They surely can. Who or what would stop them?
In any event, Pelosi will not do this and it would not ‘work’ if she did. What seems more likely to me at the moment is one of the following:
- Republicans will approve a sham trial process, and when they have she’ll send the impeachment over to them and they will acquit him; or
- A few Republicans will vote with Democrats to have more of a trial, but then those few will vote to acquit anyway having claimed to have done their duty to ensure a fair process.
The thing to do now is to start another impeachment hearing, based on other easy, low-hanging fruit. Maybe emoluments next. And when the courts rule on the McGahn subpoena, go after obstruction of justice.
McConnell’s Republicans control the chamber, or they control enough votes to ensure an acquittal. This is exactly what’s going to happen no matter what Pelosi does.
The always sharp John Holbo dispenses with the ‘will of the voters’ argument against impeachment. Thread copied in its entirety:
SlyFrog
5394
Time for Godwin - I’m glad a good chunk of Americans believe that Hitler could not have been and should not have been impeachable. Because, you know, will of the voters, originally appointed in accordance with laws, and all that.
Do people really have a difficult time understanding that just because someone was legitimately elected (and I’m putting aside the Russian interference here) does not mean that they cannot commit crimes or otherwise engage in acts that demand their removal? Do they really think that a President could order war crimes, for example, and should not be accountable?
Why are people so goddamn dumb?
Apparently around 40%ish do. At least if that president has a (R) after his (absolutely a “his”) name.
A lot of people seem to want a dictator.
Enidigm
5397
A lot of people just want Republicans 100% and believe that any criticism against them is false flag sour grapes fake news, and that anything other than a Republican government is the end of civilization.
So whatever a Republican government does is a-ok.
JoshL
5398
Also, um, I know this is obvious and all, but the will of the voters was that Hillary Clinton be president, and that will was already overturned.
magnet
5401
I think Holbo missed the point. Kaus wasn’t arguing that the “will of the voters” should prevent an “otherwise meritorious” impeachment. Kaus was arguing that subverting the “will of the voters” by impeachment demands a “difficult standard” (Kaus’ words), and Kaus thinks Trump hasn’t yet met that threshold. In other words, Kaus doesn’t accept that this is “otherwise meritorious”, because impeachment is motivated purely by anger from the foreign service and other “urbanites”.
I rarely agree with Kaus and this is no exception, but Holbo is attacking a straw man. In a parallel universe where President Hillary Clinton was being impeached over her emails, I would approve the parallel Kaus argument about respecting the will of the voters and democracy.
There is in me a small white-hot ball of rage that broods over the amazing fact that this has not long been the basis for impeachment charges, independent of anything having to do with Mueller or Russia or Ukraine. He’s just happily taking the American people for millions in plain sight. Like, the fact that people seem to be okay with this has me almost questioning my sanity.
I think you’re making Holbo’s point for him, which is that the entire argument about the will of the voters when it comes to impeachment is just a red herring. If you’re talking about ‘subverting the will of the voters’ instead of about innocence, you’ve pretty much conceded guilt. Whether it is guilt that rises to the level of impeachment is another point you could argue, but you don’t need nonsense about ‘the will of the voters’ to make that point.
Yeah, that’s been a thing since day one, and it’s been shameless.
magnet
5406
I think that “subverting the will of the voters” is just another way of emphasizing “impeachment should not be considered lightly / only as a last resort”, which we hear all the time from Democrats.
Sure you do, because there is no definition for what “rises to the level of impeachment.” One could argue that lax email security rises to the level of impeachment. Clinton conceded guilt on that charge, should President Clinton have been impeached?
The counterargument presumes that impeachment should only be used in exceptional cases. But why? We can easily imagine impeachment becoming a regular occurrence whenever Congress opposes the President.
Kaus specifically brings up parliamentary systems where the chief executive is routinely forced out by the legislature. In the US I think this would be a bad thing, because our chief executive is directly elected and I do believe that Congress should respect the will of the voters.
The problem with talking about ‘the will of the voters’ in the case of impeachment is that every president ever was elected by ‘the will of the voters,’ at least insofar as such was filtered through suffrage limitations and the electoral college and the odd problematic election like 1824/1876/2000. Impeachment by definition is something that happens after an official has already been approved by ‘the will of the voters.’ It is by its very nature in defiance of that will, at least insofar as that will was most recently expressed in a formal manner. Yet the framers felt it was a good thing to stick in the Constitution, all the same.
magnet
5408
Yes, of course. So “the will of the voters” implies that the standard for impeachment should be high for every US president.
Compare, for example, to the UK PM. He wasn’t directly elected, so if he were forced out over a minor squabble after a few months then it would be no stain on democracy.
Kaus isn’t wrong that the will of the voters is important. Kaus is wrong because he thinks Trump is unexceptional. If he were writing about almost any other president, he would be right.
The voters also elected Mike Pence to take Trump’s place if needed… which is what would happen if he was impeached. Will of the voters is 100% a red herring intended to dismiss the charges. It is completely irrelevant to the argument, which should be about whether or not a president is faithfully executing their office. If you want to argue that on balance Trump is upholding his oath as president and working within his Constitutional powers and that any cases where he might be out of bounds are minor and low-impact, then you don’t need to invoke the will of the people to make that argument. You’d be insane, but the “will of the people” doesn’t make you less so. In fact, the argument is primarily about 2020 at this point. The argument is that Dems are trying to subvert the will of the people because they are afraid to face Trump in 2020. There’s zero chance that Republicans would vote to impeach him without barring him from holding public office, though, because they are backing him entirely out of fear of his voters and the consequences to their careers of admitting he is bad.
I mean, if the real question is whether or not he is “subverting the will of the people” wouldn’t that argue for a system more like the UK? Shouldn’t it be possible to recall the president if 50% of voters elected to do so? Shouldn’t presidents be forced to abide by all their campaign promises? It’s a disingenuous argument.
magnet
5410
Ok, and if President Warren is impeached over some minor scandal by Republicans elected in 2022, then some Democrat will take her place.
Does that mean it would be ok?
ShivaX
5411
If she was extorting foreign governments for personal gain or violating the law on a daily basis…
I mean I get what you’re saying and even agree with it, but we’re talking about a person who violates his oath multiple times a day and got caught. So the “will of the voters” is irrelevant. This is all shit they couldn’t have known about when he was elected because he hadn’t done it yet.
