Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
"Impeachment is not undoing an election"
It might be, when the losing side has decided on impeachment before the inauguration. It might be, if (big "if") they used the DOJ to improperly violate the rights of a US citizen, for the purposes of hurting the Trump campaign. If Durham and the IG conclude there was noting fishy there, I'm fine with that and can let it go.
"What would the result be if the election was "undone"?"
That the man they hate with irrational intensity (a subject with which we all believe you are familiar), won't be POTUS anymore. But we elected him.
There is nothing in the Constitution about how an election is undone, so what are you talking about?
"What will the result be when Trump is impeached and tried and convicted in the Senate?"
Based on what we know at this time? How much would you like to bet that the senate does not convict, not unless another bombshell is revealed? No sane person thinks that will happen.
|
While I am glad to see that you admit that the memo of the phone call was a bombshell, why would you think that no sane person thinks that another bombshell could not be lurking?
Impeachment is not the undoing of an election.
It is the remedy provided in the Constitution for an unfit President.
In every prior impeachment the Presidents followers cried the same tale as the Trumplicans are now.
Impeachment came about as a tool for a problem other than unpopularity: unfitness. “If he be not impeachable whilst in office,” William Davie told his fellow delegates on July 20 about the proposed president, “he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected.” In Trump's case this has been very evident. Delegates’ arguments throughout the convention against an impeachment process, including the claim that a reelection of a president would be “sufficient proof of his innocence,” were rejected. Benjamin Franklin even argued that assassination had often been the only recourse for unfit leaders when policies lacked an impeachment process. “It [would] be the best way therefore,” he said, “to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive when his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.” Elbridge Gerry, a future vice president, added his view of impeachments: “A good magistrate will not fear them. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.” Gerry, along with Davie, Franklin and the others, neither suggested nor obtained any restriction on when in his term the president would be subject to impeachment.