Byblos wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:20 amRick Scott is proposing a constitutional amendment to raise the impeachment threshold in the house from simple majority to 3/5th. This way some measure of bipartisanship is somewhat assured before impeachment is voted on.
I read it. I don't support it. It's a partisan political ploy which, if implemented, would further weaken Congressional oversight. It's just Scott virtue signalling and validating Trump's sense of victimhood.
You're not going to agree with me on this, but I saw the evidence and Trump did it. Impeachment was warranted. Scott's claim that the process needs to have some bipartisan backing is a joke. If there had been a 3/5 majority required then Trump would still have done it, but the House wouldn't have impeached him.
The Founder's intent, as I understand it, was that the House have the sole power of impeachment. If they want to change their rules to make it a 3/5 majority then more power to them, but personally I think a simple majority is fine. Trump's impeachment wasn't frivolous and neither was Clinton's. Nixon apparently did nothing wrong since Trump did all of the same things that Nixon did, only more, and was acquitted. Still, Watergate seems like it at least merited an investigation. And other than those three we haven't had an impeachment since 1868. If impeachment becomes commonplace maybe we should revisit that 3/5 thing, but 3 times in the last 45 years (counting Nixon even though he really wasn't) isn't all that much.
Byblos wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:20 am- I propose a similar amendment to make the senate vote for conviction the same, 3/5th instead of 2/3rd
I'm fine with the 2/3 majority. I think that there should be a high bar for removing a sitting President (or judge or whatever). The part that infuriates me is the cover-up. Trump obstructed the House investigation and then the Senate declined to allow the evidence that Trump blocked during the inquiry to come to light during the trial.
Impeachment is both a legal and a political process. If the Senate GOP judged that there wasn't enough voter support for removing the President or simply made the political calculation that it was in their interest to acquit then fine, whatever. That's politics. I think they're hypocritical, gutless suck-ups, but they can vote how they see fit and then sell it to their constituents as best they can.
But the Senate also had a responsibility to the people that they represent to do the most thorough hearing possible. If new information comes to light in a criminal trial then nobody says "Too late - this is a trial and we don't investigate here," they introduce it into evidence and use it to inform their decision. The goal of both the investigation and the trial should be to learn the truth and then communicate that truth to the voters. The Senate GOP utterly failed in their duty. That enrages me.
Byblos wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:20 am- Another idea, some kind of an impeachment process reform bill that will clearly define the following:
- 1. The respective roles of the house and senate. The house does the investigation, subpoenas, evidence gathering and so forth. The senate tries the case and renders a verdict
- 2. Expedited redress in the courts (this is not unprecedented, though I forget the case specifics)
- 3. Guaranteed due process, the president's legal counsel is involved every step of the way
A bill wouldn't do it. It would need to be a Constitutional amendment.
The first one is kind of based on the presumption that the House asked the Senate to do investigative work. They didn't. They asked the Senate to allow the testimony John Bolton to testify after Bolton said he'd be willing to do so. Anyway, I actually think that the impeachment managers and the President's counsel should have the right to call witnesses if new information arises. Get it all out in the open. No cover-ups.
For number two, I disagree. I think that the expectation should be that if the House subpoenas a document or witness the President can either invoke executive privilege or respect the subpoena. I'm fine with the Courts being able to weigh in on whether or not executive privilege is appropriate if there's a dispute, but that's it. The Constitution gives the House the power to investigate the President and that settles the matter.
I disagree with number three as well. That stuff about due process during the investigation is complete nonsense. Nobody gets to insert their legal team into an ongoing investigation. No President has ever been removed from office by impeachment. There's no need to beef up their ability to defend themselves by giving them an inside man to interfere with the investigative process. Trump had counsel during the House impeachment hearing and the Senate trial. That's more than enough.
I'm really frustrated right now, but I don't think that the process is the problem. The problem is that Mitch McConnell worked closely with the President to try and minimize the damage from the impeachment, and that's
not his job. The Senate is supposed to check the President's power. Their role in the trial was oversight. Despite that fact, weeks before the trial McConnell said the following:
“I’m not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There’s not anything judicial about it. The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I’m not impartial about this at all.”
And immediately before the trial he took the following oath:
“I solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”
McConnell flagrantly violated his oath and his duty to uphold the Constitution. Unfortunately I'm not sure what we can do about that, other than elect better leaders.