AMF, Andy
-
Democrats’ Evolving View on Impeaching an Executive Who Has Left Office
Now that Andrew Cuomo has resigned as New York’s governor, to take effect two weeks hence, the question naturally arises: What is to become of the state assembly’s impeachment investigation?
After all, impeachment has heated up since the issuance of state attorney general Letitia James’s report on Cuomo’s many alleged instances of sexual harassment.
Remember, that’s when they told us it was imperative to proceed with the impeachment of President Trump, even though he would be leaving office two weeks after the Capitol riot. It would not be sufficient to censure Trump, Democrats inveighed. Only impeachment would do — the impeachment of an official who would no longer be in a position to abuse the powers of the office he had abusively wielded.
Why? Because, Democrats asserted, Trump might run again.
No way, many of us countered; Trump is done as far as electoral office is concerned — his devoted following might want him to seek the presidency, but the political reality is that he is too damaged to win a national election.
Not good enough, Democrats countered. Trump needed to be barred from running again as a matter of law. Only impeachment could do that. Democrats stressed that, under the Constitution, the penalty for impeachment was not merely removal from office but disqualification from holding office in the future. It was vital to impeach Trump, they insisted, in order to trigger this disqualification — even if he was out of office, even if his acquittal in a Senate trial was certain, and even if impeachment proceedings would divert Congress from dealing with the nation’s pressing business in the middle of a once-in-a-century pandemic.
So . . . of course Cuomo, too, must be impeached, right?
After all, the New York State constitution’s impeachment provision mirrors the federal disqualification clause. Here it is, right there in Article VI, Section 24:
"Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to . . . removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any public office of honor, trust, or profit under this state."
Don’t all the same Democratic arguments apply, then? Mustn’t the impeachment of Cuomo proceed, just as it was purportedly critical that the impeachment of Trump proceed? Indeed, under circumstances where Cuomo has not apologized, says he did nothing wrong, and persists in portraying his downfall as a political witch hunt, some of the governor’s admirers are already whispering that, after lying low for a while, he could run for another term next year — just as he had been planning to do. It would be the ultimate vindication.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Democrats’ Evolving View on Impeaching an Executive Who Has Left Office
Now that Andrew Cuomo has resigned as New York’s governor, to take effect two weeks hence, the question naturally arises: What is to become of the state assembly’s impeachment investigation?
After all, impeachment has heated up since the issuance of state attorney general Letitia James’s report on Cuomo’s many alleged instances of sexual harassment.
Remember, that’s when they told us it was imperative to proceed with the impeachment of President Trump, even though he would be leaving office two weeks after the Capitol riot. It would not be sufficient to censure Trump, Democrats inveighed. Only impeachment would do — the impeachment of an official who would no longer be in a position to abuse the powers of the office he had abusively wielded.
Why? Because, Democrats asserted, Trump might run again.
No way, many of us countered; Trump is done as far as electoral office is concerned — his devoted following might want him to seek the presidency, but the political reality is that he is too damaged to win a national election.
Not good enough, Democrats countered. Trump needed to be barred from running again as a matter of law. Only impeachment could do that. Democrats stressed that, under the Constitution, the penalty for impeachment was not merely removal from office but disqualification from holding office in the future. It was vital to impeach Trump, they insisted, in order to trigger this disqualification — even if he was out of office, even if his acquittal in a Senate trial was certain, and even if impeachment proceedings would divert Congress from dealing with the nation’s pressing business in the middle of a once-in-a-century pandemic.
So . . . of course Cuomo, too, must be impeached, right?
After all, the New York State constitution’s impeachment provision mirrors the federal disqualification clause. Here it is, right there in Article VI, Section 24:
"Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to . . . removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any public office of honor, trust, or profit under this state."
Don’t all the same Democratic arguments apply, then? Mustn’t the impeachment of Cuomo proceed, just as it was purportedly critical that the impeachment of Trump proceed? Indeed, under circumstances where Cuomo has not apologized, says he did nothing wrong, and persists in portraying his downfall as a political witch hunt, some of the governor’s admirers are already whispering that, after lying low for a while, he could run for another term next year — just as he had been planning to do. It would be the ultimate vindication.
Big difference -- Cuomo resigned, Trump lost the election; Cuomo did not incite a mob to storm the Capitol and invalidate the results of a democratic election, Trump did.
-
@axtremus Trump was impeached and found not guilty.
Cuomo has that barrier to climb, should the NY legislature enact impeachment. I doubt that'll happen.
Hopefully, he'll face criminal charges.
Cuomo did not incite a mob to storm the Capitol
No, he sexually assaulted a bunch of women. That's totes different.
and invalidate the results of a democratic election, Trump did.
He didn't invalidate the election. Biden is president. He had no authority to do so.
-
Democrats’ Evolving View on Impeaching an Executive Who Has Left Office
Now that Andrew Cuomo has resigned as New York’s governor, to take effect two weeks hence, the question naturally arises: What is to become of the state assembly’s impeachment investigation?
After all, impeachment has heated up since the issuance of state attorney general Letitia James’s report on Cuomo’s many alleged instances of sexual harassment.
Remember, that’s when they told us it was imperative to proceed with the impeachment of President Trump, even though he would be leaving office two weeks after the Capitol riot. It would not be sufficient to censure Trump, Democrats inveighed. Only impeachment would do — the impeachment of an official who would no longer be in a position to abuse the powers of the office he had abusively wielded.
Why? Because, Democrats asserted, Trump might run again.
No way, many of us countered; Trump is done as far as electoral office is concerned — his devoted following might want him to seek the presidency, but the political reality is that he is too damaged to win a national election.
Not good enough, Democrats countered. Trump needed to be barred from running again as a matter of law. Only impeachment could do that. Democrats stressed that, under the Constitution, the penalty for impeachment was not merely removal from office but disqualification from holding office in the future. It was vital to impeach Trump, they insisted, in order to trigger this disqualification — even if he was out of office, even if his acquittal in a Senate trial was certain, and even if impeachment proceedings would divert Congress from dealing with the nation’s pressing business in the middle of a once-in-a-century pandemic.
So . . . of course Cuomo, too, must be impeached, right?
After all, the New York State constitution’s impeachment provision mirrors the federal disqualification clause. Here it is, right there in Article VI, Section 24:
"Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to . . . removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any public office of honor, trust, or profit under this state."
Don’t all the same Democratic arguments apply, then? Mustn’t the impeachment of Cuomo proceed, just as it was purportedly critical that the impeachment of Trump proceed? Indeed, under circumstances where Cuomo has not apologized, says he did nothing wrong, and persists in portraying his downfall as a political witch hunt, some of the governor’s admirers are already whispering that, after lying low for a while, he could run for another term next year — just as he had been planning to do. It would be the ultimate vindication.
Big difference -- Cuomo resigned, Trump lost the election; Cuomo did not incite a mob to storm the Capitol and invalidate the results of a democratic election, Trump did.
No you dumb ass, Trump did NOT incite a mob to storm the capitol. And it wasn't a Democratic election either.
You HAVE to drool.
-
-
Cuomo likely resigned quickly and unexpectedly because he was assured this was the only way to avoid…
Avoid...what?
Impeachment?
According to the standards held by Democrats in the distant past (7 months ago), being out of office is not sufficient reason to avoid impeachment.
See Andy McCarthy's column I cited earlier.
Trump was impeached a week before his term expired and tried after he was out of office.
Tried and acquitted, I might add.
