Actually, there is some reason to believe Giuliani was always this guy.
Sharpe
5374
Is that Twitter sigil a GOP elephant fellating itself with its trunk?
I mean, he’s also not a government official.
vyshka
5379
lol, maybe they will get it right eventually.
Junior Attorney General
General Attorney
Oghier
5383
Assistant to the Regional Attorney General.
Alright so let me throw this scenario out there: Pelosi holds the articles of impeachment until after the election, saying that the current senate and in particular some of the senators up for election have shown themselves to be too biased to conduct a proper trial. So she asks the public to vote in people who will not exonerate a known criminal with a sham trial where they coordinate with the defendant.
Of course this undercuts the idea that impeachment is urgent because he will cheat again, but it seems easy to deflect that by saying that the sham trial will only encourage him to worse behavior the same way that inaction on the Mueller report did.
I assume that they wouldn’t be able to actually take advantage of a new Senate (that is, the resolution impeaching him would have to be passed again by the new House), but to be honest they won’t get 67 votes anyway. This framing does let them make the election a referendum on GOP corruption, though, and it prevents him from claiming he was found innocent. And then they can send them over the day after the election and if he lost he might actually get convicted, since the party would be in a mood to back away from him.
So what’s the downside here? Is the counter argument that not sending means they have no case one that anyone will actually buy, especially given all the statements prejudging the outcome? Is the perception that they are using McConnell tactics a la Garland a net negative or positive?
magnet
5387
Using impeachment for political gain directly contradicts assurances by Pelosi and others that this is “not about politics.”
She could argue that she would be fine with them voting republican ma who haven’t prejudged the case or already admitted they plan to rig the trial
Sharpe
5389
The downside is your scenario won’t happen. If Pelosi announced she was “holding” the articles of impeachment until after the election, the Senate could and would hold a vote which the GOP would win, to proceed with the impeachment trial. If Pelosi went to court there is no chance the courts stop the process. None. If Pelosi refuses to appoint managers to put on a case then the Senate will dismiss.
I’m sorry, Ravenight, but your scenario here is simply not going to happen, full stop.
Time to focus on other strategies.
They can’t and won’t, but if they did it would probably work out better than actually holding them until after the election. A trial that the House doesn’t participate in would be a horrible look for the GOP and would cement the narrative that they just chose to dismiss the charges without really considering the case.
I seriously doubt that would be McConnell’s response. He would almost certainly continue his current line, which is that the Senate doesn’t think he should be impeached, so if the House doesn’t want to make a case then the Senate is content to just ignore it. Of course that means he has to go back to actually acting on the bills before the Senate because he can no longer claim they are held up by impeachment.
My main question is whether a strategy like this would do more to undermine the value of “acquittal” than has already been done by simply delaying while you wait for a fair trial. McConnell already seems to be arguing that he can’t call witnesses who weren’t post of the house investigation, which seems like a good thing for not having the trial dominated by calling the whistleblower and Schiff’s staffers.
I mean the goal here is to avoid another Kavanaugh hearing where they sweep the details under the rug then acquit and talk endlessly about how the details were totally wrong and shameful took even bring up.
