OK, once again John Dean proves his brilliance....

[Sogo]

John Dean
?
Verified account

@JohnWDean
Follow Follow @JohnWDean
MoreJohn Dean Retweeted George Conway
Let’s impeach him now and NOT send it to the Senate rather keep investigating in the House, and add such supplemental articles as needed! Just let it hang over his head. If the worst happens and he is re-elected, send it to the Senate. But keep investigating!!

*******************************

Sogo says:

AND, if Trump gets re-elected AND Dems take the Senate, at that point he's REMOVED!

Follow this great strategy and take back the Senate!!!!

[unblock]

1. It takes 2/3rds of the senate to remove.

Winning a majority in the senate would be great and helpful in many ways, but we'd still need up to 16 republicans to vote for removal, still a very tall order.

Never mind that it's exceedingly improbable that we win the senate while at the same time donnie gets re-elected.


Having said all that, I certainly like the idea of extended, multiple investigations....

[Hermit-The-Prog]

3. 2/3rds of those present

We just need somebody with the flu to visit the Russiapublicans.

[unblock]

5. yeah, this is the kind of vote that only senators in a coma can miss.

[Volaris]

33. If you're in a swing state, you'd rather have a drs appointment that day;

At least you've got plausible deniability and can dodge the question lol.

If all Republicans decide to not be there 'because the whole thing was a sham blah blah blah',
Trump can be removed by a minority/majority vote along party lines, and then they can have what they need...trump gone, but it's the Democrats fault.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

40. More like you'd rather have heart surgery and be under general anaethsia that day. . . . nt

[Volaris]

44. Whatever is the excuse is fine with me lol, as long as the result is trump is gone.

Not that I want it, but if the cost of getting rid of him is that the swing state republicans all get a dodge n keep their seats, I'll take it.

[soldierant]

47. If only we could compel the recusal of accomplices ... n/t

[CincyDem]

6. yes - but it only takes 51 to make approve the Trial Rules.

That will dictate the tone, pace, and content of the trial. It will still take 66 but 51 can be the difference between McConnell's planned circus vs. an open assessment of provable facts. And that might move the public opinion needle just far enough to bring 15 more along.

I like this idea.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

41. Excellent point. . . . nt

[pnwmom]

17. True. But with the D's running the trial, there is a greater chance

that R's would risk losing their seats if they didn't convict him.

[Mme. Defarge]

2. Hmmm ...

Très intéressant!

[JoeOtterbein]

4. The Dems are saying we have to do it now, before the election because....

...Trump might do it again.

And then if they rig all of the three branches general elections?

My long nightmare continues.

[MyOwnPeace]

7. I feel your pain.............

but this is truly OUR long nightmare.

TOGETHER we can end it.

We MUST GET OUT THE VOTE!

[JoeOtterbein]

9. Bingo! Thanks cause...

...I'm hoping to sleep better tonight!

[quakerboy]

12. Any rules about only impeaching once?

I say we impeach now to force the Republicans to show they have no respect for the nation.

Then we let the people vote them and him out.

Then we impeach again. According to Gaetz we can do that even though we have voted him out.

And then we deal with his judicial appointments. Specifically the one we can easily prove lied under oath.


But seriously. If we hold off.. It makes the case for the republicans that we arent serious, that we dont actually believe him guilty. If we actually believe that he has done the things he has done, and continues to attempt to do, we are all duty bound to make every effort to save our country and its constitution, now, before he can do any more harm

[JoeOtterbein]

14. +1000! nt

[ancianita]

38. Yes! Enough evidence is there to impeach for each Article of Impeachment! Tie that do-nothing

Senate up with trials! They'll never have worked so hard.

American democracy is worth it.

[SergeStorms]

43. Do we really want to give Trump....

a minimum of 12 more months to tear this country to shreds? We have to get that maniacal fascist bastard out of office A.S.A.P.

I can see the Democratic Leadership's point. Leaving Trump in office 4 more hours is too much. Impeach the asshole, now!

[JoeOtterbein]

45. +1000!

Actually, we should only give him an hour to clean out his desks under the close watch of security to make sure he doesn't steal any more secrets to sell to Putin!

[warmfeet]

46. Indeed.

Impeach, remove, convict.

IRC.

[wnylib]

49. I wish. But we know that the Senate will not convict.

Even so, we need to impeach now and have a trial now. AFAIK Nothing says we can't write up more articles of impeachment as investigations conrinue.

[markpkessinger]

50. That's the rationale Pelosi is putting out for public consumption . . . .

. . . But honestly, I think her real worry is that if it gets too close to the election, some Democratic members from red or swing districts will be less inclined to vote in favor of an impeachment resolution. The strategy Dean suggests allows those members to vote for an impeachment resolution while there is still some distance from the election. This strategy also has the benefit of depriving Republicans from being able to schedule a trial at a time when Democratic candidates who are currently Senators will most need to be on the campaign trail (as McConnell has been reported to be considering doing). And there is nothing precluding an impeachment resolution from being amended as further evidence that comes to light warrants.

[JoeOtterbein]

51. +1

Great points. Thanks for posting them!

[LovingA2andMI]

8. If it is not required per the U.S. Constitution....

Then YEAH. Don't ever send it to the Senate. Just Impeach Him!

[GoCubsGo]

10. Something tells me that this is the plan.

The only problem is that it will drive him crazier than he already is, and Gawd only knows what kind of shit that petty, vindictive asshole will pull.

[erronis]

31. He's gonna pull ugly shit no matter what the house/congress does and no matter what is good

for the country. It's his nature, and it's why he was installed.

[marble falls]

11. Shit. Not a bad idea. Especially after we peel the Senate away from him. Just so long as Pence ...

goes down with him.

[burrowowl]

13. Not a bad idea, at all.

[lastlib]

42. If enough negative sh*t comes out about Pence, ,,

he may not be on the ticket. AnusMouth would never drop out, but Pence could become enough of a liability that they'd drop him for Haley.

[Sogo]

15. Subtitle to this thread:

Don't let THIS Senate exonerate Trump!

[DonaldsRump]

16. An excellent thought

Let us (and the USA) NEVER forget that the reason we are not allowed to get to the bottom of Ukraine, Russia, emoluments, etc etc is SOLELY because of Trump's stonewalling/obstruction.

There is no rush to judgement. Rather, there is Trump's cover-up.

Period. End of discussion.

[Sogo]

18. I so much want

....to deprive the GOP of their impending Senate circus and the Faux News unending noise about him being exonerated.

The Faux News watchers won't know enough to know that once again they've been played.

I say, "Follow Dean's advice....Don't hand them the story. Don't let them write the history of this impeachment!"

[oasis]

19. That works for me. Go for it.

[Mr. Ected]

20. Dems need to play this like "Merrick Garland Revisited"

Let the American people decide which Senate holds the impeachment trial.

The one that already said that they will exonerate the President, before the first piece of evidence was ever presented in the House? The one that just said that it would likely shut the Dems out of the rules determinations?

Nope. This is too important to let expediency decide the outcome. We need to wait for Election 2020. We need to see what the Senate composition will be at that time. Another incentive to vote down ballot for Dems and independents alike (and more than a few disgusted Republicans).

[Sogo]

21. Exactly!

Well said!

[stuffmatters]

37. 100% agree. Keep Trump facing his trial in a Dem Senate vs gifting it now to Mitch & his SCOTUS.

Why let Trump campaign on "complete exoneration" instead of keeping the impeachment in the media spotlight and hanging over Trump & the Repugs the whole campaign year. Let it become the media's new "but her emails".(" but Trump's impeachment"...)
Garlanding McConnell & Trump would just be so badass & satisfying.

[UCmeNdc]

22. Kick!

[malaise]

23. That is precisely my thinking

ITTMF RFN and then keep Moscow Mitch and the Con waiting with ore investigations.

[calimary]

24. I really like this idea!

The more I think about it, the better I like it.

Deny Moscow Mitch the “happy ending” to which he thinks he’s entitled. Pass impeachment and the. DON’T send it to the Senate.

Let it hang there indefinitely, with the successful vote to impeach, and then leave it at that. The impeachment is the goal. The impeachment is what will be in the first line of his obituary for all time. Let it stand. And let the election happen and then we take it from there.

DO NOT give trump the opportunity to be saved in the Senate. Don’t even let it get there. Might even use it as leverage against ol’ Moscow. You wanna play the big rescuer of trump, overseeing a Senate trial sure to go his way? And win yourself some VERY temporary brownie points with this snake who lies all the time, and changes his mind depending on the hour of day and capricious mood he’s in and who he thought he just talked to last? Not so fast, pal. We’ve got more than 250 bills gathering dust on your desk. You get some of those bills to the Senate floor for a vote. Then we’ll talk about giving you your chance to play hero in a show trial for donald.

Hang both of those miserable bastards out to dry and let ‘em wait.

And wait.

And wait.

And maybe that’ll give us enough election cycles to get the Senate back. And THEN we reassess.

[IndyOp]

25. I had to read this entire thread before this idea made sense to me...

But now it does make sense.

I think Schiff’s statement that a LOT more will come out during the trial in the Senate suggests he is pretty confident that they have the evidence they need to move forward and is not worried about the GOP’s circus act.

[LiberalFighter]

29. I agree. Especially after the call logs only came out with the report.

The media didn't know anything about them before.

[duforsure]

26. Now that's a great idea

Hope that's taken into consideration, and knowing a lot is coming lets them just add to it as it becomes exposed more. Republicans will balk then after they claimed the process was moving too fast. It'll also allows them to control the news cycle better making sure the American people are informed properly, instead of trump and them promoting putin's and russia's propaganda they know is false for them every day. This is about pr too, and who can use it the most effectively. It also allows trump to publicly show his decline in his health, and ability to carry out any of the duties of his office, which is worsening daily. He's already self destructing. It also helps flip seats in Congress. Expect top republicans to eventually flip and remove him to stop the damage to them he's doing.

[kentuck]

27. I thought for awhile that waiting until after the election...

...with hopes that we kept the House. If Donald Trump were to win the election, then impeach immediately thereafter.

Because to impeach now would give him a reason to ask for a pardon. He would step down temporarily to allow Mike Pence to pardon him, then he would step in and take over again.

That was the downside to impeachment, in my opinion.

But, as we have seen the country's laws ignored and stepped upon, it is now plain to see that it needs to be done immediately. The Senate will need a lot of profiles in courage and nobody expects that to happen.

The people will make the final determination in the next election, regardless of how the Senate votes. They are willing to gamble with the security of our country and our Constitution.

[Wounded Bear]

28. I'm not sure they can do that...

Once the House votes to impeach, it would be up to the Senate to take up the trial.

"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments." Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 5. US Constitution

I don't think the House could block the Senate from holding the trial. From that clause it seems to me that the House has no control of the trial in any way.

Having said that, there is no stipulation that I can see that would prevent further investigation, and issuance of further articles of impeachment should they be warranted.

[LiberalFighter]

30. The first part you may be right.

But the House does have control in the trial as they do the prosecution.

I don't see the Senate having any power but to vote after. They would if it involved other civil officers but there is a stipulation for the Supreme Court Justice to take over as presiding officer.

[AncientGeezer]

55. "But the House does have control in the trial as they do the prosecution."

No.....just wrong. The Senate has FULL rule in the "trial" phase...Art.I Sec.III

No.....just wrong.."but there is a stipulation for the Supreme Court Justice to take over as presiding officer."
During a Senate Trial on Impeachment articles, The Chief Justice presides....doesn't take over, doesn't set the Senate rules...

[grantcart]

32. Correct. Once voted it on it is automatically the business of the Senate

In fact I believe the Senate can't consider any other business until the trial is concluded.

[CaptainTruth]

34. Send it to the Senate, make GOP Senators defend the orange criminal, AND keep investigating.

That being said, I don't think the House can "NOT send it to the Senate" as Dean says because the Constitution says the Senate has sole authority to conduct an impeachment trial. It doesn't say "unless the House doesn't send it to them, then they can't hold a trial."

Per the Constitution, I don't see the House having any control over whether or not the Senate holds a trial, just like the Senate has no control over whether or not the House votes to impeach.

[SWBTATTReg]

35. Yes, let's do a Moscow Mitch maneuver...serves him right being that's he a worthless toady ...

[scarytomcat]

36. sounds like my plan

let's do it

[Rebl2]

39. Wouldn't it

be a new Congress and have to start all over? Also what if we lose the House. Don’t think it’s a good idea.

[The Wizard]

48. Have new impeachment hearings

based on the obstruction findings in the Mueller report. Hell, start new inquiries every month until Trump takes the Herman Goering exit strategy.

[AncientGeezer]

52. You want to wind up the Dumsters....this is the way to do it. And the Press...apoplectic.

"AND, if Trump gets re-elected AND Dems take the Senate, at that point he's REMOVED!".....Then Pence is POTUS.

A thought exercise that wasn't really well thought out.

[Sogo]

53. OK,

but John Dean's part of the idea is worth considering....

I just don't want the GOP to get the referral and then re-write the history of the impeachment....

[AncientGeezer]

54. You can't stop it..what JD suggested is a a wet dream.

If the House(the full body) votes to impeach....precedent would kick in.
Unless we get really stupid and hand the argument..."it's a political hit job that they(us) won't follow up on" to the trumpanzees.....Speaker Pelosi will NEVER allow that.
It's going to the Senate once the House votes.....but House investigations can continue.

[onenote]

56. In this instance, John Dean proves he doesn't know House procedural rules

There seems to be some belief that the House can vote to adopt articles of impeachment and then never take any action to appoint managers or direct their delivery to the Senate.

Well, even if that was a good idea...and it most definitely is not, unlike the Garland situation where McConnell could prevent a vote from taking place, Pelosi cannot prevent a vote from being called on a resolution to immediately appoint managers and send the articles to the Senate. Any Republican member of the House could introduce such a resolution and under the House rules, it would be "privileged" meaning no other action could be taken by the House until they voted on that resolution. The Democrats who just rushed to vote on articles of impeachment are not going to want to publicly vote to shelve those articles. It would be unprecedented to do so and it would give the Republicans a chance to shape the media narrative by accusing the Democrats of engaging in a sham proceeding and denying Trump his "day in court."

Pelosi has made it abundantly clear that impeachment is a constitutional imperative that couldn't wait. She's not going to support any effort to stall out the process. You can bet the mortgage on it.

[Sogo]

57. Well, well, well.....

.....John Dean's idea wasn't so bad afterall.....

.....also Lawrence Tribe's......