Thanks. So it’s not a question of could they but would they...would Graham have the stones to do it ? CVould all this be nipped in the bud if done right ?
I hate to ask this again...(I have no idea about who trolls FR and this is the 3rd time I’m asking and I don’t want to put a thought in someones head)
What is to stop the House from having 30 articles of impeachment (alcee hastings had 17)
but present them to the senate for trial, 1 article at a time ?
It could run out a clock until elections. Then if the RATs take over the Senate...?
Nothing. It's traditional practice to present all the articles at once for efficiency's sake, but no requirement to be efficient.
In theory, a target could commit an offense, be impeached and acquitted, then commit a second offense. That would make for more than one impeachment.
Once you get creative, there is a near unlimited ways to abuse the process that haven't been "ruled out" by tradition or procedural norms. See what Pelosi is doing now. It is not expressly ruled out. Fortuneatly, there are norms that allow resisting the miscreant. At least in this case.
In Trump's case, the abuse of power in appointing SC and many of the other ongoing abuses have no immediate remedy. The process is stacked in favor of wrongdoers in the government. It's a good thing he fights. Usually the bad guys win.
WAPO FWIW
National Security
Congress’s subpoena power is not what it used to be
Congress’s power to enforce subpoenas by exercising its contempt power is now “really toothless,” said Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor who teaches at George Washington University Law School.
The reason, in part, is that Congress relies on the very Justice Department it is pursuing to prosecute the contempt citation.
And the Justice Department has, in the past, simply declined to do so.
That leaves Congress only one route: a possibly interminable civil litigation.
Excerpt