'We can move' on impeachment once public is on our side

[struggle4progress]

By Eli Watkins, CNN
Updated 11:16 AM ET, Sun June 2, 2019

Washington (CNN)A senior member of Democratic leadership suggested Sunday that the House will eventually begin formal impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump after building public support.

"We think that we have to bring the public along," House Majority Whip James Clyburn said on CNN's "State of the Union."

He continued, "We aren't particularly interested in the Senate. We do believe that if we sufficiently, effectively educate the public, then we will have done our jobs, and we can move on an impeachment vote and it will stand, and maybe it will be what needs to be done to incent the Senate to act."

A CNN Poll conducted by SSRS released earlier Sunday showed Democrats have grown more supportive of impeachment, but that 54% of respondents overall were against it ...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/02/politics/james-clyburn-trump-impeachment-cnn-tv/index.html

[DeminPennswoods]

1. Chicken or the egg dilemna

When there are televised hearings with witnesses, undoubtedly public opinion will move toward impeachment, but you might not get witnesses for hearings without opening an impeachment inquiry.

[struggle4progress]

3. No: it's our job to start creating that public opinion.

[jaysunb]

6. +1 n/t

[DeminPennswoods]

20. IMHO, it would be better to have one consolidated hearing

rather than have the story of Trump et al's corruption fragmented around 5 or 6 committees. Whether that is under the umbrella of an impeachment inquiry or a House select committee doesn't really matter. Really, the chairmen/women of the committees involved should meet as a group and commit to this approach.

[struggle4progress]

25. So everybody can conveniently ignore it once?

[DeminPennswoods]

36. No, so one coherent message gets out

It's much easier for the media, and Americans in general, to focus on one thing rather than what 6 individual committees are doing.

[StarfishSaver]

45. It's also a lot easier for Trump to manage and scapegoat and target one individual investigation

The minute an impeachment inquiry is opened, it will become his boogeyman, his target, the total focus of him, his lawyers and his supporters. He's not good at many things, but he's a master at fighting a battle against one enemy. He's not so good at multi-tasking.

Say what you will about separate investigations, but at least when it comes to his ability to respond and fight back, several separate investigations are much more difficult for him to handle.

There are lots of factors at play here and there's not one simple answer.

[DeminPennswoods]

46. Trump has 1 message he keeps and will keep pounding regardless

Dems have too many messages for any of them to get traction. That's why they need to investigate with 1 voice.

[EffieBlack]

31. Exactly!

[Trumpocalypse]

13. Why wouldn't they get the witnesses?

A congressional subpoena is a congressional subpoena regardless of the purpose of inquiry.

[dixiegrrrrl]

15. I have to ask

how you missed the headlines about Barr refusing to be subpoenaed, and him/trump telling others to refuse theirs.

Which is why it is in the courts right now.
which is the trump plan...to have everything be taken to court, then appeal it, until they run out of courts.
huge time eater.

[StarfishSaver]

18. Why do you think that Barr and Trump will cooperate with subpoenas for impeachment hearings?

They can just as easily refuse to cooperate for impeachment hearings. And the only way to force them is to go to court. And then, as you say "is the trump plan...to have everything be taken to court, then appeal it, until they run out of courts. huge time eater."

They'll do the same thing whether it's oversight or impeachment. And the enforcement process is exactly the same - it has to go through the courts.

[Trumpocalypse]

24. So they are just going to honor subpoenas

if it is for impeachment?

[dixiegrrrrl]

29. what? I don't understand the question.

Who is "they"?

[Trumpocalypse]

34. Yes

It’s obvious you don’t understand.

[StarfishSaver]

17. Why do you think it will be easier to get witnesses for impeachment hearings than for oversight?

[DeminPennswoods]

19. Presumably, an impeachment inquiry would have more weight than

regular oversight. The courts have precedent already set by US vs Nixon.

[StarfishSaver]

22. They may or may not have more weight on the issue of whether a valid claim of executive privilege

can be pierced. In this instance, it wouldn't even get to that since Trump is claiming executive privilege where none exists. It is unlikely that any court will ever even entertain his assertion, much less reach a point of having to decide whether an impeachment proceeding is critical enough to require the court to pierce the privilege. Any oversight hearing would have just as much right to subpoena a witness and compel their testimony as an impeachment panel would.

But, that said, it won't make much difference what kind of case the court is ruling on if Trump continues to defy court orders. Even if a court gave greater deference to an impeachment panel for the purpose of compelling testimony, if Trump is willing to defy the court, he'll defy the court, no matter what the proceeding - just as he'll defy a subpoena, regardless what body issues it.

[pnwmom]

32. What about the issue of the Grand Jury documents connected with the Mueller report?

Would a subpoena issued in the course of an impeachment proceeding carry more weight with the judge than a regular Congressional subpoena?

[StarfishSaver]

40. Basically, yes

Although this would still be a congressional subpoena and it doesn't really "carry more weight" in a legal sense. But it would be more likely, although not certain, that a judge would allow it to be released to an impeachment panel than he or she would to release it to a an ordinary oversight matter.

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure strictly protect grand jury secrecy, but they also allow exceptions to the no disclosure rules in several instances. One of them is Rule 6E, which gives a judge the discretion (but doesn't require him or her) to disclose grand jury materials "preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding." Courts have ruled that an impeachment inquiry is the equivalent of a judicial proceeding and, therefore, this provision permits a judge to make an exception to the grand jury secrecy rules and release grand jury materials to an impeachment panel.

Technically, this is different than "carrying more weight" since an exception is a procedural issue, not a substantive balancing test, but that's a very in-the-weeds legal distinction that probably makes a difference only to lawyers, judges and law professors. For all intents and purposes, an impeachment panel would have a stronger argument for obtaining grand jury materials than a different committee seeking the information for ordinary oversight purposes.

But, that said, it's also possible an oversight panel could convince a judge to release the materials to it if it can show it is acting "preliminary to" an impeachment inquiry. In fact, I think it's possible (but don't know for sure - just a guess) that the House will continue its various investigations without opening a formal impeachment inquiry, but formally characterize those other investigations as "preliminary to" impeachment, in order to get their proceedings into the exception. We'll see.

[pnwmom]

41. Thanks, StarfishSaver, for taking the time to explain all this. I really appreciate it! n/t

[StarfishSaver]

42. No problem.

Did it make sense?

[pnwmom]

43. Yes. Even when you got down into the weeds. :)

[StarfishSaver]

44. :-)

Great!

[pnwmom]

30. We need to start attending Town Halls and contacting our Reps FREQUENTLY.

[Xolodno]

2. Exactly.

If we shoot now, its pre-mature and can backfire significantly. Let the process play out. Drop a dead body out every couple of weeks and let the guy who sits on the porcelain throne tweet or speak and compromise himself.

We're the cat, he's the mouse, lets play with our prey for a bit, then devour him.

[pat_k]

4. If leaders lead and stand up for moral principle...

..by impeaching, the public will follow. Showing strength and determination wins hearts and minds. As Bill Clinton once said, strong and wrong beats weak and right every time (paraphrased).

And even if the public doesn't follow, it is their moral duty as the ONLY body empowered to act to draw the line against an imperial president's abuse of power.

The only way to beat Trump's strong and wrong is to show REAL principle and strength by taking meaningful action.

Waiting for "the public" is the opposite of strength. Until they impeach, no amount of lip service actually challenges Trump's "exoncerated" lie.

[struggle4progress]

5. You got it backwards. The slogan is: "When the people lead, the leaders follow"

[Locrian]

28. absolutely...

kinda the definition of a LEADER vs a follower..

i get tired of the whole "wait until it's a guaranteed thing". That isn't leadership, that's not courage - it's political calculation and it's what the entire country has been SICK of for decades.

[Voltaire2]

7. is a chicken-shit strategy.

You're the alleged leadership, lead.

[struggle4progress]

8. That view represents a dereliction of YOUR duty as a citizen in a democracy

Stop waiting for somebody else to act and get to work on changing public opinion yourself

[Voltaire2]

9. oh horseshit.

I've been advocating impeaching traitor-tot for two years. Leaders ought to lead, not hide behind public opinion polls in order to avoid making risking decisions. Demanding our leaders actually lead does not preclude citizen activism.

[struggle4progress]

14. Perhaps you think voting every now and then, and having an opinion the rest of the time, is enough

but it's not

Democracy depends on what we actually do between elections -- not only how we get involved but how we get others involved

[dixiegrrrrl]

16. We really need a like button on thread comments.

I think the more a person knows about politics, about what we used to call "civics" when it was taught in high school, the more they understand what is going on.

It is easy to look at it like a football game, cheering on favorites, Monday quarterbacking about what has happened and what should have happened.

But we have a process called a "participatory democracy". Emphasis on the participate beyond voting.
Which is why grass roots movements are often effective, esp. at the city/state level.
I particularly like my home state, Washington, for having the Referendum process. It's how we passed some sticky wicket legislation, like abortion rights.

[StarfishSaver]

23. And advocating means more than complaining on DU and tweeting

[Voltaire2]

35. So in your world our leaders should follow.

interesting.

[Hortensis]

26. Hear, hear! To the first. :)

Considering who these behaviors are serving, and the unlikelihood that they themselves can change, perhaps best they lose themselves collecting skins in Fortnight or some such thing.

[dalton99a]

11. aka "You have to make me do it"

"Make me do the right thing"

[YOHABLO]

12. We have to acknowledge that the means is not to remove, but to inform the public.

We gain by exposing the entire debacle, if not the Trump organizations criminality over the years.

[ooky]

21. Actually we're already moving on impeachment with the investigations we are conducting

now. Its just informal at this point, but information on Trump's criminal activities is being gathered and analyzed by our House committees. So I expect that all to be fed back into Chairman Nadler's Judiciary Committee for articles of impeachment to be drafted. We still need to get some witnesses in and the financial documents we have subpoened, and the public support for impeachment should go up as that information continues to drip out. But the impeachable offenses are there (could be many) so I think its going to happen.

Whether we formalize it with an inquiry vote I'm not sure matters so much in the end.

[DeminPennswoods]

37. Agree with you, but

the problem is it's causing too much info to get lost because every committee is fighting for attention.

[Hoyt]

27. With all we know about trump and election, if the public is not behind it now, they never will be.

Sad, disappointing, deplorable, and worse.

[pnwmom]

33. I don't think so. I think it's likely we'll find evidence of bribes, and that will be much more

understandable to the broader public than debates about obstruction.

[Hoyt]

38. Hope you are right. If something new like bribes comes up, it's a different ball game.

But, lots of folks -- not just investigators -- have been looking for well over 2 years.

[ego_nation]

39. The Dems hold the majority in the House post-mid-term elections.

What more of a sign are they looking for? There’s a reason why they are in the positions of power that they are in.