General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI have a question.. about impeachment, censure, and removal.. I have to admit I am confused.
I keep reading about how Pelosi is doing it all wrong.. and that she should go straight for impeachment...
Granted the house could impeach..but then it goes to the Republican Senate and it goes no where.. Trump declares victory that the senate exonerated him (that is how he will play it, just like today with the protesters actually being supporters.. the lying is deep with that one)
Impeachment is not removal from office.. different process..
Then there is censure.. even Peggy Noonan came up with that one today.. but you know a clock is right twice a day.. the house could censure the President and nothing the senate could do about it.. he would be guilty of censure for wrong doing.. that is the one I am confused about..
Should we censure, then impeach.. through censure get all the Mueller report out there.. I am not sure.. looking to greater minds than mine on the subject..
hlthe2b
(102,237 posts)coordinated and likely increases Congress' leverage with the courts to honor subpoenas and other suits against the administration for informational and testimonial demands.
That process may end with a vote for one or more ARTICLES of IMPEACHMENT to be brought--akin to an INDICTMENT in the outside world. OR they might opt not to pass articles of impeachment and it dies there.
Assuming the House does vote articles of impeachment, it goes to the Senate and yes, it is in their hands and yes in all odds it will not result in Trump's removal.
BUT, and this is a big BUT, it is not a small thing to have been impeached--especially going into an election--no matter what the Senate does with it. Likewise, independents and even some less brain-dead RWers might just learn enough from the process so as not willing to vote for either TRUMP or the conservative Senators and Reps who PROTECT him.
Censor is worthless and shows total weakness. It essentially removes any opportunity to impeach if you've already censored at least from a practical standpoint. (as though taking two bites of the same apple)
Peacetrain
(22,875 posts)so it in and of itself is censure.. my question on it, was that it would go to the senate.. and the senate would do nothing with it.. and the Trump would declare victory.. that they exonerated him since it would have to move on to the senate.. what do you do with a man who is so amoral.. its crazy.. thank you for your thoughts..
hlthe2b
(102,237 posts)censure would be construed as such.
Trump is going to scream exoneration regardless. He's been doing it since the Barr 4-page letter nonstop. The difference will be that there will be months of coverage that will convince at least some people quite the opposite and which stands in direct contrast to what Trump et al are saying.
Peacetrain
(22,875 posts)its clear I am still confused about this..
hlthe2b
(102,237 posts)Given it will be delivered by Democrats (with perhaps a couple of exceptions), Trump will have no reason NOT to simply swat it away as emblematic of partisan attacks on him. It would be a symbol that would be delivered without the benefit of weeks/months of investigation/hearings/revealings and education for the public as to what he has been doing as they turned a blind eye.
Peacetrain
(22,875 posts)Censure is a formal, and public, group condemnation of an individual, often a group member, whose actions run counter to the group's acceptable standards for individual behavior.[1] In the United States, governmental censure is done when a body's members wish to publicly reprimand the President of the United States, a member of Congress, a judge or a cabinet member. It is a formal statement of disapproval.[2]
The United States Constitution specifically grants impeachment and conviction powers, respectively, to the House of Representatives and Senate. It also grants both congressional bodies the power to expel their own members, though it does not mention censure. Congress adopted a resolution allowing censure,[citation needed] which is "stronger than a simple rebuke, but not as strong as expulsion."[1] In general, each house of Congress is responsible for invoking censure against its own members; censure against other government officials is not common. Because censure is not specifically mentioned as the accepted form of reprimand, many censure actions against members of Congress may be listed officially as rebuke, condemnation, or denouncement.[1]
Members of Congress who have been censured are required to give up any committee chairs they hold. Like a reprimand, a censure does not remove a member from their office so they retain their title, stature, and power to vote. There are also no legal consequences that come with a reprimand or censure. The main difference is that a reprimand is "considered a slap on the wrist and can be given in private and even in a letter", while a censure is "a form of public shaming in which the politician must stand before his peers to listen to the censure resolution".[3]
The first use of censure in the United States was directed at Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, who was a member of George Washington's cabinet.[1]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am in the process of reading the Mueller Report.. and most people are not reading this.. it is 400 pages with redactions..someway , somehow, we have to get this out to people.. if no one else.. our people.. and hold Trump accountable someway somehow for his actions.. from what I am looking at now, he will only be held accountable for his actions after he gets out of office.. we have never had such a criminal and amoral in our Presidency before..
hlthe2b
(102,237 posts)whatsoever to change behavior--especially to Republicans and more so, Trump, who cares not a whit about the constitution, much less traditions and norms.
If you research why it has been used previously historically and the aftermath you'll see it changed nothing.
Even Andrew Johnson, who survived removal from office after impeachment--based on a single vote in the Senate, arguably lost his Presidency even while he stayed in office. So branded was he by the impeachment effort, he was a weak lame duck for the remainder of his time.
Show me examples where censure actually accomplished the above.
Peacetrain
(22,875 posts)hlthe2b
(102,237 posts)I actually was trying to help detail the issue and spent a lot of effort trying to do so. So now you resent my efforts?
sigh... I think I'd like that hour of my life back...
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)He'd say that the only reason we didn't impeach in the House, where we had the power, was because it was always a witch-hunt, and we knew it.
madinmaryland
(64,931 posts)hlthe2b
(102,237 posts)ancianita
(36,053 posts)Peacetrain
(22,875 posts)the thing that had me confused was the censure..but the poster before you made good sense.. it is like taking a second bite from the same apple.. so they thought it was useless..
ancianita
(36,053 posts)Peacetrain
(22,875 posts)its the same thing.. I still cannot believe that someone so lacking integrity on any level somehow made it to the Presidency..
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)It can pass a Resolution of Censure, but it's a meaningless exercise that Trump can ignore. Censure does not exist in the Constitution. It exists only in the House rules as action to be taken against a House member. Nothing more.