It's official, Trump has been Acquitted

[Leadeye]

Need to put Jerry Nadler on Adam Shiff's shoulders and have them take on Donald Trump like Masterblaster in Thunderdome. Unlike the impeachment hearings, that would sell on pay per view.

 

[jamil]

I'm beginning to think there is method to the madness, that while they would certainly welcome whatever incidental damage they can do Trump the real play is to give the Senate unpalatable choices that can be exploited either way as ammunition for attempting to flip the Senate. I think they see the continued ability to appoint constitutionalist judges for four more years as an existential threat to the progressive long march

I think the senate could allow Bolton to testify and it wouldn't matter much, for reasons I've already outlined. That would thwart this particular play. And then they'd get to call some witnesses damaging to Democrats. Of course, the press would be all over that play. They'd fellate Bolton, all the while insisting that this is a smoking gun that proves beyond a shadow of doubt Trump's intent. And then they'd play an endless parade of crazy left wing "legal experts" to claim that whoever the GOP subpoenas is an illegitimate witness.

 

[jamil]

Exactly.

I think digging in those weeds requires some legal experts that are beyond my armchair. Even so, I predict that the legal experts made up their minds before the question was asked. If they've already decided that Trump is guilty and should be removed, of course they'll weigh in the affirmative. If they've already decided Trump should be acquitted, then not. People just aren't well equipped to look for truths that don't confirm what they already believe.

 

[chipbennett]

But they can’t make rules and then arbitrarily break them without voting a change in rules which allow it. The Senate is subject to the rules they pass. The room for questioning this article rests on whether the rules they cite say the things they say they say, and whether those rules are indeed applicable. For that you need to dig into those particular weeds.

Still not the point. The Senate gets to decide whether or not it is following its own rules, and in that decision, the Senate is the sole arbiter.

House impeachment managers can complain to the CJ all they want; the CJ has no authority to tell the Senate that they are or are not following the Senate's rules.

 

[chipbennett]

Exactly.

Exactly, what, exactly?

Who gets to decide if the Senate is following or violating its own rules of proceeding: the Senate, or the Chief Justice? Who gets to tell the Senate what to do in order to remedy any failure to follow its own rules of proceeding: the Senate, or the Chief Justice?

If the Senate Majority Leader declares out of order any House impeachment manager request for CJ subpoenas, the CJ is powerless to overrule the Senate. Only the Senate decide how to act.

 

[Alpo]

There is a presiding judge. My "sense" it that they would look to him for resolution. The rules can be changed by what appears to be a 2/3 vote.

Lawyers litter the senate chambers. Senators, their staffs and counsel for the managers. We already know that one side or the other of said lawyers is in error and may not be acting in good faith. My expectation is that Roberts will step in if necessary.

Frankly, it is difficult for the president's lawyers to argue that there are no witnesses corroborating the indictment and then fight the inclusion of witnesses. To us middle of the pack voters, it stinks.

 

[jamil]

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.

I think I'm going to take a deeper dive into this when I have the time. This doesn't smell to me as discordant as you seem to think it is.

 

[Libertarian01]

Exactly, what, exactly?

Who gets to decide if the Senate is following or violating its own rules of proceeding: the Senate, or the Chief Justice? Who gets to tell the Senate what to do in order to remedy any failure to follow its own rules of proceeding: the Senate, or the Chief Justice?

If the Senate Majority Leader declares out of order any House impeachment manager request for CJ subpoenas, the CJ is powerless to overrule the Senate. Only the Senate decide how to act.

Do not overlook the power of the Chief Justice opening his mouth and stating his opinion that the Senate is violating its own rules. He may have no legal authority, but the respect he alone has brings with it tremendous moral authority and public pressure.

We can rail about many things pro and con in the Senates procedures, but if Chief Justice Roberts speaks within the Senate chambers during the hearing both sides WILL sit up and listen very carefully.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Alpo]

Exactly, what, exactly?

Who gets to decide if the Senate is following or violating its own rules of proceeding: the Senate, or the Chief Justice? Who gets to tell the Senate what to do in order to remedy any failure to follow its own rules of proceeding: the Senate, or the Chief Justice?

If the Senate Majority Leader declares out of order any House impeachment manager request for CJ subpoenas, the CJ is powerless to overrule the Senate. Only the Senate decide how to act.

Whether the president is guilty of a crime that fits within the "high crimes and misdemeanor" definition is arguable. Imho, so far nothing has shown me that if Trump actually mandated the quid pro quo that it represents a violation that fits that definition.

However, Trump is not entitled to his own set of facts. To avoid the disclosure of facts important to the issue, I think he is guilty of obstruction. What the penalty should be for that is something that might need to be thought of more seriously if witnesses/documents become required and he resists providing same. He may have been better off admitting that he did pressure the Ukrainians and withheld funding and then argue whether those acts constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

[Ingomike]

I'm beginning to think there is method to the madness, that while they would certainly welcome whatever incidental damage they can do Trump the real play is to give the Senate unpalatable choices that can be exploited either way as ammunition for attempting to flip the Senate. I think they see the continued ability to appoint constitutionalist judges for four more years as an existential threat to the progressive long march

I really do not think we would have had an impeachment if the powers thought they could beat Trump, they would have just beat him. Impeachment may cost them the house and they knew it, that is why Nancy was hesitant to allow the TDS members to move forward for so long. But when they came to believe he would win reelection they had to try to make the Hail Mary pass to stop the Trump reelection and the changing judiciary, including the SCOTUS. The number one issue for the powers of the Democratic Party is maintaining abortion on demand and the judiciary is where that happens. Now that it seems clear that he will not be removed their last stand will be trying to win the senate to stop Trump from appointing more judges.

This will be an unprecedentedly vile election and the division and vitriol will be a long time healing. Impeachment is just but a cog in the vitriol machine of the democrats...

 

[BugI02]

Whether the president is guilty of a crime that fits within the "high crimes and misdemeanor" definition is arguable. Imho, so far nothing has shown me that if Trump actually mandated the quid pro quo that it represents a violation that fits that definition.

However, Trump is not entitled to his own set of facts. To avoid the disclosure of facts important to the issue, I think he is guilty of obstruction. What the penalty should be for that is something that might need to be thought of more seriously if witnesses/documents become required and he resists providing same. He may have been better off admitting that he did pressure the Ukrainians and withheld funding and then argue whether those acts constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.

This could just as easily be describing Schiff, not only refusing to allow Ciaramella testimony but 'classifying' the Atkinson testimony which is widely believed to be at variance with the Schiff narrative. I would love to see the Senate subpoena the Atkinson testimony, even if they don't have the legal authority to press the claim. It would put Schiff in the same position he is trying to put GOP senators in

 

[Ingomike]

Frankly, it is difficult for the president's lawyers to argue that there are no witnesses corroborating the indictment and then fight the inclusion of witnesses. To us middle of the pack voters, it stinks.

I see no difficulty at all, there was not a single house witness that said the President did something the witness thought was impeachable. That is the case being presented to the senate. Not a fishing expedition...

 

[HoughMade]

Just to be clear, something called a "summary trial" is recognized most places and involves summaries of evidence and arguments, but no witnesses. This is not frequently used, but is seen as perfectly appropriate.

 

[BugI02]

Many of the sources I read believe it will be difficult (but not impossible) to flip the house back, so if you can flip the senate you pretty much neuter Trump except on EO type action. The power to veto is passive, it isn't terribly useful to advance a bold agenda

 

[Alpo]

This could just as easily be describing Schiff, not only refusing to allow Ciaramella testimony but 'classifying' the Atkinson testimony which is widely believed to be at variance with the Schiff narrative. I would love to see the Senate subpoena the Atkinson testimony, even if they don't have the legal authority to press the claim. It would put Schiff in the same position he is trying to put GOP senators in

It would appear that some of this enters the realm of what was in Trump's mind at the time, which would necessitate testimony from Trump[question mark...IANAL]

 

[Alpo]

I see no difficulty at all, there was not a single house witness that said the President did something the witness thought was impeachable. That is the case being presented to the senate. Not a fishing expedition...

Separate facts from law. The legal conclusions are clearly arguable. The facts should stand on their own in almost all circumstances.

And you cannot be serious on saying "no witnesses, etc" when Trump prevented witnesses from testifying. Let's not rehash the spiral into subpoenas as this has been discussed more than enough to be nauseating.

[video=youtube_share;ohDB5gbtaEQ]http://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ[/video]

 

[jamil]

Still not the point. The Senate gets to decide whether or not it is following its own rules, and in that decision, the Senate is the sole arbiter.

House impeachment managers can complain to the CJ all they want; the CJ has no authority to tell the Senate that they are or are not following the Senate's rules.

I think we've moved some goalposts here. It seemed to me that first you were arguing that what they said in the article violated separation of powers. I pointed out that it's not an issue of separation of powers if the Senate rules give the CJ that authority, which it seemed that the article under our scrutiny was asserting. Then the argument became, they're asserting that Roberts had unilateral power. And I didn't read much of the article myself, so I'm not going to dispute that it's final conclusion may have been that. But the article did link to Senate rules and claimed that the CJ was given that authority by senate rules long ago. Nevertheless, I then pointed out that the article's point rests on whether the rules say what they're saying it says, and whether those rules are applicable. So now you're arguing, yeah, but the Senate gets to say whether they followed the rules or not.

So we're in agreement that it's not a violation of separation of powers if the senate ceded that power. We're in agreement that the Senate has to follow the rules it passed for itself. So the only argument left, is that, well, the senate gets to say that they followed the rules regardless of what the rules actually say, because they get to interpret them however they want. And I guess I have to agree, that yes, they could vote to say that blue is red. And if they claim to be following rules that state as clearly as blue is blue and red is red, I agree that they can probably do that. But then you're left arguing that they must do something foolish, all to save the original point, that the article posted violates the separation of powers.

I'm not trying to win an argument here. I'd rather we cut all that crap out and come to some rational agreement about what is true, and what isn't true. I concede that the Senate could just vote to say that whatever they're doing is following the rules regardless of what the rules say. But, if the rules clearly state that the CJ has the authority over the question of whether new witnesses can be called/subpoenaed, it would be problematic for Senate Republicans to say the rules say something else. Neither of us have law degrees, or the depth of knowledge it would likely take to know that they're obviously breaking the rules. So that much would have to be assumed to know what is "clearly defined".

If we agree on that I think we're pretty much done.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I see no difficulty at all, there was not a single house witness that said the President did something the witness thought was impeachable. That is the case being presented to the senate. Not a fishing expedition...

Well yes, it isn't a witness's job to determine penalties. I think most litigators would have it stricken if someone said "Person A did 'this' which means that 'this' should happen to them."

 

[jamil]

Do not overlook the power of the Chief Justice opening his mouth and stating his opinion that the Senate is violating its own rules. He may have no legal authority, but the respect he alone has brings with it tremendous moral authority and public pressure.

We can rail about many things pro and con in the Senates procedures, but if Chief Justice Roberts speaks within the Senate chambers during the hearing both sides WILL sit up and listen very carefully.

Regards,

Doug

He's the presiding judge. He has the authority to speak during the preceding. The Senate can vote to agree with him or not. But the point about the moral authority and public pressure is spot on. It would be foolish for the Senate to vote that it's obeying it's own rules if it's fairly clear, and pointed out by the SCOTUS chief justice. That's the kind of thing that causes blue waves. I would much rather see John Bolton testify than to see that.

 

[jamil]

Whether the president is guilty of a crime that fits within the "high crimes and misdemeanor" definition is arguable. Imho, so far nothing has shown me that if Trump actually mandated the quid pro quo that it represents a violation that fits that definition.

However, Trump is not entitled to his own set of facts. To avoid the disclosure of facts important to the issue, I think he is guilty of obstruction. What the penalty should be for that is something that might need to be thought of more seriously if witnesses/documents become required and he resists providing same. He may have been better off admitting that he did pressure the Ukrainians and withheld funding and then argue whether those acts constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.

It's not that it's Trump who would be obstructing facts, if that's how you'd like to say it. It's the Senate that is saying they don't want new witnesses, which I think they have the authority to say, notwithstanding the other conversation going on. Also I would say that Trump, by claiming executive privilege, is not obstructing in a legal sense either. That's a legally recognized claim. And there is already a prescribed mechanism for resolving whether testimony is protected or not. They take it to court. The court rules on it. If the president still refuses, then they can bring him up on obstruction charges.

And that's all on the decisions made by House leadership to rush it to get passed. They don't get to force the issue in the Senate just because they didn't want to wait on the courts to decide the issue of executive privilege.