I think I agree with Byron York’s assessment, expressed in the Washington Examiner:
Schumer is not trying to convince all 53 Senate Republicans to support his proposal. He just needs four. There are 47 Democrats in the Senate. If Schumer can persuade four GOP senators to join Democrats, they’ll have a majority of 51 and can force the calling of new witnesses. Of course, Schumer is counting on Democrats voting as a bloc against the president, which is probably a good bet.
If Schumer gets what he wants, it seems hard to believe that will be the end of it. The request for more witnesses appears designed to lead not to closure but to reopening the case against Trump. In this way, if Democrats can introduce new testimony in the trial, they can say the new testimony has raised new questions that will require new investigation. And new investigation will require more new witnesses, which will surely lead to more new questions, which …
IMO it’s actually quite likely that the trial in the Senate will be longer than the investigation in the House has been as well as being less partisan.
I doubt that will actually change the outcome which is that a lot of people, including Adam Schiff, will be dirtied up and Trump will ultimately be acquitted and the odds of his being re-elected in November will rise.
Schumer wants a trial with witnesses who did not testify in impeachment proceedings in the House.
House Democrats are asking a judge for Mueller grand jury testimony so that can be included in the trial.
As they say, be careful what you wish for…
One interesting, if unlikely, possibility I read about is that the House would bring impeachment charges but not pass them to the Senate. That would keep the Senate from acquitting Trump, would keep the process kind of open and drag it out, and would be a kind of censure since there’d be no trial.
I also thought Bryon York’s comments a possible course of action to be used in the Senate. However, Andy’s post gives yet another alternate route being supposedly mulled over by the House Democrats.
IMO, should the House decide the latter method – to impeach and then not send it on to the Senate – avoiding the probability of vindication or acquittal, it will demonstrate what is really behind the opposition party’s ploys of endless investigations and now impeachment. What will be vividly clear is the Democrats have been going down a lot of fabricated, unnecessary rabbit holes in order to simply muddy and then oust a sitting president they dislike, rather than objecting to and seeking fair bipartisan trials and/or proportional remedies towards addressing real breeches of law, malfeasance, or unethical conduct.
I think that ship has already sailed. Have started an impeachment inquiry IMO the House Democrats have no choice but to vote to impeach and I expect that is what will happen. I do not believe that Speaker Pelosi would have allowed the inquiry to start unless she thought she had the votes to impeach. If impeachment were not put to a floor vote she’d lose the speakership.
They have another strategy for keeping the issue up in the air: regularly voting to impeach. I expect that to happen as well.
“They have another strategy for keeping the issue up in the air: regularly voting to impeach. I expect that to happen as well.”
Think they will go for 8 attempts to match the GOP and Benghazi?
Steve
I thought that perseverating on that was dumb, too. I get it. They thought they smelled blood. They didn’t.
Dave,
Supposedly the House can vote on Impeachment but not transmit the articles to the Senate. Some are advocating using this as leverage against the Senate or to keep the indictment open but not adjudicated. I don’t know how valid, practical or likely this is.
Sure the House can. But if it should do so I believe that Speaker Pelosi’s speakership would be challenged. The faction of her caucus she is trying to appease with first the inquiry and now the impeachment would be satisfied with nothing less.
Since the reason we’re going through this exercise is to preserve her speakership, passing impeachment but not sending it to the Senate just isn’t an option.
Having a impeachment be a live matter on election day is electoral dynamite.
Its just a gambit like Schumer’s witness gambit, to get senate trial rules more in Democrats favor. Democrats just realized Republicans get to set the rules in the senate trial and Democrats cannot do much about it. The time to influence the Senate trial rules was when Democrats had the chance to set bipartisan rules at the beginning of impeachment proceedings, but that ship has sailed.
Based on Pelosi’s comments Andy may be correct.
I guess she’s still thinking about it, in a somber, prayerful and Constitutionally reverential way of course.
They could hold on while they try to get the courts to order Bolton et al to testify. Might make good leverage over Trump.
Steve
I know that the Supreme Court has ruled that both executive privilege and Congressional oversight are implications of the separation of powers. Don’t be surprised if the Court sides with the executive on executive privilege.
Good point. It is a Republican SCOTUS. What was I thinking.
Steve