,
12 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
This is a serious question about future presidents and deserves some thought. @YAppelbaum @fordm
Assume we're talking about a party-line vote (plus Amash) in the House, followed by a straight party vote or worse in the Senate. That's what it looks like now. (1/ )
Assume we're talking about a party-line vote (plus Amash) in the House, followed by a straight party vote or worse in the Senate. That's what it looks like now. (1/ )
@YAppelbaum @fordm Could hearings and investigation change that? Perhaps! But irrelevant, since those should happen with or without an impeachment context.* I think it's unlikely that the actual drafting and debate over articles of impeachment would change minds.
@YAppelbaum @fordm *Yes, there are arguments that impeachment hearings would be different. That wasn't the case in 1973-1974; I'm not convinced that it would be different now.
So let's stipulate a party-line impeachment and acquittal, which is I think what the advocates are in fact stipulating.
So let's stipulate a party-line impeachment and acquittal, which is I think what the advocates are in fact stipulating.
Now: What's the case that it's scarier for future presidents than not doing impeachment? I'm seeing the assertion repeatedly, but not any kind of argument for it.
It might scare future presidents if impeachment severely damaged Trump's popularity. But why should we expect that? *Maybe* the debate and adoption of articles in House Judiciary hurts Trump. I doubt the floor vote does much (especially if it's party-line plus Amash, or worse).
But then it goes to the Senate, and McConnell gets to run things over there. That's...not likely to be worse for Trump than leaving it in the House.
And after that? It's over. Dems could use it in the campaign, sure, but further House investigations are going to seem petty or worse. (Not to mention that if further info comes out, impeachment would essentially not be available any more).
So: What's so scary for future presidents about any of that?
If anything, a second consecutive go-nowhere party-line impeachment without removal sure seems to me to make the whole thing much *less* scary.
If anything, a second consecutive go-nowhere party-line impeachment without removal sure seems to me to make the whole thing much *less* scary.
When Clinton was impeached, at least people said: He survived, but it'll always be the first thing people say about his presidency.
As it's turned out, that's not really true. Won't it be even less true for the 4th and 5th and 6th president to be impeached and acquitted?
As it's turned out, that's not really true. Won't it be even less true for the 4th and 5th and 6th president to be impeached and acquitted?
I just don't get it. I understand: Trump *should* be help accountable. It would be nice if the Constitution had a way to do that when the votes aren't there to impeach & remove. It doesn't, really. Fortunately....
The House *does* have tools to challenge and confront a rogue president. Impeachment just doesn't seem, to me, to be the strongest or best one *at this point*.
OK that's all for now.
