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 Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

Showing Original Post only (View all)

MBS

(9,688 posts)
Tue Mar 12, 2019, 02:35 PM Mar 2019

Jennifer Rubin on Pelosi and impeachment [View all]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/12/pelosis-right-forget-about-impeachment/?

The key is "unless."

.
. .There is zero indication so far that Republicans are going to break with him so, even if the House were to impeach him, the Senate wouldn’t reach the two-thirds threshold required (and probably not even a majority) to remove him. Trump would then declare victory and Democrats would look feckless. Unless there is overwhelming and bipartisan consensus that Trump should be removed, it’s not worth seriously considering, she says. Well, that is a very significant qualifier. Impeachment is a monumental undertaking so you better have reason to do so. This is an appropriate analysis since impeachment, undoing an election via Congress, is contemplated as a political, not legal, process and requires a super majority for removal. The American people must be convinced that he cannot remain in office. If there is some atrocious smoking gun and/or the accumulated evidence is so weighty, then even Republicans’ minds might be changed. . . .
. . .
But, you say, this means he’ll “get away” with it! Nonsense. As soon as he is out of office, he can be prosecuted like any American at the federal or state level — and on any number of possible charges including obstruction of justice, campaign finance violations and a host of financial crimes involving his business and/or foundation. Why bother with congressional hearings? Well, it’s important for the voters to know what Trump has been up to so they can hold him accountable at the polls in 2020. In addition, other people’s crimes or noncriminal wrongdoing may be revealed. The very act of congressional investigation is critical to reestablishing democratic norms and the separation of powers. Moreover, let’s remember that Congress is supposed to investigate lots of things that aren’t crimes — e.g., a disastrous child-separation policy, conflicts of interest, carelessness in handling security clearances, receipt of foreign emoluments, incompetent foreign policy. That is what we do in a democracy. (I know, it’s difficult to remember after Republicans did nothing.) We insist government be transparent and we hold those responsible to account for their conduct. Finally, remember that both the special counsel and Congress are investigating a counterintelligence matter — who, if anyone, cooperated/conspired with the Russians. If Trump, members of his family or current officeholders did it, or were negligent in preventing others from doing it, we need to know.

Interestingly, though Pelosi dismisses impeachment, she has no problem pronouncing Trump “unfit."
I mean, ethically unfit. Intellectually unfit. Curiosity-wise unfit. No, I don’t think he’s fit to be president of the United States. And that’s up to us to make the contrast to show that this president — while he may be appealing to you on your insecurity and therefore your xenophobia, whether it’s globalization or immigrants — is fighting clean air for your children to breathe, clean water for them to drink, food safety, every good thing that we should be doing that people can’t do for themselves. You know, I have five kids, and I think I can do everything for them, but I can’t control the air they breathe, the water that they drink. You depend on the public sector to do certain things for the health and well-being of your family, and he is counter to that.

Trump’s fitness for office is a matter for the voters. They made a horrible judgment in that regard in 2016. Next year, they’ll have to consider the past four years and render a different judgment.

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Jennifer Rubin on Pelosi ...»Reply #0