Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
Mon Jul 29, 2019, 06:40 PM Jul 2019

Democrats authority does not extend to conviction in the Senate.

Their authority and their responsibility stops in the US House of Representatives. Because they are only the majority in the House.

To argue that there is no need to impeach because the Senate would never convict is arguing a case over which the House has no purview.

Their responsibility is to impeach, not to convict. That is the purview of the US Senate.

The House can only do what they have the authority to do. To discuss conviction is out of context in discussing the responsibility of the House of Representatives.

Perhaps it is a trivial point? But it seems to me that conviction should not be part of the Democrats argument over whether or not to impeach?

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Democrats authority does not extend to conviction in the Senate. (Original Post) kentuck Jul 2019 OP
Makes sense! at140 Jul 2019 #1
Regardless... sacto95834 Jul 2019 #4
Tell this to Pelosi. BigmanPigman Jul 2019 #2
she knows Skittles Jul 2019 #3
I have little respect for Pelosi... sacto95834 Jul 2019 #6
don't even get me started Skittles Jul 2019 #8
not a trivial point dweller Jul 2019 #5
Many Democrats do not see the pitfalls for the Republicans. kentuck Jul 2019 #7
If you ignore the one big pitfall that the GOP doesn't have with impeachment ehrnst Jul 2019 #10
Ignoring it would disallow a full discussion of what the actual pro and cons are. ehrnst Jul 2019 #9

sacto95834

(393 posts)
4. Regardless...
Mon Jul 29, 2019, 07:10 PM
Jul 2019

The Orange Menace will be noted for history, that he was one of the few presidents impeached by the House. Impeachment is the first step. Like Nixon, I think the Senate can be shamed into voting for removal. Else, let that vote be forever linked to them.

sacto95834

(393 posts)
6. I have little respect for Pelosi...
Mon Jul 29, 2019, 07:14 PM
Jul 2019

or any House Speaker/Senate President that puts the next election prospects of their party above doing what is right for the country. And I do believe the Orange Menace's behavior during the Russian Investigation to rise to the level of high crimes or misdemeanors within the meaning of the Constitution. Else, who else will have a check on Presidential power.

If they impeached Clinton for behavior related to a BJ from a WH Intern, certainly what the Mueller Report outlined as obstruction of justice rises to that level if not surpasses it.

dweller

(23,562 posts)
5. not a trivial point
Mon Jul 29, 2019, 07:11 PM
Jul 2019

anymore than a law enforcement officer not attempting to stop a criminal, since a lawyer may get criminal off and free of punishment ...
once all of the offenses the orange asshole has committed comes to light with indisputable evidence, the house will impeach and it will be in the record forever

then the senate can take the risk of the public backlash if they let him off ....
impeachment trials garnish lots and lots of media and public attention ... and the Devils in the details as they say ...

✌🏼️

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
7. Many Democrats do not see the pitfalls for the Republicans.
Mon Jul 29, 2019, 07:17 PM
Jul 2019

Why? I do not know.

But there could be a lot to answer for if Donald John Trump is let off on a technicality, and ignoring all the evidence, I would think?

Of course, they would spin it in the media, and as we know, the Democrats are incompetent at responding, no matter how strong their argument.

That is what I hear from many Democrats.

 

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)
10. If you ignore the one big pitfall that the GOP doesn't have with impeachment
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 03:18 PM
Jul 2019

then you're really no better off.

 

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)
9. Ignoring it would disallow a full discussion of what the actual pro and cons are.
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 03:17 PM
Jul 2019

Obviously, if a conviction was possible, we'd be having a very different conversation. That particular pro - removing him from office - would then bring in a discussion about what to do with Pence taking office, and picks he would have for a VP.

I'd love to leave a discussion of mosquitoes out of a hiking trip. But then I wouldn't feel a need to bring insect repellent.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Democrats authority does ...