PDA

View Full Version : Congress returns Monday; then what?



John Smith
04-27-2019, 05:18 PM
The committees, IMO, have a limited amount of time to take serious action against the ignoring of subpoenas, the refusal to produce the requested tax data, etc. or they will be enabling Trump just as the GOP is.

Theoretically, they can hold people in contempt and have them jailed. They can also impose fines, which, if the 'clock' runs during the time we wait for a court to decide could become a rather substantial sum. They can, I suppose, withhold targeted money.

Based on reporting, it appears, they have MORE authority to call witnesses and request documents if they are holding impeachment hearings, as opposed to other kinds of hearings.

Sooner, rather than later, they're going to have to act or be acquiescing to Trump.

I'm leaning toward impeachment hearings because of the subpoenas being ignored. Hearings may or may not be covered by networks. Impeachment hearings will likely be covered by all the networks, including FOX, which would mean a larger audience and more people actually seeing and hearing FACTS coming out.

ron ll
04-27-2019, 05:22 PM
Have the Democrats been out searching for their spines?

C. Ross
04-27-2019, 05:34 PM
The Democrats ought to take immediate aggressive action to pursue focused goals with respect to Trump. They ought to take a similarly aggressive action on their legislative priorities or people will rightly conclude they are only about stopping Trump.

They ought to hold back on impeachment unless and until a high crime or misdemeanor is documented.

They ought to give the Green New Deal hearings, and it ought to take a very leisurely route through the committee process and be amended and improved, ideally coming to a vote in 2021. If it came to the floor as is, as the primary priority of the Democrats, it would result in Trumpís easy election, a gain of Republican margin in the Senate and perhaps loss of the House.

The Green New Deal is Progressive candy and electoral poison. It needs to go on the bottom shelf.

TomF
04-27-2019, 05:37 PM
I now think impeachment hearings too. Changed my mind - the impact of not holding such hearings in the face of notonly the Mueller stuff but the reaction to Congressional subpoenas is too significant to allow. Even though impeachment hearings will be divisive, and even though the Senate will never convict.

Old Dryfoot
04-27-2019, 05:41 PM
Itmfa

Garret
04-27-2019, 09:52 PM
The word "impeachment" has successfully been poisoned by the Reps & Trump. Any attempt to do it will create screaming from the rooftops & the idjuts will believe the BS. Of course it should be done - but not in today's political climate,

IMO, Congress needs to continue to investigate & inform the public of the results), but focus on real legislation - so they have something positive to point to instead of "we went after Trump, but otherwise did diddly". Of course the Reps will block anything proposed by Dems - but that gives Dems ammo - going after Trump will not.

Additionally, Reps will scream that Dems are wasting taxpayer money (even though they are champions at it) & with the Senate unlikely to impeach, Reps running in 2020 will just say "Look at all the time & money the Dems wasted".

John Smith
04-28-2019, 06:46 AM
The Democrats ought to take immediate aggressive action to pursue focused goals with respect to Trump. They ought to take a similarly aggressive action on their legislative priorities or people will rightly conclude they are only about stopping Trump.

They ought to hold back on impeachment unless and until a high crime or misdemeanor is documented.

They ought to give the Green New Deal hearings, and it ought to take a very leisurely route through the committee process and be amended and improved, ideally coming to a vote in 2021. If it came to the floor as is, as the primary priority of the Democrats, it would result in Trump’s easy election, a gain of Republican margin in the Senate and perhaps loss of the House.

The Green New Deal is Progressive candy and electoral poison. It needs to go on the bottom shelf.

IN Watergate, the high crimes came out because of the hearings.

John Smith
04-28-2019, 06:51 AM
The word "impeachment" has successfully been poisoned by the Reps & Trump. Any attempt to do it will create screaming from the rooftops & the idjuts will believe the BS. Of course it should be done - but not in today's political climate,

IMO, Congress needs to continue to investigate & inform the public of the results), but focus on real legislation - so they have something positive to point to instead of "we went after Trump, but otherwise did diddly". Of course the Reps will block anything proposed by Dems - but that gives Dems ammo - going after Trump will not.

Additionally, Reps will scream that Dems are wasting taxpayer money (even though they are champions at it) & with the Senate unlikely to impeach, Reps running in 2020 will just say "Look at all the time & money the Dems wasted".

I would agree with that except for the likelihood that FOX would cover impeachment hearings, but not any other hearings.

May not dent Trump's solid base, which may not be more than 30 - 35% of the voters.

On the other hand, Dems may lose votes by failing to take serious action. I think ordering people to ignore subpoenas IS A HIGH CRIME.

We have, IMO, reached a point where the Dems either accept Trump's behavior or hold impeachment hearings. I'm not convinced there's an in between.

That doesn't mean start impeachment hearings tomorrow, but less than a month.

S.V. Airlie
04-28-2019, 07:17 AM
Trump wants no oversight in his actions. He thinks the Constitution is wrong and he should be allowed to do what he wants to do and to heck with the rule of law, it's irrelevant.

Mr. Putin, Trumpo may not be technically one of your puppets but, he's doing exactly what you want him to do and you don't even have to fire a shot.

Trump is being treasonous and getting away with it.

On a side bar regarding the most resent shootings, Trump said that hate or attacks. Funny, he never mentions the neo nazis against Jews must be destroyed. Funny, he never brought up the neo nazis who were chanting negative Jewish epitaphs in Charlottesville. In fact, he called them good people.

John Smith
04-28-2019, 07:25 AM
I looks like there are aspects of the Fox News team that seems to support further investigation and possibly impeachment, at least they're implying it.

Judge Napolitano: (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-did-president-trump-obstruct-justice)

There's actually a couple of actual reporters who have shows. Bernie's town hall got audience reactions that appeared to surprise the hosts. I hope more candidates to town halls on FOX for that reason.

Dems in congress need to do something that shows they are serious. Continued deadlines are not serious.

S.V. Airlie
04-28-2019, 07:32 AM
I see a trap here, FOX or some people at least are discussing impeachment. I get that but, I think the why can be answered with this; if the dems proceed with this as some FOX folks say they want to as well, the blowback will be to piss off Republicans and give Trump the 2020 election on a platter.

John Smith
04-28-2019, 07:39 AM
I see a trap here, FOX or some people at least are discussing impeachment. I get that but, I think the why can be answered with this; if the dems proceed with this as some FOX folks say they want to as well, the blowback will be to piss off Republicans and give Trump the 2020 election on a platter.

I have two problems with that.

First, it is often pointed out that Clinton got more popular after he was impeached, but he was impeached for lies about his sex life. Trump's charges will be a great deal more serious. Nixon WAS very popular when impeachment hearings began, and his popularity went down quickly as hearings progressed and public learned the facts.

Trump has a solid base that likely cannot be dented, but it's a minority of the country.

Second, I'm not sure how it plays politically should even be considered. You cannot claim to be for the rule of law and fail to make all efforts to enforce that law. Without the courage of one's convictions, one has no convictions.

S.V. Airlie
04-28-2019, 07:42 AM
But, There are no hearings if those who have been subpoenaed don't show up!

Garret
04-28-2019, 07:50 AM
One of the big issues I see with impeachment is how it's perceived: While the concept is to get info on a person, most think that it's a win or lose proposition: If you actually get impeached you lost, if not, you've been exonerated. Remember, sound bites are not nuanced - so if the senate does not vote to impeach, even if there are crimes that have been exposed, Trump, Fox, et al will claim victory/witch hunt if he is not removed from office.

While, in a "normal" world, impeachment hearings certainly should be started, I see them as a lose/lose proposition for Dems.

Garret
04-28-2019, 07:54 AM
But, There are no hearings if those who have been subpoenaed don't show up!

Charges can be brought - but it's not a simple process. Obviously Trump thinks he can get away with it, or at least drag it out long enough to get to 2020.

S.V. Airlie
04-28-2019, 08:00 AM
Charges can be brought - but it's not a simple process. Obviously Trump thinks he can get away with it, or at least drag it out long enough to get to 2020.Throwing them in jail would be a start. It's been done before, why not now?

Garret
04-28-2019, 08:30 AM
Throwing them in jail would be a start. It's been done before, why not now?

Like I said - it seems it's complicated. Here's an article on Flynn refusing: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-can-congress-do-if-flynn-or-anyone-else-refuses-comply-subpoena

S.V. Airlie
04-28-2019, 08:43 AM
So, what you're saying is this country is becoming a dictatorship no matter what Congress tries to do. Trump wins and this country gains another dictator no better than Putin. And not much better than Kim.

Garret
04-28-2019, 08:48 AM
It certainly seems headed that way.

S.V. Airlie
04-28-2019, 09:01 AM
It certainly seems headed that way.Yup, and he'll probably appoint Ivanka to replace himself.And that 80% in the Republican party would probably support that without blinking an eye!

Welcome to Germany in the 30's and 40's, it was a great time to be alive if you were go Aryan blood.

LeeG
04-28-2019, 09:27 AM
An investigation determining impeachable conduct needs to be started now in light of Trumps lawsuit against the House Oversight Committee attempting to prevent release of Trump’s financial records. Obstruction is an impeachable offense, it’s obvious from the Mueller investigation Trump has obstructed and continues with stalling tactics like the lawsuit. Trumps argument that oversight of him is not a legislative function is obviously wrongheaded and unconstitutional.

Sure this diverts energy from legislative activities but Congress has a duty to conduct oversight. It can do both. Enough has gone down to show acquiescence will not change a bullies behavior, they need limits and like WHCD speaker Ron Chernow said “Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trump-isnt-just-defying-congress-hes-rejecting-the-whole-idea-of-oversight/2019/04/26/acf0a00a-67c9-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html?utm_term=.d4c26656c6fe

November’s midterm election made a constitutional confrontation between the Democratic-controlled House and the Republican president seem inevitable. And the rising number of flash points over subpoenas from oversight committees to President Trump’s businesses and to administration officials may indeed launch a prolonged battle over how much authority Congress has to investigate the president and his administration.

But Trump, characteristically, seems to be taking the sort of fight most of his predecessors have had with the legislative branch and making the stakes far greater — and the possible damage far worse — than ever before.

The administration’s emerging position appears to be that Congress does not really have the power to investigate the president, at least not when one chamber is controlled by his political adversaries, even if whatever information it seeks might eventually be used in an impeachment proceeding. That’s a deeply disturbing argument, and one that, if successful, would tilt the separation of powers, perhaps irrevocably, toward the executive branch.

Flying Orca
04-28-2019, 09:29 AM
Welcome to Germany in the 30's and 40's, it was a great time to be alive if you were go Aryan blood.

Don't go mistaking your house burning down for the dawn...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWmnBcNijvo

S.V. Airlie
04-28-2019, 09:36 AM
When Hitler took over

He rounded up the Jews
But, no one said anteing.
Then, he rounded up the mentally insane and defective
And no one said anything.
Then, he rounded up the Catholics
And no one said anything
And finally he rounded up you
But, now there wasn't anyone left to complain.

Not quite the original but, close enough!

S/V Laura Ellen
04-28-2019, 10:41 AM
The House has a responsibility to act on the information provided in the Mueller report. They are the only people that have been granted the ability (and therefore the responsibility) to act on this information.

To meet their responsibilities there needs to be an immediate investigation to determine if there is enough proof to substantiate grounds for impeachment.

The House has an obligation to inform the public what those grounds are. They need to take out PSA ads on a nation wide media (Fox included) that clearly should what those grounds are and why this is so serious. The PSA ads must be run on FOX news during the highest viewership to ensure that people know the facts. Inform the public, even those that are resistant to reality. Great care must be taken to ensure the message is non-partisan, factually based and flag waiving (constitutionally) based.

This isn't a political issue, it is a constitutional issue. Both sides have sworn to uphold the constitution. There is no wiggle room for the question "should be start the impeachment process", the House has the responsibility to act and act immediately even if it hurts them in the 2020 election.

S.V. Airlie
04-28-2019, 10:45 AM
But, if the people the House subpoenas refuses to show up, there goes any investigation. What would the House be investigating, their navals?

S/V Laura Ellen
04-28-2019, 10:52 AM
But, if the people the House subpoenas refuses to show up, there goes any investigation. What would the House be investigating, their navals?

There doesn't need to be must investigation, the Mueller report contains enough to move forward. If they issue subpoenas they have legal avenues to access. Time to get some balls.

S.V. Airlie
04-28-2019, 11:25 AM
There doesn't need to be must investigation, the Mueller report contains enough to move forward. If they issue subpoenas they have legal avenues to access. Time to get some balls.There are enough gaps that need to be filled in and won't be. Mueller specifically didn't ask for a conviction in his report, he hinted that the House take the info he gave and investigate further. That's what they are trying to do but, Trump is obstructing every move they try. Oh wait, I'm talking obstruction, Trump doesn't obstruct, his admin has been way too transparent for that.

oznabrag
04-28-2019, 11:35 AM
Like I said - it seems it's complicated. Here's an article on Flynn refusing: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-can-congress-do-if-flynn-or-anyone-else-refuses-comply-subpoena

The Gordian Knot seemed complicated too.

oznabrag
04-28-2019, 11:36 AM
There doesn't need to be must investigation, the Mueller report contains enough to move forward. If they issue subpoenas they have legal avenues to access. Time to get some balls.

Amen.

The barbarians are at the gate.

Chip-skiff
04-28-2019, 11:56 AM
Contempt citations, followed by arrest warrants.

John Smith
04-28-2019, 12:00 PM
One of the big issues I see with impeachment is how it's perceived: While the concept is to get info on a person, most think that it's a win or lose proposition: If you actually get impeached you lost, if not, you've been exonerated. Remember, sound bites are not nuanced - so if the senate does not vote to impeach, even if there are crimes that have been exposed, Trump, Fox, et al will claim victory/witch hunt if he is not removed from office.

While, in a "normal" world, impeachment hearings certainly should be started, I see them as a lose/lose proposition for Dems.

I'd like to think, if the public sees the evidence and supports impeachment after seeing it, those senators who vote to keep Trump will not keep their jobs.

John Smith
04-28-2019, 12:01 PM
Charges can be brought - but it's not a simple process. Obviously Trump thinks he can get away with it, or at least drag it out long enough to get to 2020.

I don't understand why, but several commentators have said impeachment hearings have more power to get testimony and documents than non impeachment hearings.

Maybe someone here knows why.

John Smith
04-28-2019, 12:07 PM
Like I said - it seems it's complicated. Here's an article on Flynn refusing: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-can-congress-do-if-flynn-or-anyone-else-refuses-comply-subpoena

I don't think it's as complicated as some would like us to think. Dems have a simple choice: pursue impeachment or don't pursue impeachment.

My GUESS is failure to pursue will cost them votes in 2020.

If they pursue, and witnesses ignore subpoenas, then the committees have some actions available. They can choose to take action or not. Not taking action likely costs them votes in 2020.

Taking action, even if it fails, probably gains them votes and costs GOP votes in 2020

If they decide to arrest witnesses, which has been done before, how much power to they have to prosecute the arrests? I don't know. Will the court back them up? I don't know. It should.

If they impose fines, does the daily fine clock begin and keep running until a court makes a decision? I don't know.

Can the house cut targeted spending? I think so

John Smith
04-28-2019, 12:09 PM
The Democrats ought to take immediate aggressive action to pursue focused goals with respect to Trump. They ought to take a similarly aggressive action on their legislative priorities or people will rightly conclude they are only about stopping Trump.

They ought to hold back on impeachment unless and until a high crime or misdemeanor is documented.

They ought to give the Green New Deal hearings, and it ought to take a very leisurely route through the committee process and be amended and improved, ideally coming to a vote in 2021. If it came to the floor as is, as the primary priority of the Democrats, it would result in Trump’s easy election, a gain of Republican margin in the Senate and perhaps loss of the House.

The Green New Deal is Progressive candy and electoral poison. It needs to go on the bottom shelf.

I agree, except that holding impeachment hearings is how they find high crimes and misdemeanors and the evidence thereof.

oznabrag
04-28-2019, 12:17 PM
Contempt citations, followed by arrest warrants.

Contempt citation while the miscreant bursted is sitting in a hearing openly defying Congress, followed immediately by his forci=ble removal from the chamber to a cell in the Capitol sub-basement, there to remain accumulating fines of 5% of his net worth per diem until he decides to cooperate.

Once the fines are paid, he will be returned directly to the witness stand.

S/V Laura Ellen
04-28-2019, 12:20 PM
There are enough gaps that need to be filled in and won't be. Mueller specifically didn't ask for a conviction in his report, he hinted that the House take the info he gave and investigate further. That's what they are trying to do but, Trump is obstructing every move they try. Oh wait, I'm talking obstruction, Trump doesn't obstruct, his admin has been way too transparent for that.

Mueller made it clear in his report that he didn't indict Trump on obstruction because he couldn't under the DOJ SOPs. He spelled out in very clear terms the instances of obstruction that could be used for impeachment or an indictment after he is out of office.

S.V. Airlie
04-28-2019, 12:28 PM
Mueller made it clear in his report that he didn't indict Trump on obstruction because he couldn't under the DOJ SOPs. He spelled out in very clear terms the instances of obstruction that could be used for impeachment or an indictment after he is out of office.And an indictment means more investigations, only way to get them is subpoena Trump's puppets. If they refuse, what do you do?

S/V Laura Ellen
04-28-2019, 12:45 PM
And an indictment means more investigations, only way to get them is subpoena Trump's puppets. If they refuse, what do you do?

Lock them up.
Then go on to the next one.
When you run out of people subpoena Trump.
If he refuses then you have proof of obstruction.
But the whole process has to be reported broadly. That will mean PSAs on the Trump (Fox News) network.

S.V. Airlie
04-28-2019, 12:50 PM
Telling his minions not to attend an investigation under the order of subpoenas is obstruction all by its self.At least, in my book anyway.

John Smith
04-29-2019, 09:11 AM
We have a new wrinkle now. Barr will not testify if the committee's attorneys question him. Didn't GOP get an attorney to question the woman who accused Kavanaugh of trying to rape her?

Different rules for the two parties.