Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see where the House dropped the subpoena for Bolton aide Charles Kupperman but am much less clear on subpoenas for other people, like Pompeo. We're they formally dropped? Can the House reissue subpoenas for firsthand Ukraine witnesses?
 
theprestige said:
I think I just laid out the foundation. The House controls proceedings in the House. If they want to hold public hearings, question witnesses on C-SPAN, collect and publish documentary evidence, and even publish their arguments for removal, they can do that in the House.

The trial takes place in the Senate, where the House has no authority. Just like the Senate could not control how the House conducts the impeachment, the House cannot control how the Senate conducts the trial.

If the House Democrats are depending on Senate good will, so they can publicize things during the trial that they could have publicized without the Senate's permission during the impeachment, that would be a strategic blunder of epic proportions. Do you really think Pelosi is that stupid?
Click to expand...

The Senate is depending on the Trial appearing to be legitimate. Witnesses, or at the very least their depositions, are part of that.
Of course, if they don't care about even the appearance of Due Process, they can do without and probably pay for it in the Elections.
 
Belz... said:
Presumably they would choose a champion. Schiff would get some MMA guy and Trump would probably pick someone whom he didn't know was dead.
Click to expand...

Trump is the Chosen by God (or God himself, it isn't clear from listening to Evangelicals). Only if he fights, personally, will his victory be assured.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The Senate is depending on the Trial appearing to be legitimate. Witnesses, or at the very least their depositions, are part of that.
Of course, if they don't care about even the appearance of Due Process, they can do without and probably pay for it in the Elections.
Click to expand...

This does not seem to dispute the foundation I laid out, nor the conclusions I built on it.

The argument,

"The Senate needs to let us present evidence and question witnesses in public because otherwise the trial won't look legitimate and they'll lose credibility",​

Is very different from,

"The Senate needs to let us present evidence and question witnesses in public because we want the public to see this and we didn't think to do it ourselves in the House."​

That's how I see it, anyway.
 
theprestige said:
This does not seem to dispute the foundation I laid out, nor the conclusions I built on it.

The argument,

"The Senate needs to let us present evidence and question witnesses in public because otherwise the trial won't look legitimate and they'll lose credibility",​

Is very different from,

"The Senate needs to let us present evidence and question witnesses in public because we want the public to see this and we didn't think to do it ourselves in the House."​

That's how I see it, anyway.
Click to expand...
Its also very different from:

"The Senate needs to let us present evidence and question witnesses in public because we want the public to see this and we were regularly stonewalled by the administration, and think the Senate would be more effective in getting access to various witnesses and documents."

(Which is probably closer than your "didn't think to do it ourselves" claim.)
 
From Twitter

McConnell: You don’t have any witnesses
Schumer: Here are witnesses.
McConnell: They can’t testify plus you have no evidence.
Schumer: Here is evidence.
McConnell: You can’t use that plus we need more time.
Schumer: Here is more time.
McConnell: I said THYME.
 
Meadmaker said:
Got any specifics?

Anything can go to SCOTUS, but I can't imagine them taking the case if it's about the trial itself.
Click to expand...
I'm unaware of anything in the Constitution, or federal law, or Senate procedures, or SCOTUS precedent, that would send any dispute arising from an impeachment trail to be adjudicated by the SCOTUS, especially since the Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, which SCOTUS precedent has determined pretty much gives them final and complete say.
 
Paul2 said:
I'm unaware of anything in the Constitution, or federal law, or Senate procedures, or SCOTUS precedent, that would send any dispute arising from an impeachment trail to be adjudicated by the SCOTUS, especially since the Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, which SCOTUS precedent has determined pretty much gives them final and complete say.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the courts have ruled EXACTLY this.
 
theprestige said:
This does not seem to dispute the foundation I laid out, nor the conclusions I built on it.

The argument,

"The Senate needs to let us present evidence and question witnesses in public because otherwise the trial won't look legitimate and they'll lose credibility",​

Is very different from,

"The Senate needs to let us present evidence and question witnesses in public because we want the public to see this and we didn't think to do it ourselves in the House."​

That's how I see it, anyway.
Click to expand...
You don't think there is more evidence the public deserves to see? There are lots of documents and testimonies that were withheld from the House of Representatives, by the DOD, the State Department as well as the White House. Let's hear what Bolton, Giuliani, Mulvaney, Parnes have to say. Let Trump be deposed.

What's wrong with that?
 
varwoche said:
I've been wondering all along what Roberts' can and can't do. I'm now satisfied that he has no power. The senate can override him.

I'm also semi-satisfied that certain legal challenges that occur during the proceeding can go to SCOTUS, contrary to popular notions.
Click to expand...

Schiff mentioned Roberts should rule on the relevance of witnesses/documents. Not sure he actually can or will mind you.
 
theprestige said:
This does not seem to dispute the foundation I laid out, nor the conclusions I built on it.

The argument,

"The Senate needs to let us present evidence and question witnesses in public because otherwise the trial won't look legitimate and they'll lose credibility",​

Is very different from,

"The Senate needs to let us present evidence and question witnesses in public because we want the public to see this and we didn't think to do it ourselves in the House."​

That's how I see it, anyway.
Click to expand...

At the mcgahn subpoena appeal, the DoJ argued that the subpoena was non justiciable and that remedy needed to be congressional use of political power. If so, then the house proposal or rolling forward is prudent by the DoJs own standard.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/1219388863141097473



Video embedded in tweet.
Click to expand...

Last night on Colbert a video of Dershy was shown with him saying one need not have committed a crime to be impeached.

CNN has the video
In August 1998, during the summer leading up to then-President Bill Cinton's impeachment, Dershowitz argued that a president does not have to commit a "technical crime" in order for it to constitute impeachable conduct.
"It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime," Dershowitz told "Larry King Live."
He added: "We look at their acts of state. We look at how they conduct the foreign policy. We look at whether they try to subvert the Constitution."
Click to expand...
 
acbytesla said:
You don't think there is more evidence the public deserves to see? There are lots of documents and testimonies that were withheld from the House of Representatives, by the DOD, the State Department as well as the White House. Let's hear what Bolton, Giuliani, Mulvaney, Parnes have to say. Let Trump be deposed.

What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...

If the house thinks people need to see it, they didn't act like it. The Senate would be taking the house's lead by not hearing from key witnesses.
 
varwoche said:
Dershowitz and Toobin on CNN talking about what would likely happen If Bolton claimed executive privilege.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean. The court wouldn't step in on the question of calling him, but they might on the question of what to do if he doesn't show up.
 
BobTheCoward said:
If the house thinks people need to see it, they didn't act like it. The Senate would be taking the house's lead by not hearing from key witnesses.
Click to expand...
The house requested documentation and testimony from certain witnesses. They were stonewalled by the administration. Not really sure how that means the didn't ACT like they wanted that stuff.

Rather than sit on their hands indefinitely while the requests worked their way through the courts (giving Trump more opportunity to act illegally), they decided to proceed on impeachment based on the evidence they had (which is more than enough to show that Trump acted illegally). It is hoped that the Senate would have more authority to obtain it.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Last night on Colbert a video of Dershy was shown with him saying one need not have committed a crime to be impeached.

CNN has the video
Click to expand...


While he was correct then, he's "much more correct right now".

When asked by CNN's Anderson Cooper on "Anderson Cooper 360" on Monday whether he was wrong back then, Dershowitz replied, "I was saying that I am much more correct right now having done all the research, because that's the issue."
"I didn't do research back then, I relied on what professors said ... because that issue was not presented in the Clinton impeachment," Dershowitz said. "Everybody knew that he was charged with a crime, the issue is whether it was a hard crime. Now the issue is whether a crime or criminal-like behavior is required."
He continued, "I've done the research now -- I wasn't wrong (at the time), I am just far more correct now than I was then. I said you didn't need a technical crime back then. I still don't think you need a technical crime."
Click to expand...
 
Segnosaur said:
The house requested documentation and testimony from certain witnesses. They were stonewalled by the administration. Not really sure how that means the didn't ACT like they wanted that stuff.

Rather than sit on their hands indefinitely while the requests worked their way through the courts (giving Trump more opportunity to act illegally), they decided to proceed on impeachment based on the evidence they had (which is more than enough to show that Trump acted illegally). It is hoped that the Senate would have more authority to obtain it.
Click to expand...

What you call sitting on hands is demonstrating that it is important. The fact they give up after a few weeks demonstrates they were not willing to expend their resources to get it.
 
acbytesla said:
You don't think there is more evidence the public deserves to see? There are lots of documents and testimonies that were withheld from the House of Representatives, by the DOD, the State Department as well as the White House. Let's hear what Bolton, Giuliani, Mulvaney, Parnes have to say. Let Trump be deposed.

What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...

The Senate can't compel that stuff any more than the House can. If they needed to publicize more evidence before going to trial, they should either have gotten that evidence, or not gone to trial.

Depending on the Senate's good will to help them publicize the evidence they need but couldn't get on their own is not a good strategy. It's also not a rational demand.
 
Minoosh said:
I see where the House dropped the subpoena for Bolton aide Charles Kupperman but am much less clear on subpoenas for other people, like Pompeo. We're they formally dropped? Can the House reissue subpoenas for firsthand Ukraine witnesses?
Click to expand...

The House stopped pursuing subpoenas when it became clear the Trump plan was to fight through months of appeals dragging the proceedings out until Nov or later. Not only that, but Trump's pattern was to refuse court orders to release documents anyway.

Remember, Trump wants to cheat on the Nov election. How can you hold up going forward with the charge of planning to cheat on the election?

If a court rules the witness must comply with a subpoena, Trump will file a new case of Executive Privilege. Schiff mentioned this in the hearing today and reminded the Senate the House had the "sole power".

Those people could have testified and still declined to answer questions that ExPr applied to.

Trump's blanket order for no one to cooperate, no one should appear, no one should testify, no one should turn over any documents was clearly illegal.

Schiff thinks the documents will be released eventually. I think Trump has already had them destroyed. What was that charge against Clinton, she bleached the server? Is that irony or hypocrisy or both?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/1219388863141097473



Video embedded in tweet.
Click to expand...

Armitage72 said:
While he was correct then, he's "much more correct right now".
Click to expand...

When asked by CNN's Anderson Cooper on "Anderson Cooper 360" on Monday whether he was wrong back then, Dershowitz replied, "I was saying that I am much more correct right now having done all the research, because that's the issue."
"I didn't do research back then, I relied on what professors said ... because that issue was not presented in the Clinton impeachment," Dershowitz said. "Everybody knew that he was charged with a crime, the issue is whether it was a hard crime. Now the issue is whether a crime or criminal-like behavior is required."
He continued, "I've done the research now -- I wasn't wrong (at the time), I am just far more correct now than I was then. I said you didn't need a technical crime back then. I still don't think you need a technical crime."
Click to expand...

Does that word salad make sense to anyone here?
 
Paul2 said:
I'm unaware of anything in the Constitution, or federal law, or Senate procedures, or SCOTUS precedent, that would send any dispute arising from an impeachment trail to be adjudicated by the SCOTUS, especially since the Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, which SCOTUS precedent has determined pretty much gives them final and complete say.
Click to expand...

Which ironically supports the assertion the House had the "sole power" to impeach.
 
Armitage72 said:
*
While he was correct then, he's "much more correct right now".
Click to expand...
He's a lawyer. No surprise he can bull **** any argument pro or con.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
The Senate can't compel that stuff any more than the House can. If they needed to publicize more evidence before going to trial, they should either have gotten that evidence, or not gone to trial.

Depending on the Senate's good will to help them publicize the evidence they need but couldn't get on their own is not a good strategy. It's also not a rational demand.
Click to expand...

Why not? Are prosecutors in normal trials not allowed to admit evidence during the trial process? Seems rational to me. In fact, the only people that don't want evidence admitted during a trial seems to be the ones that are guilty. Seems a slight bit bull ****-ty to me.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The House stopped pursuing subpoenas when it became clear the Trump plan was to fight through months of appeals dragging the proceedings out until Nov or later. Not only that, but Trump's pattern was to refuse court orders to release documents anyway.
Click to expand...

House Dems can't have it both ways. A month ago, they had enough evidence to proceed to trial. Now they're saying they can't have a trial without more evidence?
 
plague311 said:
Why not? Are prosecutors in normal trials not allowed to admit evidence during the trial process? Seems rational to me. In fact, the only people that don't want evidence admitted during a trial seems to be the ones that are guilty. Seems a slight bit bull ****-ty to me.
Click to expand...
It's not a normal trial. It's a Senate impeachment trial.

If the House had bothered to line up and publicize all their evidence before going to trial, they would not now have to beg the Senate to conduct the trial in a way that's convenient to the House.
 
theprestige said:
The time for the House Democrats to bring their evidence and their arguments to the public was during the impeachment itself, in the House, where they had authority and control of the proceedings.
Click to expand...

A few things.
1) Trump blocked testimony from key players. Not incidentally, this is why obstruction of justice is a crime: it makes other crimes possible.

2) Democrats can still call witnesses after the fake trial concludes.

3) While Democrats do not control the process, they can shame the Senate into bending (this appears to be working, though it's still far from a fair trial). They can further argue precedent (previous impeachments allow witnesses and admission of new evidence), as Schiff did earlier today.

4) There are different standards of evidence for an impeachment/indictment versus a conviction. While one can argue that Democrats would have been politically wise if they had taken more time, it also would have been politically risky. By presenting their findings and securing an impeachment -- still a historic event -- they could argue that people would have to take matters seriously in the Senate.

The risk for McConnell is by having a fake trial, then new evidence embarrassing the Senate and process. "The fix was in." Republicans still have a hand to play: They'll argue that whatever Bolton or others have to say isn't new, isn't relevant, or isn't trustworthy, and therefore doesn't change a thing. A plurality of Republicans are already OK with Trump soliciting foreign interference against a political rival, so it could work.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The house requested documentation and testimony from certain witnesses. They were stonewalled by the administration. Not really sure how that means the didn't ACT like they wanted that stuff.

Rather than sit on their hands indefinitely while the requests worked their way through the courts (giving Trump more opportunity to act illegally)
Click to expand...
What you call sitting on hands is demonstrating that it is important. The fact they give up after a few weeks demonstrates they were not willing to expend their resources to get it.
Click to expand...
What an incredibly foolish notion.

When you have a situation when there are time constraints (such as Trump actively working to subvert democracy), then extensive delays can mean that the legal and political system has failed.

For example, the Supreme court is expected to rule by June on subpoenas issued regarding Trump's financial records, and that was for subpoenas issued a long time ago. So the house likely wouldn't just be waiting a few weeks, they'd probably be waiting months/years to get access. So by the time they get access, the 2020 election would have been over, with whatever damages Trump has caused.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom