehicle for collecting the raw material. They don't lend themselves to synthesis. In a Senate trial, there's specific charges and an argument constructed to support (and another to deny) those charges. The hard work of analyzing what it all means is done in a trial, not in a hearing. If your object is to make the electorate understand that Trump really did do some bad stuff, there is no better form than an impeachment and trial. The obstruction case is pretty strong. The rationalization for not convicting will revolve around it not being a big enough crime to be a "high crime," and not around it never having happened at all. So the voter will walk away perhaps thinking the remedy was too extreme for the crimes, but he'll know Trump committed those crimes. It also has an impact on how people see the House, the Senate, and their own Representatives and Senators. Some will think their Reps are being practical to stay their hand, others will think they're craven. Careers will be made and lost. Senators will have their resumes marked as well. I expect some day there will be a reckoning when the country comes to terms with the fact they elected a crook and the national sentiment will turn against the decision to not impeach. I want all of those Senators on record for their leadership in the moment. If I'm wrong and suffer from TDS and half the Senate suffers from TDS, they should be held accountable for their lack of judgment too. And finally, there is a slim, slim chance that the Republican party discipline cracks and a few defectors lead to more defectors and they vote to remove. I'm not exactly holding my breath here, but you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. Impeachment is an act. It is the best vehicle for educating the public. It acts as a censure on the president. It puts all our representatives on record on this critical question of democracy. It'll galvanize all voters on both sides for the 2020 election as a referendum on the sitting president. Maybe, possibly, it actually works for removing the president. And, above all else, come hell or high water, justice demands it.
They had the Senate Watergate Committee hearings for 2 weeks, which exposed some salacious stuff. Then a special prosecutor was appointed. Then they had impeachment hearings after the special prosecutor subpoenaed the tapes and the SC ruled they must be submitted. The order of operations is different this time because of the political landscape. The special prosecutor step and the collection of evidence has been completed and almost turned over to the House. I think the case is already built. Obstruction is staring you in the face. There are no more John Deans ready to flip. Anyone who was going to flip has flipped. You probably need some impeachment hearings to essentially port the special counsel evidence into the Congressional record, but such hearings wouldn't really be investigatory any more, they're for the purpose of impeachment.
The rule of law and the constitution does not require it. Please explain how you think impeachment would restrain Trump?I
I am in disagreement on much of this I think impeachment would only be marginally higher viewing than hearings, people will get there news the same way they usually do. As for a Senate trial how do you see that ever occuring, Mitch will never even bring it to the floor let alone start proceedings. I don't th I k it matters if representatives go on record because they are shameless and the public does not remember or really care IMO. Justice demands that he go to jail and I think those cases are still pending.
I think we can agree to disagree on the other stuff. But, correct me if I'm wrong, I think if the House impeaches the Senate must hold the proceedings. (Of course, I also thought they must hold confirmation hearings if a President nominated a Supreme Court Justice, so shows what I know.)
Seems to be a grey area I thought Mitch had to approve it. https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case "The current Senate rules would further support this view. They contemplate that when the House has voted an impeachment, the Senate will be notified, the House managers will present their case and trial proceedings, which the rules prescribe in some detail, will begin. But it is also possible that, in this time of disregard and erosion of established institutional practices and norms, the current leadership of the Senate could choose to abrogate them once more. The same Mitch McConnell who blocked the Senate’s exercise of its authority to advise and consent to the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland, could attempt to prevent the trial of a House impeachment of Donald Trump. And he would not have to look far to find the constitutional arguments and the flexibility to revise Senate rules and procedures to accomplish this purpose. The Constitution does not by its express terms direct the Senate to try an impeachment. In fact, it confers on the Senate "the sole power to try,” which is a conferral of exclusive constitutional authority and not a procedural command. The Constitution couches the power to impeach in the same terms: it is the House’s “sole power.” The House may choose to impeach or not, and one can imagine an argument that the Senate is just as free, in the exercise of its own “sole power,” to decline to try any impeachment that the House elects to vote."
