Lawrence Tribe: Impeach Trump. But don't necessarily try him in the Senate.

[Sogo]

I hope this gains some traction:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/impeach-trump-but-dont-necessarily-try-him-in-the-senate/2019/06/05/22d83672-87bc-11e9-a870-b9c411dc4312_story.html?fbclid=IwAR33EOG1bwzr3SIFcYRhhL4QmLod4wL2GeMgCdZN5bOqH5IXiu0L5dCHRIM

[evertonfc]

1. why try

when the result is obvious. An emboldened Trump with a prime time speech to America claiming innocence. Let him flounder

[RDANGELO]

2. Politically this may be the best strategy, but I doubt it will happen.

The impeachment has taken on a momentum of it's own.

[magicarpet]

3. John Dean and Conway (Kellyanne's husband)....

Are saying the same thing,... impeach in the House but do not hand the case to the Senate. Dems have the numbers in the House so it can not be gamed. But in the Senate they can/will game the result, vote down the removal from office. Then trDump uses that as a 2020 election weapon that he was fully exonerated by failed Mueller investigation and the failed Dem impeachment.

##=###########

John Dean
@JohnWDean
·
12h
Sending out again: Let’s impeach him now and NOT send it to the Senate rather keep investigating in the House, and add such supplemental articles as needed! Just let it hang over his head. If the worst happens and he is re-elected, send it to the Senate. But keep investigating!

https://mobile.twitter.com/johnwdean?lang=en

[3catwoman3]

4. I'm not a legal eagle, but this sounds pretty smart to me.

Just let the sword of Damocles dangle there, and drive Bonespurs ever crazier.

[lastlib]

5. Merrick Garland in reverse! I'm liking the idea!

Still some things I have to think through, though....Keep investigating, add more albatrosses around his neck--yeah.

[moosewhisperer]

6. He's offucially

He’s officially consulting House Judiciary Dems, so...

[AlexSFCA]

7. makes perfect sense

continue investigations and revelations all the way to election day

[Laura PourMeADrink]

8. Not sure I get it. If it never goes to the Senate...would

He officially be impeached? Or is he just saying drag it out by adding more investigation and more articles. I don't like idea if he won't go down in history books as being one of three presidents to be impeached. Jeez that may be our only victory against him.

[Sogo]

9. Yes, he will be impeached by the House.

But very unlikely will he be convicted (removed) by the Senate.

The two steps are impeachment (indictment) and conviction (removal) by the Senate.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

13. No, talking about if we do not send to

Senate, as Tribe suggests, is he officially impeached? I can hear him saying it didn't count if not sent to Senate.

[malaise]

18. Then he'd better read the Constitution

I think the best approach is to impeach and then continue investigations while waiting for the SC to act on subpoenas for documents and WH staff

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. Hey. Must not be asking my question very clearly.

One is not "impeached" unless the (1)House votes "Aye" on x # of articles, right? Then it would be (2) sent to Senate for trial.

I understand that (2) won't happen in what is suggested by Tribe. But does (1) literally happen? Or does the whole process continue, just adding evidence to accumulated articles and new articles created if necessary?

If it is the latter, it seems to be just more of the same as now. What lots of everyday people are complaining about - us taking too long?

[malaise]

23. Yes (1) happens

Ask Bill Clinton.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

25. One Note explains below

[greymattermom]

26. Just impeach and keep investigating

and say that without testimony of certain individuals or release of certain documents, the case is incomplete. When the financial information is available, it will be assessed to see if other counts need to be added to the impeachment document.

[Nasruddin]

10. Impeach!

Wouldn't it be hilarious to have Mr Trump and/or McConnell demanding to be tried in the Senate? "Oh, okay, coming right up, but first we have to dig thru this other Mt Everest of evidence we have uncovered on yet another article of impeachment...."

[renate]

14. Yes, exactly

To give him a chance to claim vindication when that scenario can be avoided seems like a huge mistake.

[Farmer-Rick]

29. Perfect...this is what Dems need to do.

Keep throwing Dumpy's crimes in the voters face.

[pnwmom]

11. Maybe he still thinks that, but this piece was in June -- so, pre-Ukraine scandal. nt

[Kablooie]

12. Couldn't the Senate just decide to try him anyway?

They'd say the House could present their case or not but he would be tried and exonerated.

[wnylib]

15. I don't. think the Senate can do that. For a trial,

they have to receive the impeachment chsrges. And the House has to act as prosecutor.

But. maybe they would take a vote on whether they believed the House charges, since the House would want to publicize their investigations and findings in order to discredit Trump.

[onenote]

30. No. But they could adopt a Sense of the Senate resolution finding that he didn't commit

any impeachable offenses as a counter-measure to the "Sense of the House" resolution Tribe seems to think should be adopted in lieu of actually adopting articles of impeachment.

Read Tribe's piece carefully -- he doesn't propose that the House actually adopt articles of impeachment -- he suggests that instead they adopt a report/Sense of the House resolution finding that Trump committed impeachable offenses. It would neither be an impeachment nor a meaningful (from a Constitutional perspective) verdict. It would be even more toothless than a censure vote.

It's a bad idea that, fortunately, Pelosi and the Democratic leaders will never adopt.

[ecstatic]

16. Giving traitors an easy out?

I still think they should all be forced to go on record. The truth is on our side, which means WE have the upper hand, dammit! Time to act like it!

[wishstar]

19. ABC reported that Tribe was working with Congressional Dems this weekend

Our leadership has been consulting with Tribe so they are weighing all options however at this stage I think it is unlikely that Senate trial will be delayed beyond January or February since impeachment charges are too serious to delay.


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democratic-lawyers-lay-case-trump-2nd-judiciary-committee/story?id=67581755&cid=clicksource_4380645_null_hero_hed

"Democratic members and aides spent the weekend in Washington preparing for the upcoming hearings. Judiciary Committee Democratic staff also released a report highlighting the historical and legal arguments behind their impeachment efforts against Trump

On Saturday, they huddled with Harvard Law School professor and constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, who's been advising the caucus throughout the impeachment process. "

[dansolo]

20. Bad idea

Doing this just feeds the Trump/GOP narative that the impeachment is a partisan witch hunt. We can't argue about the necessity to impeach him and then not have a trial.

[CaptainTruth]

27. Bingo.

[onenote]

21. Fortunately, our leaders are smart enough not to follow Tribe's really bad suggestion

First, even Tribe isn't proposing that the House formally adopt articles of impeachment and then sit on them. Instead, he is saying the House should NOT impeach, but should adopt a "Sense of the House" resolution declaring Trump guilty of impeachable offenses. He thinks that would be stronger than censure and would keep the Senate from acquitting Trump. He's wrong. A "Sense of the House" resolution in lieu of actually voting on impeachment articles would be even more toothless than censure and would rightly be portrayed in the media (and crowed about by the Republicans) as a retreat by the Democrats from fulfilling what we have been claiming is a Constitutional imperative. And it would simply tee up the Senate to propose its own competing Sense of the Senate resolution saying Trump isn't guilty of impeachable offenses. It would, in other words, be both a massive public relations disaster and a huge waste of time.

Second,even if the House wanted to actually impeach but sit on the articles, it faces the following obstacle: historically (and procedurally), the next step after the House votes articles of impeachment is the adoption of a resolution directing the naming of managers for the Senate trial and the delivery of the articles to the Senate. Such a resolution is, in House parlance, considered "privileged" -- meaning it must be immediately considered. There would have to be a roll call vote regarding the resolution, even if it was just a vote on motion to 'table' the resolution. That would force House Democrats, who had just voted to impeach, to go on record as opposing sending the articles to the Senate. Again, this unprecedented move would be a public relations and political disaster -- the media would point out that this has never been done and the Republicans would pound away at the message that the Democrats lack the courage of their convictions, want to deny Trump his "day in court", and have been engaged in a sham process.

Fortunately, however, Pelosi is much smarter about these things than Tribe. Having given her public blessing to the adoption of Articles of Impeachment and having cited the House's constitutional responsibility to hoo so, she's not going to allow that process to be derailed by a silly Sense of the House approach.

[MFGsunny]

24. All THIS. + 1,000,000 n/t

[CaptainTruth]

28. Yes, yes, & yes.