It's official, Trump has been Acquitted

[chipbennett]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/john-roberts-impeachment-witnesses.html

This opinion is an obvious violation of separation of powers, and in direct contradiction to prior SCOTUS decisions.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Per prior precedent (admittedly, of which there is very little), any witnesses subpoenaed by the Senate in an impeachment trial were only witnesses that were originally subpoenaed under the auspices of a formally congressional-authorized impeachment investigation, be that by an independent investigator or by a House committee. In either case, the House voted to delegate its constitutional impeachment authority to a given House committee (typically, Judiciary), and/or directly or through a thus-empowered committee, an appointed independent investigator.

If the House wanted to subpoena/depose Bolton or any other witnesses, they should have done so, under the auspices of a formally House-authorized impeachment investigation. The House never did so.

The fatal flaw in the Pelosi process is that she never followed this process. She never had the House vote to delegate its impeachment authority to a House committee. Thus, all the "subpoenas" were actually not subpoenas, because they carried no enforcement/penalty mechanism. So (intentionally and by design), the House never had any real authority to subpoena/depose witnesses such as Bolton. The entire process was designed to compel such testimony through the Senate.

I think it hard to attach the word "precedent" when there have only been two other presidential impeachments. Needless, such precedents aren't binding.

 

[Kutnupe14]

A very short watch.

[video=youtube;ySdqtwiQMiw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySdqtwiQMiw[/video]

I don't know what happened to Dershowitz, but he's has been downright confusing lately. It has passed my mind, since he was the guy that got Epstein that sweet deal in Florida, that someone might have some "Lolita Lovin'" information on him.
Below is his take during the Clinton impeachment.
[video=youtube;Eo312-GYNDk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo312-GYNDk[/video]

Yesterday, it seems like the Republican lawyers couldn't figure out what their defense was going to be. Ken Starr? Geez, that dude is at the height of hypocrisy. The things that he and Dershowitz held to during Clinton, they seem to have abandoned. One would think that if they thought they were wrong back during the Clinton impeachment, that they would've (for the benefit of nation) said so well before now.

...but seriously, I think someone might have something on Dershowitz.

 

[femurphy77]

Exactly. The Dems and MSM have "cried wolf" so often and are so partisan, there is nothing they could say and no evidence they could bring that would make me believe Trump should be impeached. They have shown themselves to only want to overturn the 2016 election results. Nothing else matters to them and it shows.

It shows only to someone with a real brain.

Ooh, ooh, ooh, I got it!

 

[jamil]

The Chief Justice will not, and should not. Prior SCOTUS rulings make absolutely clear that the Senate, and the Senate alone, has the authority to determine how the Senate conducts impeachment trials. SCOTUS (through the Chief Justice) intervening would be an obvious and egregious violation of separation of powers.

Precedence was set in the Johnson impeachment, that the Senate can determine the role of the chief justice in proceedings. One result, the chief justice could vote as a tie breaker.

Chief Justice Chase was an activist and generally favored the radical Republican view of an aggressive reconstruction approach, which was the real purpose of impeaching Johnson. Johnson agreed with Lincoln that for the sake of the union, reconstruction should seek a less aggressive, healing reconstruction. That pissed off the radicals and so they passed the Tenure act knowing that Johnson would use that as a test case for sending it to SCOTUS. Even though Chase favored the aggressive approach, for political reasons, he Chase favored acquittal. His major involvement in the issue of witnesses was was as a tie breaker on votes. He did get to call balls and strikes, though, even concerning witnesses. But it was still up to the Senate to sustain or overrule his objections.

With only two other impeachment trials for a president in US history, we're sure to break new ground with this one. And because the sides are so divided, they'll be acting like it's the end of the world if the other gets their way. The constitution is vague enough that it's not clear what "presides" means. And so the Senate kinda decides that. If you're dead set on the Chief Justice forcing the Republican majority to allow Democrats to call new witnesses, you may be disappointed.

It's not clear at all that Roberts has the authority to overrule Republicans on the issue of witnesses.

 

[Vigilant]

For strolling through these threads we require straight up off the stove made in oil popcorn.
With real butter and salt. Copious amounts of both.

Who uses oil for popcorn? The recipe is bacon grease, real butter, and salt. The only variation should be popcorn salt.

 

[BugI02]

I don't know what happened to Dershowitz, but he's has been downright confusing lately. It has passed my mind, since he was the guy that got Epstein that sweet deal in Florida, that someone might have some "Lolita Lovin'" information on him.
Below is his take during the Clinton impeachment.

Yesterday, it seems like the Republican lawyers couldn't figure out what their defense was going to be. Ken Starr? Geez, that dude is at the height of hypocrisy. The things that he and Dershowitz held to during Clinton, they seem to have abandoned. One would think that if they thought they were wrong back during the Clinton impeachment, that they would've (for the benefit of nation) said so well before now.

...but seriously, I think someone might have something on Dershowitz.

You seem to be saying that someone who in the past agreed with you on one issue, if they disagree on a different issue it can't simply be a case of they disagree - they must be being blackmailed or otherwise coerced.

That's a rather high esteem you hold for the validity your own opinions

 

[BugI02]

Really? So it wasn't obvious enough? Jeez, even when the sarcasm dripps.

For future consideration: I don't use purple. If you read something that sounds kinda discordant with reality, think about whether it would make more sense as sarcasm.

So, we're not allowed to consider the possibility that you've finally gone over the edge? [insert lesson in use of purple: here]

 

[jamil]

This opinion is an obvious violation of separation of powers, and in direct contradiction to prior SCOTUS decisions.

Not if the Senate approved the rules. I haven't researched the specific rules much so I don't really know all the rules applicable now. I've only looked at the history and politics around prior impeachments, but mostly the Johnson impeachment, because like this one, it was a purely partisan impeachment. Not that Clinton's impeachment was not partisan. But Clinton actually committed a real crime, in which his guilt was not ambiguous. The result then was a bipartisan consensus compromise.

 

[chipbennett]

Not if the Senate approved the rules. I haven't researched the specific rules much so I don't really know all the rules applicable now. I've only looked at the history and politics around prior impeachments, but mostly the Johnson impeachment, because like this one, it was a purely partisan impeachment. Not that Clinton's impeachment was not partisan. But Clinton actually committed a real crime, in which his guilt was not ambiguous. The result then was a bipartisan consensus compromise.

The gist of the opinion - at least to the extent that I skimmed the OpEd - is that CJ Roberts could act unilaterally. Obviously, if the Senate is directing the actions of CJ Roberts, that would be a different matter.

The Senate makes its own rules, including the rules around changing its own rules. And the final arbiter regarding those rules and their changes is... the Senate itself. SCOTUS has said already that it is not the place of any body or branch other than the Senate itself to intervene in such matters.

 

[BugI02]

I care if he did something impeachable. I just don't believe what it looks like Trump did was impeachable. And even more importantly, this partisan bull**** is just plain not good for the country. The people who don't like Trump might like it, but I think that's short sighted. Removing a president from office should be bipartisan and have very wide public support. As I recall the time around Watergate, I think the nation could have withstood that. There was bipartisan support, and I think that a large majority of people thought he was guilty. But this isn't even on the same order of magnitude as that.

I think those to the left of center think if they remove him, we'll just have to suck it

And there is a dishearteningly high chance that they may be correct, I just don't see right of center doing the #Resistance thing. We have jobs and responsibilities and such

 

[Kutnupe14]

You seem to be saying that someone who in the past agreed with you on one issue, if they disagree on a different issue it can't simply be a case of they disagree - they must be being blackmailed or otherwise coerced.

That's a rather high esteem you hold for the validity your own opinions

Dershowitz rather than say he was wrong about Clinton, says he's more correct concerning Trump.... even though it seems agreeing with something he previously disagreed with. That simply doesn't make sense. When something doesn't makes sense, I try to look beyond what is simply presented. Not to mention, generally the people that Dershowitz has defended have been thought to be guilty. It's a Who's who of scumbags: Tyson, OJ, Epstein, Jim Bakker... etc, etc... just sayin', he knows how to pick them

 

[Alpo]

This opinion is an obvious violation of separation of powers, and in direct contradiction to prior SCOTUS decisions.

And your law degree is from....where? If the article wasn't worth more than a "skim", it would be difficult to refute wouldn't it? No points to debate, etc.

 

[BugI02]

While I appreciate you looking out, Alpo, I'm not offended. Unlike others, I have never known Jamil to address me with malicious intent. Sure he's forgetful on a whole never level, but he's not cut from that cloth (at least toward me).

https://kutfromthekloth.com

Sale going on now

 

[chipbennett]

And your law degree is from....where?

Siri, show me what an appeal to authority logical fallacy looks like.

 

[Alpo]

Siri, show me what an appeal to authority logical fallacy looks like.

As stated. You express an opinion and it has no basis in authority that I can discern. Your opinion also seems to lack authoritative support or citation.

As I stated in post #86: IANAL. That seems to establish my basis for citing the article, expressing at least some degree of ignorance of the law/rules. I asked you for your qualifications and you have to ask Siri about debate rules? Respectfully, that doesn't improve your argument.

 

[Alpo]

https://kutfromthekloth.com

Sale going on now

I am somehow reminded of the little dog "helping" the other little dog across the street. Moral of the story....be careful coming to the aid of a drowning man. He may pull you under.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I am somehow reminded of the little dog "helping" the other little dog across the street. Moral of the story....be careful coming to the aid of a drowning man. He may pull you under.

Aww C'mon Alpo! Were the last two standing. I'm never, going to drag down someone offering aid, but I do have to be honest in how I see things.

 

[Alpo]

Next time....I'll do a GOP lifesaving technique: If you are drowning 100 feet offshore, I'll throw a 51 foot rope and tell you I've met you more than half way.

 

[BugI02]

It amazes me that people still seriously think the Democrats actually want to call witnesses in the Senate where they have little or no control. I get that the anti Trump folks here and elsewhere would because they have nothing to lose so any chance of damaging Trump must be pursued. Those in the Senate and especially those in the house though, have something to lose if this sham is fully exposed along. The absolute best case scenario is that they slip one through the SC and Executive Privilege is curtailed for a witness or two and they can successfully keep the whistleblower from testifying. Even then Hunter Biden and Adam Schiff pleading the 5th is going to do some damage. Just as likely if not more so though, Executive Privilege is upheld, the whistleblower is forced to take the stand, and Schiff perjures himself. That is a lot of risk for little or no gain.

But I have already seen Schiff saying Hunter or Joe Biden would not be a factual witness to the matter at hand. He has made no mention of the whistleblower, but now that they are done with him the same could be asserted about him and arguments made that his motivations do not affect the 'criminality' he supposedly revealed

I would expect Schiff and the house team to attempt to limit witnesses to only the ones they wish through public pressure amplified by their compliant media. The question is whether the usual squishes will open that can of worms by supporting witnesses at all, and whether they would have the stones to hold Schiff's own feet to the fire as well as the Bidens and Ciaramella. They had better have the sense to have exhaustive witnesses if they have any at all, but a long drawn out trial doesn't do the country any good as it derails actual important business beneficial to the average American. The Dems want to be able to say any quick dismissal is a whitewash and a cover-up and keep the cloud hanging over Trump while targeting control of the senate

We have to hope that disgust for 70+% tax rates and greatly expanded government control of just about everything will outweigh that, but that is a closer thing than many would like to think. If they thought their own constituents had any sense of propriety or fair play and might break with the 'get Trump' mentality, they would end this thing in a heartbeat. Until that time, they'll keep running this play because it works