unusual process, predictable result

[onenote]

For months, I've pointed out that the likely outcome of an attempt to use the "privileged resolution" gambit to get an impeachment resolution to a vote would end up with the resolution being referred to the Judiciary Committee where no action would necessarily follow.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2586988&mesg_id=2589510

I've been lambasted for making this point on several occasions.

But at the end of today's process, where are we? Exactly where I suggested we'd be. The process was a bit more convoluted that I expected, primarily because I didn't think the leadership would go with the motion to table and would simply go with the motion to refer to committtee.

An interesting sidebar to this entire thing is whether DK made a tactical error in drafting his resolution. He drafted it as articles of impeachment rather than as a resolution to authorize and direct the Judiciary Committee to conduct an investigation and report back to Congress. If he had taken the latter approach -- which was the approach taken in starting the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, the situation would've been more interesting, although I suspect the result could've been the same -- referral of that resolution back to the Committee without a vote on the resolution itself.

In any event, in the big picture I think today was a bit of sound and fury, but will have little lasting significance.

[Fresh_Start]

1. People forget that the during Vietnam

it took 7 years of investigations/Congressional oversight before the Congress finally wrestled to get a significant anti-war vote.

People expecting the Congress to lead the way are ignorant of history. The country (as in its citizens) forced the Congress into action. The Congress never once led the way.

If you want this to end, stop BS'ing on DU. Get your ass out on the streets and convince your fellow citizens.