Actually, the Constitution says very explicitly that the Senate gets to decide whether to remove the president.https://twitter.com/LarrySabato/status/1223231986988281862 …
-
-
Congressional hearings can serve purposes besides legislative decisions, of course. They can also be used to expose malfeasance to create public political pressure. But you can still hold hearings! An impeachment trial serves a more specific function.
Show this thread -
If the House thinks new testimony would support new articles of impeachment, it can do that too! It may not be the best politics, but if you think more testimony would persuade the public, then that step is available.
Show this thread -
There is indeed always the risk that doing what you believe is the right thing today will look indefensible later. Comes with the territory with Trump.https://twitter.com/NoahCRothman/status/1223324808424771584 …
Show this thread -
They have every right to do this. It would, however, be an admission politically that they mishandled the original process https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1223326568589746177 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How about the truth?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
For Rs, there are prudential political considerations they're passing up. There was never going to be a FOIA request that turns up information in Oct 2016 that showed why Garland should have been confirmed. Not necessarily the case here.
-
The House can do that for the next impeachment.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There is one purpose not discussed. Forcing a public stand on a controversial issue. The vote on Garland had one possible outcome. But it still would have been useful to know an individual congressperson’s vote.
-
Same now with impeachment. It is useful to know the vote of each member. They now have to defend it. It’s clarifying to know that only Romney was willing to buck the status quo.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Nonsense. Polls showed Reagan was going to crush Mondale, and Clinton would cruise to victory over Dole. Should we have canceled the 1984 and 1996 elections?
-
No, nor should the Senate cancel a vote on the articles. But both Reagan & Clinton likely could have gotten away with ducking debates, as candidates far ahead in statewide races have sometimes done.
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.