THE BIG question after Tuesday's election will not be whether Obamacare is repealed, Social Security expanded or the Ryan budget passed. It will be whether the nation's leaders act to preserve our republic — or hasten a descent toward a banana republic.
Their first priority must be preserving and restoring the country's democratic institutions and culture. The new president must advance an agenda and tone consistent with the goal of cultivating national unity. But it is just as important that Congress be open to — and seek — the same. That means looking for compromises where they are still possible, staffing the government in an orderly way and slowly rebuilding trust between the country's disparate factions.
Unfortunately, many congressional Republicans appear set on making an already corrosive atmosphere in Washington even more toxic. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, promised to mire the country in years of investigations if Hillary Clinton wins. Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) raised the possibility that Republicans would block any Clinton Supreme Court nominee. Now Republicans are brazenly and irresponsibly discussing the true nuclear option: impeachment.
"Assuming she wins and the investigation goes forward and it looks like an indictment is pending, at that point in time under the Constitution, the House of Representatives would engage in an impeachment trial," Rep. Michael McCaul (Tex.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said last week. "All options are definitely on the table," Rep. Trent Franks (Ariz.), chairman of a Judiciary subcommittee, said when The Post asked him about impeachment. "I would say yes, high crime or misdemeanor," Sen. Ron Johnson (Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, told a Wisconsin newspaper. Other high-profile Republicans have warned of a "constitutional crisis." When we asked House Speaker Paul D. Ryan's office about this talk, a spokeswoman replied, "Our only focus right now is on beating Democrats," noting that the speaker would be campaigning with Mr. Johnson.
Barring some truly new and explosive revelation, an impeachment drive would ultimately fail. A two-thirds majority of the Senate would not convict, and that outcome would reflect more than just partisanship. This sentence should not need writing: There is no substantiated charge against Ms. Clinton that would warrant impeachment, or even talk of impeachment. Despite suggestions otherwise, there is also no imminent indictment against the Democratic nominee, or any available evidence suggesting that indictment is a realistic possibility. Instead, what the nation has seen over the closing days of this campaign is a party preparing to (mis)use extraordinary congressional powers for despicable political ends.
Factionalism and the naked quest for power are overwhelming the rule of law and essential civic norms. The FBI has become embroiled in a presidential election, with law enforcement agents selectively leaking material in an apparent effort to damage a political candidate who has been neither indicted nor convicted of any crime. Talk of impeaching the next president on trumped-up charges is becoming routine. Republicans must ask themselves if surrendering to their worst political instincts is worth surrendering their country.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-mull-the-nuclear-option/2016/11/05/180321c2-a2bc-11e6-8832-23a007c77bb4_story.html
There needs to be proper leadership on both sides of the aisle on this. What I mean is that the leadership of both parties make a very public display of unity and acceptance of the outcome - whatever the outcome. The Republican leadership will also do well to tighten the screws on anyone who dissents or tries to make trouble in the event Trump loses.
About as much as Al Gore did :D :D :D
Seriously though, if there's any fuss it will just be the vocal trump supporters, nothing big.
Geez, this is the same kind of fear mongering I usually hear from the conservatives about Hilz and Barack.
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on November 07, 2016, 10:24:04 AM
Quote from: spuwho on November 07, 2016, 10:14:35 AM
Geez, this is the same kind of fear mongering I usually hear from the conservatives about Hilz and Barack.
No, it actually isn't. No one is saying "There will be a constitutional crisis" simply by electing Trump. No congress person is saying if Trump is elected that he or she will immediately start impeachment investigations and block his Supreme Court nominees simply out of spite. Clinton has never said, "hey Trump's going to take your guns, maybe you should shoot him**."
So, no it isn't the same. I am no huge Clinton fan, but there are ZERO similarities between these candidates and each one's fitness to govern.
(** Not an exact quote, but that was the gist)
You're right. They're saying much worse about what will happen if Trump is elected.
I'm sure they will since most of the electorate will just go back to watching the Voice and football after Wednesday.
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on November 07, 2016, 10:46:19 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on November 07, 2016, 10:26:16 AM
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on November 07, 2016, 10:24:04 AM
Quote from: spuwho on November 07, 2016, 10:14:35 AM
Geez, this is the same kind of fear mongering I usually hear from the conservatives about Hilz and Barack.
No, it actually isn't. No one is saying "There will be a constitutional crisis" simply by electing Trump. No congress person is saying if Trump is elected that he or she will immediately start impeachment investigations and block his Supreme Court nominees simply out of spite. Clinton has never said, "hey Trump's going to take your guns, maybe you should shoot him**."
So, no it isn't the same. I am no huge Clinton fan, but there are ZERO similarities between these candidates and each one's fitness to govern.
(** Not an exact quote, but that was the gist)
You're right. They're saying much worse about what will happen if Trump is elected.
Again, no, they aren't. They point out that his well-demonstrated lack of curiosity, lack of decorum, short-temper, insecurity, and numerous other personality traits are troublesome and worrying, because they are; not to mention his complete lack of knowledge on anything other than screaming into the void. No one is saying his possible election is, on its face, illegitimate and the result of illegality; or that his simple election is unconstitutional. No one is saying he should be murdered if elected. But, keep trying to draw that false equivalency.
Most of the anti-Trump comments tend to focus on his election being a total disaster and the end of the world. I think they are over the top and kind of ludicrous.
But no one has implied - or stated outright, for that matter - that Trump is going to cheat his way into the Oval Office. Or that his election would not be valid in some other way.
Quote from: spuwho on November 07, 2016, 10:14:35 AM
Geez, this is the same kind of fear mongering I usually hear from the conservatives about Hilz and Barack.
Quote from: Tacachale on November 07, 2016, 10:26:16 AM
They're saying much worse about what will happen if Trump is elected.
Please link to a sitting Democratic member of Congress who is saying that if Trump wins and the Democrats take the Senate that they will institute impeachment proceedings, conduct non-stop investigations, and refuse to confirm any of Trump's appointments.
Quote from: finehoe on November 07, 2016, 11:51:24 AM
Quote from: spuwho on November 07, 2016, 10:14:35 AM
Geez, this is the same kind of fear mongering I usually hear from the conservatives about Hilz and Barack.
Quote from: Tacachale on November 07, 2016, 10:26:16 AM
They're saying much worse about what will happen if Trump is elected.
Please link to a sitting Democratic member of Congress who is saying that if Trump wins and the Democrats take the Senate that they will institute impeachment proceedings, conduct non-stop investigations, and refuse to confirm any of Trump's appointments.
I dont think we are talking the same things.
I am talking about scare tactics for political gain. YOu are talking about specific post electoral activities.
Since George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, competing political interests always come up with scare talk to try to initiate a direction in people.
For Washington, it was the scare that he might try to make himself king of the US. When Abe first ran, some southerners in cahoots with some elite easterners tried to make Lincolns mom the bastard daughter of a whore.
Of course none of it was true. Washington had always said he didnt want to be president a third time and Lincoln had to write a biography of his mom and grandmother to quell the silliness.
So to me all the talk is just scare politics to see what sticks.
Quote from: spuwho on November 07, 2016, 05:26:27 PM
I am talking about scare tactics for political gain. YOu are talking about specific post electoral activities.
So who are the Republicans in Congress trying to scare when they say they will ignore the will of the American electorate after Hillary is sworn in? Who gains politically from this kind of talk?