Impeachment Watch

The rules: No spamming, no making a nuisance of yourself.

Moderators: chijohnaok, Kameolontti

Message
Author
User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 39055
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1261 Post by chijohnaok » Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:21 pm

I heard that the average timespan for an impeachment trial in the past has been 3-4 weeks where there were no additional witnesses; and about 6 weeks when there are witnesses.

I heard earlier today that an anticipated start date for the US Senate would be Tuesday, January 21 at the very earliest.
A 6 week long trial (with witnesses) would run through March 3.

Super Tuesday, which includes primaries for 14 states and one additional jurisdiction, is March 3rd.

There are 17 states which will hold a primary, caucus or in which early voting will start (and/or end) PRIOR to March 3.

There are THREE Democrat Party debates plus one additional candidate forum scheduled to occur between January 21 and Super Tuesday.

Impeachment trials run Monday through Saturday until the trial is completed.

Senate Democrat Party candidates who are also US Senators include:
Michael Bennett
Amy Klobuchar
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren

They would for the most part be unable to campaign during an impeachment trial (except for the possibility of doing a remote TV link to remote campaign events in the hours after the trial convenes for the day, and then also on Sundays).

Good luck with that. :lol:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

Anthropoid
Sergeant Major
Posts: 17562
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Location: Marching home to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAzVYCs4BMY">Erica</a>

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1262 Post by Anthropoid » Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:49 pm

So they call Witnesses, and subject them to proper cross-examination. Who cares!? The point is to reach a fair determination, NOT a pre-determined one, which is what Pelosi wanted. Without a majority in the Senate there is no way she could have hoped to ram her pre-determined outcome in the Senate as she did in the House. It'll be a fair trial and we'll all learn with some high degree of confidence whether or not the charges that Donald Trump engaged in the shocking offenses of "Abusing (aka Having) Power," and "Obstructing the House (aka Pissing off the NTTs for being Orange) have any basis to them.

I predict some excellent popcorn munching clips of Republican Senators eviscerating key points in the indictment and much wailing and gnashing of NTT teeth.

jack t ripper
Sergeant Major
Posts: 33405
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1263 Post by jack t ripper » Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:49 pm

I predict Trump invokes Executive Privilege over Bolton testimony and it goes to the SCOTUS to decide if he must testify. It is also possible the Senate declines to appeal the invocation of executive privilege.

It is also possible that Bolton testimony will be a dud.."I advised the President not to hold up Ukrainian even though it is an entirely corrupt place"....or something like that.

In the end, he is not removed from office and there will be a few Dem NO votes...but NOBODY will change their mind. :-)
Strong supporter of global warming as I have invested in speculative vineyard properties around Nome

Dinosaur
PFC
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:49 pm

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1264 Post by Dinosaur » Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:16 pm

... the average timespan for an impeachment trial in the past ...
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Average = ( x + y ) /2

And it just so happens there have been exactly two impeachment trials in the past, so it does make sense to compute the average !! :D

( Chi was being a funny man today ... I hope everyone noticed :) )

Anthropoid
Sergeant Major
Posts: 17562
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Location: Marching home to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAzVYCs4BMY">Erica</a>

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1265 Post by Anthropoid » Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:16 pm

Haven't there been three previous impeachment proceedings? Andrew Johnson, Nixon and Clinton. Andrew Johnson's turned out about the same as Clinton's if I recall: exonerated by the Senate. Nixon resigned before they voted . . . if memory serves. So we've never had a Chief Executive Removed from Office over Impeachment, but have had impeachment proceedings progress pretty far (all the way in at least two cases) three times, well four now.

Ah hold on . . . maybe Nixon resigned too quick for it to get very far? From, Impeachment of Andrew Johnson
The impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson had important political implications for the balance of federal legislative–executive power. It maintained the principle that Congress should not remove the president from office simply because its members disagreed with him over policy, style, and administration of the office. It also resulted in diminished presidential influence on public policy and overall governing power, fostering a system of governance which Woodrow Wilson referred to in the 1870s as "Congressional Government."[1] Johnson remained the only U.S. president to have been impeached and face a Senate trial for over a century, until Bill Clinton became the second in 1998
From Impeachment Process Against Richard Nixon
. . long introduction which I synthesize as . . . investigations, Supreme Court decisions, and House resolutions actions comprising the beginnings of the impeachment process unfolded between 30 Oct 1973 and 9 August 1974, but Nixon resigned before the House voted on the articles of impeachment it had decided on:
On May 9. 1974, formal hearings in the impeachment inquiry of President Nixon began, culminating July 27–30, 1974, when the Democratic-led Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment. The articles charged the president with: 1) obstruction of justice in attempting to impede the investigation of the Watergate break-in; 2) abuse of power by using the office of the presidency on multiple occasions, dating back to the first year of his administration (1969), to unlawfully use federal agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as establishing a covert White House special investigative unit, to violate the constitutional rights of citizens and interfere with lawful investigations; and 3) contempt of Congress by refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas . . .On August 5, 1974, Nixon released a transcript of one of the additional conversations to the public, known as the "smoking gun" tape, which made clear his complicity in the Watergate cover-up. Reaction to this disclosure was swift—he lost the support of his most loyal defenders in Congress. Republican congressional leaders met with and told Nixon that both his impeachment and his conviction were inevitable. Thereupon, Nixon gave up the struggle to remain in office, resigning the presidency on August 9, 1974, before the full House could vote on the articles of impeachment. Although arrangements for a final House vote along with a Senate trial were being made at the time, further formal action was rendered unnecessary by his resignation, so the House brought the impeachment process against him to an official close two weeks later.
So technically, Nixon was not even subjected to an impeachment process, meaning the vote by the House to pass on the articles of indictment to the Senate. But it is pretty clear that he was GOING to undergo impeachment, so it seems to me to be splitting hairs to separate his history from the other two.

User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 39055
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1266 Post by chijohnaok » Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:46 pm

Dinosaur wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:16 pm
... the average timespan for an impeachment trial in the past ...
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Average = ( x + y ) /2

And it just so happens there have been exactly two impeachment trials in the past, so it does make sense to compute the average !! :D

( Chi was being a funny man today ... I hope everyone noticed :) )
:oops:
Well, I was going by what I heard one of the pundits on the news say. I'm not sure whether they were referring to presidential impeachments only or all impeachments (including judges, members of Congress, etc).

But now that you called me out...here are some facts around the two Presidential impeachments:

Johnson:
The impeachment of Andrew Johnson was initiated on February 24, 1868, when the United States House of Representatives resolved to impeach Andrew Johnson, the 17th president of the United States, for "high crimes and misdemeanors," which were detailed in 11 articles of impeachment. The primary charge against Johnson was violation of the Tenure of Office Act, passed by Congress in March 1867, over his veto. Specifically, he had removed from office Edwin M. Stanton, the secretary of war—whom the act was largely designed to protect—and attempted to replace him with Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas (earlier, while the Congress was not in session, Johnson had suspended Stanton and appointed General Ulysses S. Grant as secretary of war ad interim).

Johnson became the first American president to be impeached on March 2–3, 1868, when the House formally adopted the articles of impeachment and forwarded them to the United States Senate for adjudication. The trial in the Senate began three days later, with Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding. On May 16, the Senate failed to convict Johnson on one of the articles, with the 35–19 vote in favor of conviction falling short of the necessary two-thirds majority by a single vote. A 10-day recess was called before attempting to convict him on additional articles. The delay did not change the outcome, however, as on May 26, it failed to convict the president on two articles, both by the same margin, after which the trial was adjourned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachme ... ew_Johnson

March 2 to May 26 is 84 days.

Clinton:
Although proceedings were delayed due to the bombing of Iraq, on the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998
On December 11, 1998, the House Judiciary Committee agreed to send three articles of impeachment to the full House for consideration. The vote on two articles, grand jury perjury and obstruction of justice, was 21–17, both along party lines. On the third, perjury in the Paula Jones case, the committee voted 20–18, with Republican Lindsey Graham joining with Democrats, in order to give President Clinton "the legal benefit of the doubt".[24] The next day, December 12, the committee agreed to send a fourth and final article, for abuse of power, to the full House by a 21–17 vote, again, along party lines.[25]

Although proceedings were delayed due to the bombing of Iraq, on the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998 on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (first article, 228–206)[26] and obstruction of justice (third article, 221–212).[27] The two other articles were rejected, the count of perjury in the Jones case (second article, 205–229)[28] and abuse of power (fourth article, 148–285).[29] Clinton thus became the second U.S. president to be impeached
The Senate trial began on January 7, 1999, with Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist presiding.
On February 9, after voting against a public deliberation on the verdict, the Senate began closed-door deliberations instead. On February 12, the Senate emerged from its closed deliberations and voted on the articles of impeachment. A two-thirds vote, 67 votes, would have been necessary to convict on either charge and remove the President from office. The perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against, and the obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against.[3][41][42] Senator Arlen Specter voted "not proved" for both charges,[43] which was considered by Chief Justice Rehnquist to constitute a vote of "not guilty". All 45 Democrats in the Senate voted "not guilty" on both charges, as did five Republicans; they were joined by five additional Republicans in voting "not guilty" on the perjury charge.[3][41][42]


Dec. 19 to Feb 12 is 55 days
If we go from the Senate Trial date of Jan 7 to Feb 12 it is 36 days.

84 + 55 / 2 = 69.5 days in other words 9.9 weeks

84 + 36 / 2 = 60 days In other words 8.6 weeks

So we are looking at roughly 9-10 weeks for a trial based on the average of the two prior trials

If a trial were to start on January 21, a trial (based on the prior two impeachments) runs roughly through Mar 17 or Mar 31.
This adds 7 additional primaries and one caucus to the prior figures that I gave.

Any Democrat Senators running for President would be royally screwed.

They can thank Nancy Pelosi. :lol:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

Dinosaur
PFC
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:49 pm

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1267 Post by Dinosaur » Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:03 pm

Go pee low sea Go !!! GO GO GO !!! phuque dem muc rats ... phuque em good do ya heeah ??

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Dinosaur
PFC
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:49 pm

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1268 Post by Dinosaur » Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:15 pm

... President Trump should tell House Speaker Nancy Pelosi he’ll refuse to give his State of the Union address until after the cloud of impeachment is lifted, one GOP representative urged Tuesday ...
I disagree 5000% with this ... you don't want to reward pee low sea for its stoo pide behavior ... even hussein's advice to trumpf was "Do the job you were elected to do" ... in the context of the impeachment proceedings ... i.e. as much as possible, the resident should ignore the proceedings and conduct business as usual.

jack t ripper
Sergeant Major
Posts: 33405
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1269 Post by jack t ripper » Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:18 pm

Nothing to worry about. Dem Senators running to REPLACE Trump as President can just recuse. :-)
Strong supporter of global warming as I have invested in speculative vineyard properties around Nome

User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 39055
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1270 Post by chijohnaok » Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:54 pm

jack t ripper wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:18 pm
Nothing to worry about. Dem Senators running to REPLACE Trump as President can just recuse. :-)
Great point...one that I had not thought of before.

There are 45 Democrat Senators (plus 2 independents)
53 Republicans.
I‘m not sure that those 4 Senators could be FORCED to recuse themselves (I’m not aware of any precedent for it).
3 of the 4 are Dems and Sanders is an independent.

But for shits and giggles let’s say they did recuse themselves.
That leaves 42 Dem Senators.
A 2/3 majority is required for impeachment.
2/3 of 100 is 67.
42 Dems voting yes + 1 Independent Voting yes (Sanders the other Indy being recused) yields 43 Yes votes, meaning 24 Republicans have to vote yes.

If you determine the 2/3 majority on the 96 Senators (after the refusal of 4) that means 65 votes needed for a successful impeachment.
19 Republican Senators would have to vote yes.

Never going to happen.
Nero will weep into his porridge.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

Post Reply