I suggested back when the Mueller Report was dropped that the House should have some sort of "impeachment inquiry" (was open about the terminology), which could be an extended process. The thing for me was that Trump, especially the matters around that report but also other stuff, required something more than ordinary investigations. The breadth of his problems could require multiple investigations with different battles over subpoenas or whatnot. Battles over his tax returns might be different than investigation of the Russian interference with our elections.
Anyway, that was not what happened, and it seemed to take a long time to even being the battle over subpoenas while there also were continuing extended battles over emoluments as well. The fight for his tax returns, e.g., seemed to take a long time. It was depressing though how these things go, let's remember the House Dems just gained control of the House in 2019 and the government shutdown delayed things too. Why emoluments battles still are taking so long when they could have started back in 2017 is less clear. The delays underline why "let's hit a pause and battle in the courts for subpoenas for Bolton et. al." seems like a bad idea.
Things sped up with the Ukraine Extortion Racket being exposed in late summer. The biggest drama was the testimony of various fact witnesses in the House Intelligence Committee. The Mueller Report should have resulted in an extended process (there were investigations in Congress over the events covered to some degree, but the Report could have provided a way to comprehensibly address things, including Trump obstruction) of similar nature, instead of Robert Mueller (months later) testifying and people belittling it when it happened. Trump basically got a pass.
The testimony underlines the potential of a major impeachment inquiry process that was crafted for the biggest dramatic effect as well as having some value to bring out important facts. For instance, the Oversight Committee (with AOC) had some powerful moments, and one can imagine financial committees doing something with the emoluments and other issues. Was there an excuse made that litigation was pending to release important financial records? As seen in the Ukraine matter, other ways were available to get stuff out there. Did Schiff leading the committee help some? I think the key thing was that the Ukraine Extortion Racket was so easy to show as a blatant wrong.
Still, again, I think more of the same could have been out there if things were handled differently. This all might be repetitive but I do think a lost opportunity should be flagged. There were some on what I might call "Team Nadler" who supported an impeachment inquiry earlier. Anyhow, after the fact witnesses, the next two steps -- Judiciary and Rules (today) -- had less drama. The law professors (including the fake allegation of going after Barron Trump for use of word play in a single comment) has some bite. The next part was repetitive. The best part was a bunch of personal statements by Judiciary members that basically said "we are here to serve the public, but Trump forced our hands." The Republicans mostly clowned. Rep. Jamie Raskin, professor extraordinaire, was the star of the show today during the Rules debate, which seems mostly a delay mechanism by the Republicans. But, not by much, since things are suddenly quick -- a few legislative days handled these two steps.
Impeachment, only the third time on this level in our history, is scheduled tomorrow. With the conclusion that the Senate will simply not convict, some basically seem to handwave this as mostly meaningless. But, impeachment to me is not so trivial. And, as I noted already, the limited nature of the impeachment is misleading. The impeachment is being carried out with the recognition of his wider crimes, the 2016 election specifically alluded to in the text. A person is however a bit clueless if they do not understand that things go even further than that. Republican attempts to ridicule the limited evidence is hard to take seriously.
As is, the assumption is that the trial will be in January. I think this is useful in that it puts things ahead of February primaries though the three senators running (is Booker still a thing?) might be making final preparations before then as well. Just what it will entail remains to be seen. And, it doesn't mean everything else will suddenly stop. An impeachment directly related to interfering with another election given the involvement of the current leading candidate (sigh) is time sensitive. It's an open wound overall: Trump used authorized foreign aid as a level to promote his own ends. How can he be trusted with money of any type that might be used in a similar fashion? But, investigations will continue, as they always do. Career criminals do not only have a single prosecution.
===
I was originally going to tack on a couple more religious related cases to add to my big holiday display entry. One would be Lee v. Weisman, especially Justice Souter's concurrence, which provides a historical analysis (one of many which shows the liberal possibilities of originalism) mixed with his support of precedent. This includes another explanation why Thanksgiving Proclamations (which Jefferson and Madison were not overly comfortable with anyhow) does not suddenly justify prayers and so forth.
Justice Souter also dissented in the Van Orden v. Perry Ten Commandments case (largely fact based) while writing the majority opinion in the companion case. The note here would be Justice Stevens' more extended dissent, which also explains why they are different from certain "civic religion" moments like "God Save This Honorable Court." One footnote also answers the "this has been around for so long before someone sued" argument by citing a range of lower court cases, one going back to the early 1970s. I cited a few old cases before and more could be seen here. The district court ruling there actually held against the Ten Commandments monument in question.
Shades of abortion and other sexual privacy related issues -- there are a myriad of lower court opinions that cover things in various ways, including at times splitting things in ways not found my the majority of the Supreme Court. Back in the day, it was a trip to the library downtown to even read federal reporters. Now, you could read a bunch of things online, and not just via paywall legal databases (many articles are so blocked). Fun!
Anyway, that was not what happened, and it seemed to take a long time to even being the battle over subpoenas while there also were continuing extended battles over emoluments as well. The fight for his tax returns, e.g., seemed to take a long time. It was depressing though how these things go, let's remember the House Dems just gained control of the House in 2019 and the government shutdown delayed things too. Why emoluments battles still are taking so long when they could have started back in 2017 is less clear. The delays underline why "let's hit a pause and battle in the courts for subpoenas for Bolton et. al." seems like a bad idea.
Things sped up with the Ukraine Extortion Racket being exposed in late summer. The biggest drama was the testimony of various fact witnesses in the House Intelligence Committee. The Mueller Report should have resulted in an extended process (there were investigations in Congress over the events covered to some degree, but the Report could have provided a way to comprehensibly address things, including Trump obstruction) of similar nature, instead of Robert Mueller (months later) testifying and people belittling it when it happened. Trump basically got a pass.
The testimony underlines the potential of a major impeachment inquiry process that was crafted for the biggest dramatic effect as well as having some value to bring out important facts. For instance, the Oversight Committee (with AOC) had some powerful moments, and one can imagine financial committees doing something with the emoluments and other issues. Was there an excuse made that litigation was pending to release important financial records? As seen in the Ukraine matter, other ways were available to get stuff out there. Did Schiff leading the committee help some? I think the key thing was that the Ukraine Extortion Racket was so easy to show as a blatant wrong.
Still, again, I think more of the same could have been out there if things were handled differently. This all might be repetitive but I do think a lost opportunity should be flagged. There were some on what I might call "Team Nadler" who supported an impeachment inquiry earlier. Anyhow, after the fact witnesses, the next two steps -- Judiciary and Rules (today) -- had less drama. The law professors (including the fake allegation of going after Barron Trump for use of word play in a single comment) has some bite. The next part was repetitive. The best part was a bunch of personal statements by Judiciary members that basically said "we are here to serve the public, but Trump forced our hands." The Republicans mostly clowned. Rep. Jamie Raskin, professor extraordinaire, was the star of the show today during the Rules debate, which seems mostly a delay mechanism by the Republicans. But, not by much, since things are suddenly quick -- a few legislative days handled these two steps.
Impeachment, only the third time on this level in our history, is scheduled tomorrow. With the conclusion that the Senate will simply not convict, some basically seem to handwave this as mostly meaningless. But, impeachment to me is not so trivial. And, as I noted already, the limited nature of the impeachment is misleading. The impeachment is being carried out with the recognition of his wider crimes, the 2016 election specifically alluded to in the text. A person is however a bit clueless if they do not understand that things go even further than that. Republican attempts to ridicule the limited evidence is hard to take seriously.
As is, the assumption is that the trial will be in January. I think this is useful in that it puts things ahead of February primaries though the three senators running (is Booker still a thing?) might be making final preparations before then as well. Just what it will entail remains to be seen. And, it doesn't mean everything else will suddenly stop. An impeachment directly related to interfering with another election given the involvement of the current leading candidate (sigh) is time sensitive. It's an open wound overall: Trump used authorized foreign aid as a level to promote his own ends. How can he be trusted with money of any type that might be used in a similar fashion? But, investigations will continue, as they always do. Career criminals do not only have a single prosecution.
===
I was originally going to tack on a couple more religious related cases to add to my big holiday display entry. One would be Lee v. Weisman, especially Justice Souter's concurrence, which provides a historical analysis (one of many which shows the liberal possibilities of originalism) mixed with his support of precedent. This includes another explanation why Thanksgiving Proclamations (which Jefferson and Madison were not overly comfortable with anyhow) does not suddenly justify prayers and so forth.
Justice Souter also dissented in the Van Orden v. Perry Ten Commandments case (largely fact based) while writing the majority opinion in the companion case. The note here would be Justice Stevens' more extended dissent, which also explains why they are different from certain "civic religion" moments like "God Save This Honorable Court." One footnote also answers the "this has been around for so long before someone sued" argument by citing a range of lower court cases, one going back to the early 1970s. I cited a few old cases before and more could be seen here. The district court ruling there actually held against the Ten Commandments monument in question.
Shades of abortion and other sexual privacy related issues -- there are a myriad of lower court opinions that cover things in various ways, including at times splitting things in ways not found my the majority of the Supreme Court. Back in the day, it was a trip to the library downtown to even read federal reporters. Now, you could read a bunch of things online, and not just via paywall legal databases (many articles are so blocked). Fun!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!