Laurence Tribe Tells Dems To Leave GOP-Controlled Senate Out Of Impeachment Process

[BigBearJohn]

Legal scholar and professor Laurence Tribe said on Saturday that Democrats should launch an impeachment inquiry, but they should leave the Republican-controlled Senate entirely out of it.

In an interview with MSNBC’s Joy Reid, Tribe said the biggest political problem related to impeachment is not public opinion, but instead is the inevitable refusal of Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans to convict the president, no matter what crimes he has committed.

“[House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] is assuming that launching an impeachment inquiry puts you on a collision course with the stone wall represented by McConnell and the GOP in the Senate,” Tribe said. “The House can say, ‘We are reaching our own conclusion after a full and fair hearing. We find that Donald J. Trump has committed the following serious criminal offenses, the following high crimes and misdemeanors.'”

“The likelihood is he’d be convicted,” Tribe added.

SOURCE: https://www.politicususa.com/2019/06/08/laurence-tribe-tells-dems-to-leave-gop-controlled-senate-out-of-impeachment-process.html

[Ninga]

1. Viable and needed. nt

[Laura PourMeADrink]

2. this has been posted before - but still LOVE his out-of-the-box thinking ! If you

can't ad lib with the most out of the box, out of the planet, criminal "president" ever when can you?

An assertion such as Tribe is suggesting is likely only in our dreams though. If we couldn't assert the same, a unified outrage like no other, after Mueller report came out itemizing clear obstruction of justice - would we even have the gumption later? Is gumption and outrage retroactive?

Bravo Tribe !!

[CaptainTruth]

3. What we gain from this is being able to say Trump was "convicted by Congress."

Yes, only the House, but the talking point will be "convicted by Congress."

What we lose from this, is forcing Senate Republicans (those who show up for the vote) to go on the record either voting for or against criminal Trump.

What I wonder is, can we do both? The House reaches its own conclusion, as Tribe suggests, & then still send it to the Senate?

And is it smart to do both? The Senate won't convict, so while we say "convicted by Congress" Trump & the GOP will say "totally exonerated by Congress."

[LiberalFighter]

7. Yes! It needs to put Senators on the record with their votes.

[azureblue]

8. and for those who defend Trump

"sided and covered for a criminal. So what are they hiding that would make them do such a thing?"

[Laura PourMeADrink]

9. Great questions. But...it doesn't appear that NP is looking

for other opinions does it? Strikes me that she has hunkered down?

[PJMcK]

27. Your wording is incorrect

Impeachment by the House is definitively not a “conviction by Congress.”

In fact, it is the equivalent of an indictment brought by a prosecutor in the criminal or civil court systems.

An impeachment conviction can only occur after a Senate trial and vote by the Senate.

While this may seem like a semantic point, words have meanings and arguments are weakened by misuse of words.

[True Blue American]

29. Yes

And the public hearings about all the cimes committed, the on going obstruction of Trump, attempted obstruction needs to be laid out in public.

Then Democrats can run against Republican Senators, expose their actions.

Right now so much is exploding, the gerrymandering computer proof, law suits all over the place. An AG and Attorney charged with contempt.

This has just begun. Sit back and watch

Did you see how many Democrats were on Fox today? And the Hosts did not interrupt them.

[SunSeeker]

4. K & R

[JoeOtterbein]

5. Otherwise, we are saying all is ok.

When all is not ok.

[Nuggets]

19. That's not true.

Getting justice is a game of squirming around laws.
That’s how the wealthy and corrupt law enforcement have gotten away with so much.
These people’s lawyers specialize in using the laws to get away with their crimes.

Laurence Tribe was not elected. Our elected leaders say they have a path. Pelosi and Schiff have access to far more than Tribe. They are saying not yet.

Tribe is beginning to sound like a pearl clutching, drama queen with his daily condescending “we have lost our souls” if we don’t do what he says now, bit. Maybe he should sit back and collect his emotions. Tribe could help point out the GOPs crimes instead of bashing Dems.
I wonder if continuing to try and divide Dems on the timing of impeachment hearings, or whether that’s even the best path to get justice, is a smart idea. Did he learn anything from 2016 elections?

Dems divided ended up in faithless electors casting votes for Bernie Sanders and Colin Powell.

Is that what Tribe wants?

[StarfishSaver]

20. Tribe is brilliant

But as I said in another thread:

I love and respect Professor Tribe and appreciate his wisdom, guidance and insight on this and many other issues. But he's a professor whose job it is to think and analyze in a safe and controlled environment; he's not and never has been a politician whose job it is to do while managing some very complicated external and internal realities, balancing competing interests, navigating some treacherous terrain, with no certain outcomes.

So even though his views are really important and useful - and I'm sure the Speaker is taking them into account along with numerous other considerations that he doesn't have to weigh - they aren't sacrosanct.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12173153

[Nuggets]

21. I never said he wasn't intelligent

Last edited Sun Jun 9, 2019, 04:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Brilliant? Eh .

If he were brilliant he’d quit targeting Dems and help them expose more of what Trump and the GOP leaders have done and how they all need removed.


I know tons of book smart people who are street dumb as they come. This is a narcissist’s game. Narcissists have a way of slipping through (usually through help from enablers like the “peace at all costs” crowd) and making their targets pay dearly.


It’s time to be smart like Eliot Ness.

[Nevermypresident]

28. Respectfully disagree, especially regarding Tribe. Do you read his daily tweets? I have for a

while now and he is constantly pointing out the GOP's and trump's crimes. IMO, he certainly does not bash Democrats either.

[Nuggets]

30. Implying Democrats have no morals if they

don’t impeach Trump immediately is most certainly bashing Dems.

I don’t care how “brilliant “ he supposedly is, yammering on about your expertise and abandoning your leaders is naive at best.

I couldn’t care less about following another expert second guessing Schiff and Pelosi— aka bashing Dems.

Schiff has far more experience than Tribe and he is an elected leader. Let me know when Tribe gets elected and has as much access as Schiff and Pelosi.
AFAIC Tribes sole focus should be on Trump and GOP crimes.

[Nevermypresident]

33. OKkkkk...

[LiberalFighter]

6. Disagree.

The House needs to present their case to the Senate and force them to put their vote on the record. The Senate cannot avoid it.

[csziggy]

15. The House needs to convince the public that Trump is guilty

And that they need to call their Senators to force McConnell to hold the trial required by the Constitution.

When impeach proceedings began against Nixon, few wanted to do it but as the evidence came out to the public, overwhelming public sentiment forced the Republicans to ask for Nixon's resignation. We need to do this again.

[StarfishSaver]

16. I think you're mixing up the Senate Select Committee Hearings with the impeachment hearings

By the time the Nixon impeachment hearings opened in 1974, the public had already turned on Nixon and supported impeachment, thanks largely to the information that came out as a result of the Senate Hearings the year before.

And aside from the first 20 minutes of the first hearing in May and the final discussions and votes on the Articles of Impeachment in July, the impeachment hearings weren't televised.

[csziggy]

17. The House Judiciary Committee began their hearings on Oct. 30, 1973

In January 1974 the tide began turning against Nixon and Nixon in his State of the Union address asked for a quick resolution to impeachment proceedings.

THEN the House Judiciary set up the impeachment inquiry staff to look into the charges and in February 1974 the House passed a resolution giving formal authority to the Judiciary Committee to launch an impeachment inquiry. In March 1974 the grand jury that had been called for the Watergate break in turned over their information on Nixon's involvement to the Judiciary Committee. April 1974 the Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House tapes.

Things proceeded until the formal House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings began on May 9, 1974. They eventually passed three articles of impeachment July 27-30, 1974.

The Senate hearings were entirely separate and were not a part of Nixon impeachment proceedings since Nixon resigned before the House sent their articles of impeachment to the Senate.

I wrote about "impeachment proceedings" in my previous message as an all inclusive phrase - I don't care who investigates so long as investigations happen and the results are made know to the public.

The defect with the current special counsel law is that there is no requirement that the public or their elected representatives in Congress ever see the final report. When the Executive Branch is being investigated, they should not have complete control over the investigation or the outcome, which is where it is now.

[StarfishSaver]

18. No.

The House Judiciary Committee didn't start impeachment proceedings until May 1974, 3 months after the House authorized the committee to open an impeachment inquiry.

Any hearings the Judiciary Committee had in October 1973 weren't part of an impeachment inquiry. And they didn't start until months after the Senate Select Committee's blockbuster hearings the previous summer (which you seem unaware of) and days after Agnew's resignation and the Saturday Night Massacre. The impeachment hearings that started seven months later had little to do with turning public opinion - in fact, they were the result of the change in public opinion, than the cause of it.

You really should do some research on the Watergate hearings, the Nixon impeachment effort and other proceedings related to Watergate before trying to explain them any further since you don't seem to understand very well what happened.

[csziggy]

22. Whatever the Senate did was NOT part of official impeachment proceedings

Officially, until the House referred its articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Senate had no role other than also holding hearings. While the Senate hearings may have gotten more television time and added to the public awareness of Nixon's crimes, it was not a legal part of the impeachment proceedings.

I fucking lived through the Nixon impeachment process and watched as he got away with far more than he should have - and was then pardoned for all his crimes. I know the Senate hearings affected public attitudes, the House had to begin the official process.

[Drunken Irishman]

23. Nixon's approval was also in the 20s and 30s by October, 1973...

Trump is nowhere near that level of unpopular. Hell, even before the televised hearings into Watergate in May, 1973, Nixon's approval was tanking - going from a high of 67% in January just after his second inauguration to 45% right before the hearings. That is a massive loss of support in what works out to be roughly four months. Trump has not come anywhere near seeing that level of support drop at any point in his presidency...and again, this was before the hearings into Watergate. The trajectory in '73 was awful for Nixon.

People need to get away from impeachment polls. The difference between Trump and Nixon is that Nixon was hemorrhaging support. Trump is not. That meant it was a lot easier to convince the 60+% of the country that opposed Nixon at the time to impeach. If Trump's approval fails to slide, you'll find it a lot harder tying to convince a strong majority of the country to support impeachment if Trump's disapproval is at 53%, which it's at currently, and droppong (his approval has gone up recently).

[StarfishSaver]

24. Great point!

[gldstwmn]

10. Richard Painter's response:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Just because <a href="https://twitter.com/senatemajldr?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@senatemajldr</a> doesn’t want to have a real impeachment trial doesn’t mean the House shouldn’t impeach.<br>If there is a sham trial or no trial, voters will fire both the president and the senate. If there is no impeachment, voters will fire the House.<br>We’re fed up! <a href="https://t.co/AWqriHlVLt">https://t.co/AWqriHlVLt</a></p>— Richard W. Painter (@RWPUSA) <a href="

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 8, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Poiuyt]

11. Question: With Tribe's proposal, would the House vote to impeach?

Would Trump be impeached and then the House just not forward things to the Senate? Or would they be conducting a different sort of trial?

I really want history to see that Trump was impeached (whether he was removed or not). His level of corruption should be studied for future historians.

[StarfishSaver]

12. Interesting idea

However, there's nothing stopping the Senate from still holding its own trial based on the House's action, and acquitting him anyway.

The Rules of Procedure and Practice of the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials provide for the Senate to begin proceedings "{w}hensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate." However, there is no requirement that the House refer an impeachment to the Senate in order for the Senate to act or restricting the Senate from trying a president based on other notice it receives of his impeachment.

The Senate could simply go ahead and try and exonerate him in its own after the House impeaches (even if the House doesn't vote out Articles of Impeachment), so this wouldn't necessarily "leave the Senate out of it" or avoid a Senate acquittal.

[Achilleaze]

13. Advance!

[hughee99]

14. Made up law is fun!

What he’s saying is that the Dems should hold an impeachment inquiry and just declare Trump guilty. Many have already done that even without the inquiry. Nothing he suggested will actual result in Trump’s removal from office.

[Progressive Jones]

25. Correct, but it puts the GOP controlled Senate up against the wall.

We know that McConnell wouldn't even allow it to come up in the Senate, but the House should call his bluff.
The Senate GOP will look really bad in the eyes of the voters if they take no action.
The House taking this action might even flip some GOP Sens.

[hughee99]

31. That's not what he is suggesting.

If the house sends charges to the senate, the senate can’t ignore them. He’s suggesting they have the inquiry, but never send charges to the senate.

If you want to put the senate “against the wall”, bring charges you can prove and force them to vote to acquit Trump anyway.

[Progressive Jones]

32. I know. Either way the Senate GOP gets their face rubbed in it. nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. This is necessary because Mitch and his senate friends are all NO GOOD FUCKING TRAITORS

I wish we would react APPROPRIATELY for the times we are in, as in TOTAL COLLAPSE OF OUR NATION