,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
“the House, unlike any grand jury, can conduct an impeachment inquiry that ends with a verdict and not just a referral to the Senate for trial — an inquiry in which the target is afforded an opportunity to participate and mount a full defense.” washingtonpost.com/opinions/impea…
2/4
The choice, assuming impeachment inquiry leads to a conclusion of Trump’s guilt:
1. present articles of impeachment to a Senate pre-committed to burying them, or
2. dispense with impeachment as such and issuing conclusions of in a condemnatory “Sense of the House” resolution.
The choice, assuming impeachment inquiry leads to a conclusion of Trump’s guilt:
1. present articles of impeachment to a Senate pre-committed to burying them, or
2. dispense with impeachment as such and issuing conclusions of in a condemnatory “Sense of the House” resolution.
3/4
“...a resolution, expressly & formally proclaiming the president impeachable but declining to play the Senate’s corrupt game, is one that even a president accustomed to treating everything as a victory would be hard-pressed to characterize as a vindication.
“...a resolution, expressly & formally proclaiming the president impeachable but declining to play the Senate’s corrupt game, is one that even a president accustomed to treating everything as a victory would be hard-pressed to characterize as a vindication.
4/4
“A House resolution finding the president ‘impeachable’ but imposing no actual legal penalty would avoid the Constitution’s ban on Bills of Attainder [yet brand him with a] ‘Scarlet “I”’ that Trump would have to take with him into his reelection campaign.”
“A House resolution finding the president ‘impeachable’ but imposing no actual legal penalty would avoid the Constitution’s ban on Bills of Attainder [yet brand him with a] ‘Scarlet “I”’ that Trump would have to take with him into his reelection campaign.”
