NBC’s TODD: "Let me ask you this, why do you think Nancy Pelosi has held off her impeachment caucus?" TRUMP: "Because I think she feels that I will win much easier.” That looks about right. AND IT’S DEAD WRONG: constitutionally for sure, and even pragmatically.
-
-
Replying to @tribelaw
When I think back to the impact of the Watergate hearings, the value of the inquiry went well beyond ultimately removing Nixon. It was a public demonstration of our system’s capacity to self-correct. As badly needed today as it was then.
30 replies 315 retweets 1,055 likes -
Replying to @mattblaze @tribelaw
Even if Pelosi’s narrow political calculus is correct (which is arguable, but not out of the question), there are larger values at stake that demand public hearings.
18 replies 108 retweets 413 likes -
Replying to @mattblaze @tribelaw
A pre-requisite to the Watergate hearings was a shared commitment across parties to the institutions of democracy. I see a lot of people (not necessarily you) arguing in a cargo cult way that if we could just have the hearings, we'd somehow get the consensus back too
3 replies 3 retweets 19 likes -
The immediate political considerations are certainly important, but they aren’t the only things at stake here. I worry that by not holding hearings, we’re surrendering the idea that exposing the truth about wrongdoing has inherent value whatever the immediate outcome.
4 replies 3 retweets 28 likes -
The Wire’s wisdom that if you “aim for the king you best not miss” is all well and good, but applying it too zealously here presupposes that the president is our king, which we should start by rejecting.
3 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @mattblaze @tribelaw
One's point of view here depends a lot on how strongly one believes that core American institutions are resilient to abuse. The fact that Americans believe so strongly in their political operating system is both a strength and weakness. It hasn't been seriously tested since 1876
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I‘m certainly sympathetic to the impulse to focus on extinguishing the fire in whatever way has the best realistic chance of working, but if our constitutional institutions are incapable of acting now, why even have them? There are both long and short term consequences here.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes
The constitutional remedy for abuse of presidential power is a political remedy by design. The founders realized that you can't throw this kind of battle to the courts; you have to win it in the political arena. So winning an election on these grounds is an excellent alternative
-
-
The founders realized no such thing though; there is no constitutional basis for this notion that impeachment is the sole remedy available. Impeachment is no substitute for criminal prosecution, which is only blocked by unitary executive dogma.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.