Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
So is George Conway
“It’s not a modest proposal—it’s brilliant. Nothing in the Constitution dictates the procedure by which the House decides whether to pass a bill of impeachment. No reason why it can’t hold a trial for the American people to see. Let the chips fall where they may.”
|
Conway is a Trump hater. And he is in no special position which makes his opinions some gold standard of political or constitutional thought.
And Tribe's proposal is thoughtless idiocy driven by partisanship and hate. His language presupposes Trump's guilt and so is irrational to begin with, as well as being stupid, a contradiction to law or reason or purposes for criminal trials or the duty of the House, and a disregard for the consequences that would occur every time the House is ruled by the party to which the President doesn't belong.
Tribe, Conway, Spence, and you are constantly assuring us that Trump is guilty. If you didn't think so, or you were not sure, would you believe that a public trial of the President by the house is a good idea merely to convince the public that the President is a criminal? Would such a trial (which no doubt would happen every time the House was of an opposing party) serve the non-partisan responsibilities to which the branches of the Federal Government must be faithful, or would it be another way to play political opposition in order to obstruct the governing party's attempt to govern? Would giving the legislative branch such judicial powers be another instance of further destroying constitutional separation of powers?
And criminal trials are meant to convict, not to make a show for political purposes--not to be show trials.
Threaded Mode