Page 481 of 647
Re: IMPEACHMENT ... Bribery, Extortion and Abuse of Power
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:19 pm
by calourie
Who will be the witnesses in Trump's behalf when the impeachment proceedings go to trial in the senate. How much leeway will Robert's have to compel people to testify, in other words what will he have to say about congressional subpoena power as regards this type of trial.
Re: IMPEACHMENT ... Bribery, Extortion and Abuse of Power
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:36 pm
by holmes435
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:20 pm
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:16 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:14 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:09 pm
Trump will be impeached by these folks and then the dog and pony show moves over to the senate. I wonder how this ends when the senate votes?
The tone will be much more serious in the Senate.
Do you know who guides proceedings in a Senate Impeachment Trial?
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for impeachment of a president...
Yup. Looking forward to seeing how Roberts will handle this.
Picture what that will look like...Senate Republicans are NOT looking forward to that, I can assure you. Roberts will visually dispel any notion of partisanship, and bring the gravity of what's happening in stark, visual terms for most Americans.
Can't wait to hear FoxNation paint him as a neverTrumper.
On the other hand Roberts only guides and enforces the rules. McConnell gets to set the rules. Roberts' hands could be tied pretty tightly in regards to what he can enforce.
Re: IMPEACHMENT ... Bribery, Extortion and Abuse of Power
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:58 pm
by RedFromMI
This is the entire section of the US Constitution devoted to impeachment:
6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Re: IMPEACHMENT ... Bribery, Extortion and Abuse of Power
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:13 pm
by a fan
holmes435 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:36 pm
On the other hand Roberts only guides and enforces the rules. McConnell gets to set the rules. Roberts' hands could be tied pretty tightly in regards to what he can enforce.
Yes. But just the sight of Roberts changes the entire tone of the proceedings. It will
feel like a serious courtroom to the average American. It will give the proceedings the appearance of fairness, and seriousness.
Re: IMPEACHMENT ... Bribery, Extortion and Abuse of Power
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 11:02 pm
by ggait
On the other hand Roberts only guides and enforces the rules. McConnell gets to set the rules. Roberts' hands could be tied pretty tightly in regards to what he can enforce.
Actually not.
McConnell has already committed to holding a real trial and following the existing Senate rules for impeachment trials.
Under those rules, the Senate MUST take up articles immediately. The Senate MUST stay in session every day (except Sunday) until a verdict is rendered. Once the trial starts, the Senators are not allowed to speak or do anything else except listen as jurors. If a senator wants to ask a question, he has to submit it to the CJ in writing, and the CJ can decide to ask the question or not. The House managers/prosecutors really run the show in the Senate, subject to the CJ acting as the presiding officer and Trump's counsel acting in defense.
While the Senate can change its rules by majority vote, any McConnell rule jam job would need votes from Romney, Collins, Murkowski etc. I'm not sure if Pence is allowed to vote on changes to the impeachment rules. But since he is banned by the Constitution from having any role in the impeachment trial itself, I doubt the Reps would go there if even possible. So the rules (below) probably are not going to change.
You know that institutionalist Roberts, with the brightest spotlight of his career trained on him, will do everything in his power to project objectivity and fairness. So the Dems will get a fair opportunity to put on their case. TBD what would happen if the Dems tried to get Roberts to enforce a subpoena for Bolton or other holdouts.
TBD how guerilla the Reps will go -- like subpoena-ing Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Alexandra Chalupa (whoever that is), Hillary, Christopher Steele, Comey....
https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/ ... erules.pdf
Re: IMPEACHMENT ... Bribery, Extortion and Abuse of Power
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 11:47 pm
by holmes435
Is that binding, or just what he's said?
McConnell is all about #1 - winning to stay in power. He's got his own race to worry about which complicates things, but if he deems Trump too radioactive, he'll dump him in a heartbeat.
The only way he's won over the decades is cash on top of gerrymandering, which he's gone to extraordinary lengths such as Citizen's United to solidify his hold on funds.
In any case, the ultimate tell in all this is what McConnell commits to. We'll see a quick slide to impeachment if it means winning, or he'll hold on for the 2020 election and then shift in the appropriate direction. He's the true canary in the coal mine on this, even while coal mines are failing out from under him.
Re: IMPEACHMENT ... Bribery, Extortion and Abuse of Power
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:04 am
by ggait
McConnell has repeatedly stated the obvious -- that the Senate is bound by the current Senate impeachment rules.
So there is no wiggle room for him unless the Senate votes to completely re-write the impeachment rules (67 votes) or "re-interpret" the rules (majority). Without Pence, he'd need the vote of at least one squishy RINO to do that. Probably not going to happen and probably not worth the candle.
Much easier/better to go with the current rules and have Trump acquitted. Current indications are a two week trial in January.
Re: IMPEACHMENT ... Bribery, Extortion and Abuse of Power
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:08 am
by a fan
ggait wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 11:02 pm
On the other hand Roberts only guides and enforces the rules. McConnell gets to set the rules. Roberts' hands could be tied pretty tightly in regards to what he can enforce.
Actually not.
McConnell has already committed to holding a real trial and following the existing Senate rules for impeachment trials.
Under those rules, the Senate MUST take up articles immediately. The Senate MUST stay in session every day (except Sunday) until a verdict is rendered. Once the trial starts, the Senators are not allowed to speak or do anything else except listen as jurors. If a senator wants to ask a question, he has to submit it to the CJ in writing, and the CJ can decide to ask the question or not. The House managers/prosecutors really run the show in the Senate, subject to the CJ acting as the presiding officer and Trump's counsel acting in defense.
While the Senate can change its rules by majority vote, any McConnell rule jam job would need votes from Romney, Collins, Murkowski etc. I'm not sure if Pence is allowed to vote on changes to the impeachment rules. But since he is banned by the Constitution from having any role in the impeachment trial itself, I doubt the Reps would go there if even possible. So the rules (below) probably are not going to change.
You know that institutionalist Roberts, with the brightest spotlight of his career trained on him, will do everything in his power to project objectivity and fairness. So the Dems will get a fair opportunity to put on their case. TBD what would happen if the Dems tried to get Roberts to enforce a subpoena for Bolton or other holdouts.
TBD how guerilla the Reps will go -- like subpoena-ing Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Alexandra Chalupa (whoever that is), Hillary, Christopher Steele, Comey....
https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/ ... erules.pdf
Wow. I didn't know they had the rules this set. It's no small wonder Nixon resigned before being subject to that.
I have yet to hear a journalist explain that this is what is in store for Trump in the Senate. Yikes.
The balance is heavily against Trump given this scenario. Robert won't let them ask about stupid stuff like Hillary or the 2016 election.
I'm happy to hear this. R's will have to go on record as supporting Trump's nonsense.
Awesome. Impeachment or no, these R's are going to have to sit through a real trial.
---thanks for the info. GGait!
Re: IMPEACHMENT ... Bribery, Extortion and Abuse of Power
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:15 am
by calourie
ggait wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 11:02 pm
On the other hand Roberts only guides and enforces the rules. McConnell gets to set the rules. Roberts' hands could be tied pretty tightly in regards to what he can enforce.
Actually not.
McConnell has already committed to holding a real trial and following the existing Senate rules for impeachment trials.
Under those rules, the Senate MUST take up articles immediately. The Senate MUST stay in session every day (except Sunday) until a verdict is rendered. Once the trial starts, the Senators are not allowed to speak or do anything else except listen as jurors. If a senator wants to ask a question, he has to submit it to the CJ in writing, and the CJ can decide to ask the question or not. The House managers/prosecutors really run the show in the Senate, subject to the CJ acting as the presiding officer and Trump's counsel acting in defense.
While the Senate can change its rules by majority vote, any McConnell rule jam job would need votes from Romney, Collins, Murkowski etc. I'm not sure if Pence is allowed to vote on changes to the impeachment rules. But since he is banned by the Constitution from having any role in the impeachment trial itself, I doubt the Reps would go there if even possible. So the rules (below) probably are not going to change.
You know that institutionalist Roberts, with the brightest spotlight of his career trained on him, will do everything in his power to project objectivity and fairness. So the Dems will get a fair opportunity to put on their case. TBD what would happen if the Dems tried to get Roberts to enforce a subpoena for Bolton or other holdouts.
TBD how guerilla the Reps will go -- like subpoena-ing Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Alexandra Chalupa (whoever that is), Hillary, Christopher Steele, Comey....
https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/ ... erules.pdf
Thanks for the insights ggait. I tried googling how the trial might be set up and got no where. I anticipate the trial will be quite revelatory one way or the other, and an immediate and perhaps surprising civics lesson for many.
Re: IMPEACHMENT ... Bribery, Extortion and Abuse of Power
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 7:37 am
by seacoaster
ggait wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 11:02 pm
On the other hand Roberts only guides and enforces the rules. McConnell gets to set the rules. Roberts' hands could be tied pretty tightly in regards to what he can enforce.
Actually not.
McConnell has already committed to holding a real trial and following the existing Senate rules for impeachment trials.
Under those rules, the Senate MUST take up articles immediately. The Senate MUST stay in session every day (except Sunday) until a verdict is rendered. Once the trial starts, the Senators are not allowed to speak or do anything else except listen as jurors. If a senator wants to ask a question, he has to submit it to the CJ in writing, and the CJ can decide to ask the question or not. The House managers/prosecutors really run the show in the Senate, subject to the CJ acting as the presiding officer and Trump's counsel acting in defense.
While the Senate can change its rules by majority vote, any McConnell rule jam job would need votes from Romney, Collins, Murkowski etc. I'm not sure if Pence is allowed to vote on changes to the impeachment rules. But since he is banned by the Constitution from having any role in the impeachment trial itself, I doubt the Reps would go there if even possible. So the rules (below) probably are not going to change.
You know that institutionalist Roberts, with the brightest spotlight of his career trained on him, will do everything in his power to project objectivity and fairness. So the Dems will get a fair opportunity to put on their case. TBD what would happen if the Dems tried to get Roberts to enforce a subpoena for Bolton or other holdouts.
TBD how guerilla the Reps will go -- like subpoena-ing Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Alexandra Chalupa (whoever that is), Hillary, Christopher Steele, Comey....
https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/ ... erules.pdf
Very helpful; thanks a lot for posting.
Re: IMPEACHMENT ... Bribery, Extortion and Abuse of Power
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:52 am
by foreverlax
Peggy today in the WSJ
Witnesses were uneven, but even his closest allies don’t try to deny he did what he’s accused of doing.
Look, the case has been made. Almost everything in the impeachment hearings this week fleshed out and backed up the charge that President Trump muscled Ukraine for political gain. The pending question is what precisely the House and its Democratic majority will decide to include in the articles of impeachment, what statutes or standards they will assert the president violated.
What was said consistently undermined Mr. Trump’s case, but more deadly was what has never been said. In the two months since Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry was under way and the two weeks since the Intelligence Committee’s public hearings began, no one, even in the White House, has said anything like, “He wouldn’t do that!” or “That would be so unlike him.” His best friends know he would do it and it’s exactly like him.
The week’s hearings were not a seamless success for Democrats. On Tuesday they seemed to be losing the thread. But by Wednesday and Thursday it was restored.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was not a persuasive witness and did not move the story forward, because in spite of the obvious patriotism reflected in his record he was annoying—smug and full of himself. He appeared in full dress uniform with three rows of ribbons. When Rep. Devin Nunes called him “Mr. Vindman,” he quickly corrected him: “Ranking Member, it’s Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, please.” Oh, snap. As he described his areas of authority at the National Security Council, he seemed to glisten with self-regard. You got the impression he saw himself as fully in charge of U.S. policy toward Ukraine. Asked if it was true that government offered to make him their defense minister he said “yes” with no apparent embarrassment. I don’t know about you but I don’t like it when a foreign government gets a sense of a U.S. military officer and concludes he might fit right in. (A Ukrainian official later said the job offer was a joke.)
Mr. Vindman—I’m sorry, Lt. Col. Vindman—self-valorized, as other witnesses have, and tugged in his opening statement on America’s heart strings by addressing his father, who brought his family from the Soviet Union 40 years ago: “Dad, . . . you made the right decision. . . . Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth.”
The committee has paid entirely too much attention to the witnesses’ emotions. “How did that make you feel?” “Without upsetting you too much, I’d like to show you the excerpts from the call . . .”
I am sure the questioners were told to take this tack by communications professionals who believe this is how you manipulate housewives. In fact a mother at home with a vacuum in one hand and a crying baby in the other would look at them, listen, and think: “You guys represent us to other countries? You gotta butch up.”
Later, as Col. Vindman returned to work, and clearly wanting to be seen, he posed grinning for photos in front of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
It is not only Donald Trump who suffers from Absence of Gravity.
On Wednesday Gordan Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, was both weirdly jolly and enormously effective in doing Mr. Trump damage. He followed the president’s orders; there was a quid pro quo; “everyone was in the loop, it was no secret“; Rudy Giuliani was the point man, with whom Mr. Sondland worked “at the express direction of the president.”
It was his third try at truthful sworn testimony and it was completely believable. It was kind of the ballgame. He seemed like a guy with nothing to lose, or maybe a guy who’d already lost much.
On Thursday Fiona Hill, the former White House Russia expert, was all business, a serious woman you don’t want to mess with. She reoriented things, warning that those who excuse or don’t wish to see Russian propaganda efforts against America, and targeting its elections, are missing the obvious. The suspicion of the president and his allies that Ukraine is the great culprit in the 2016 election is a “fictional narrative.” They are, in fact, bowing to disinformation Russia spreads to cover its tracks and confuse the American people and its political class. She dismissed the president’s operatives’ efforts to get Ukraine’s new president to investigate his country’s alleged meddling as a “domestic political errand.” She and other diplomats were “involved in national security, foreign policy,” and the interests of the operatives and the diplomats had “diverged.” She warned Mr. Sondland: “This is all going to blow up.”
Truer words.
What became obvious in the hearings was the sober testimony from respectable diplomats—not disgruntled staffers with nutty memoirs but people of stature who don’t ordinarily talk—about how the administration operates. It became clear in a new and public way that pretty much everyone around the president has been forced for three years to work around his poor judgment and unpredictability in order to do their jobs. He no doubt knows this and no doubt doesn’t care. Because he’s the boss, they’ll do it his way.
But we saw how damaging this is, how ultimately destructive, not only to coherence and respectability but to the president himself.
After Thursday’s hearings I felt some free-floating sympathy for high Trump appointees who joined early. You can say they knew what they signed up for, but it’s human to have hope, and they surely had it when they came aboard. They were no doubt ambitious—they wanted a big job—but they probably wanted to do good, too. They were optimistic—“How bad can it be?” And there would have been vanity—“I can handle him.” But they couldn’t. He not only doesn’t know where the line is; he has never wanted to know, so he can cross it with impunity, without consciousness of a bad act or one that might put him in danger. They were no match for his unpredictability and resentments, which at any moment could undo anything.
As to impeachment itself, the case has been so clearly made you wonder what exactly the Senate will be left doing. How will they hold a lengthy trial with a case this clear? Who exactly will be the president’s witnesses, those who’d testify he didn’t do what he appears to have done, and would never do it?
Procedures, rules and definitions aren’t fully worked out in the Senate. But we are approaching December and the clock is ticking. A full-blown trial on charges most everyone will believe are true, and with an election in less than a year, will seem absurd to all but diehards and do the country no good.
So the reasonable guess is Republican senators will call to let the people decide. In a divided country this is the right call. But they should take seriously the idea of censuring him for abuse of power. Mr. Trump would be the first president to be censured since Andrew Jackson, to whom his theorists have always compared him. In the end he will probably be proud of a tightening of the connection.
Re: IMPEACHMENT ... Bribery, Extortion and Abuse of Power
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:53 am
by Bandito
Fiona Hill testified that Obama was Putin’s puppet. It’s funny how the Democrats keep accusing Trump and Republicans of things Democrats themselves are actually doing. Democrats are rats, liars and evildoers who want to turn the US into a third world country just to maintain power. They are scum
Re: IMPEACHMENT ... Bribery, Extortion and Abuse of Power
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:00 am
by DMac
If that's all you took from Dr. Hill's testimony you missed an awful lot of what this extremely impressive and knowledgeable woman had to say. You couldn't wear this gal's panties, best you just leave it alone.
Re: IMPEACHMENT ... Bribery, Extortion and Abuse of Power
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:01 am
by jhu72
That is not what she said.
Re: IMPEACHMENT ... Bribery, Extortion and Abuse of Power
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:08 am
by foreverlax
Gregg Jarrett: Trump did nothing impeachable, day-by-day review of all impeachment hearing testimony shows
These hearings have revealed a common and consistent thread. None of the witnesses have provided any direct evidence that President Trump committed an impeachable act.
Which is exactly why those in the know - Trump, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton should come in and tesitfy
The accusation that Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into a “quid pro quo” in which U.S. military aid was contingent upon an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter is unsupported by the evidence presented. It is found nowhere in the transcript of the July 25 telephone conversation between Trump and Zelensky. Nor was it presented by any of the witnesses called by Schiff, D-Calif.
Fine, his opinion. The author doesn't consider the period of time before and after. Why?
Sondland acknowledged that the president kept repeating to him “over and over again” that there was no “quid pro quo.” Quoting Trump, the ambassador testified that the president said: “I want nothing, I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.”
Sondland made it abundantly clear that he never heard from the president that U.S. financial support was conditioned on an announcement of investigations.
Sondland -
He followed the president’s orders; there was a quid pro quo; “everyone was in the loop, it was no secret“; Rudy Giuliani was the point man, with whom Mr. Sondland worked “at the express direction of the president.”
"Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky," Sondland said. "Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President."
Re: IMPEACHMENT ... Bribery, Extortion and Abuse of Power
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:30 am
by SCLaxAttack
foreverlax wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:08 am
Gregg Jarrett: Trump did nothing impeachable, day-by-day review of all impeachment hearing testimony shows
These hearings have revealed a common and consistent thread. None of the witnesses have provided any direct evidence that President Trump committed an impeachable act.
Which is exactly why those in the know - Trump, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton should come in and tesitfy
The accusation that Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into a “quid pro quo” in which U.S. military aid was contingent upon an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter is unsupported by the evidence presented. It is found nowhere in the transcript of the July 25 telephone conversation between Trump and Zelensky. Nor was it presented by any of the witnesses called by Schiff, D-Calif.
Fine, his opinion. The author doesn't consider the period of time before and after. Why?
Sondland acknowledged that the president kept repeating to him “over and over again” that there was no “quid pro quo.” Quoting Trump, the ambassador testified that the president said: “I want nothing, I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.”
Sondland made it abundantly clear that he never heard from the president that U.S. financial support was conditioned on an announcement of investigations.
Sondland -
He followed the president’s orders; there was a quid pro quo; “everyone was in the loop, it was no secret“; Rudy Giuliani was the point man, with whom Mr. Sondland worked “at the express direction of the president.”
"Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky," Sondland said. "Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President."
The only defense Trump can possibly have is plausible deniability- it was all Giuliani’s doing. The only problem is that’s not plausible.
Like the Clinton impeachment trial, we have an obvious breaking of law here. Clinton lied under oath. Trump asked for illegal foreign assistance. The Senate didn’t think Clinton’s law breaking was a big enough deal, what will they say about Trump’s?
I happen to believe Clinton should have been removed from office, and Trump as well.
Re: IMPEACHMENT ... Bribery, Extortion and Abuse of Power
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:41 am
by Bandito
DMac wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:00 am
If that's all you took from Dr. Hill's testimony you missed an awful lot of what this extremely impressive and knowledgeable woman had to say. You couldn't wear this gal's panties, best you just leave it alone.
At least my wife didn’t leave me.
Re: IMPEACHMENT ... Bribery, Extortion and Abuse of Power
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:48 am
by DMac
Gotta figure her to be a deaf-mute then.
Sign language should be pretty easy for her, one finger'll do.
Re: IMPEACHMENT ... Bribery, Extortion and Abuse of Power
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:54 am
by foreverlax
DMac wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:48 am
Gotta figure her to be a deaf-mute then.
Sign language should be pretty easy for her, one finger'll do.
Blind as well.
Re: IMPEACHMENT ... Bribery, Extortion and Abuse of Power
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:19 am
by MDlaxfan76
DMac wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:48 am
Gotta figure her to be a deaf-mute then.
Sign language should be pretty easy for her, one finger'll do.
While trolls should not be fed, I got a chuckle from the "panties" and now this.
Had dinner last evening with a quite talkative fellow who wanted to argue about Trump and the impeachment. My age, early 60's, divorced. 4 of us at the table, this fellow, my wife, mom and I. He made many of the standard arguments straight off of Fox and OANN, had watched a bit of the hearings but not all. All "hearsay". Hates Dems. He allowed as to how he'd be ok with voting for Tulsi, though he hates Democrats, etc. Late in the conversation, my wife, who is quite reserved in her demeanor, asked him politely, "So, what
do you think happened?"...he tried to go to Dems are bad...I suggested that it was actually a good question, what does he actually think Trump did...given what we have learned from the 'hearsay'. His response was that Trump is an egotist who was simply 'trying to clear his name' with the calls for investigating the 2016 Crowdstrike theory...how about the Bidens? That too is about the past, not 2020 Really? "Well, he was just trying to make it clear that Biden is dirty"
So, yeah, 'he did it'.
Red team.
Then he turned to my wife and said, jocularly, "I like you, you're quiet, like women should be"...she did not respond, just smiled. After we dropped him off, she said "what a surprise that he's divorced".