LaxPower Back-Up Stick

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:59 pm So I see that in Clinton's impeachment, the House managers took closed-door depos from Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal. So there is some precedent for being able to vet Bolton's possible testimony at the Senate stage. Utlimately, the Senate voted to have the videos played as testimony rather than calling live witnesses.

Also, remember that Clinton testified to a grand jury and videos of his GJ testimony were played in the Senate. So there's precedent for the Dems to Gobosh and subpoena Trump himself. But if Trump defies the subpoena (likely), what exactly is anyone going to do about it? So I would not vote to shoot this bullet.

I think any lawyer examining him in the Senate trial (as long is it is not a House member (heaven help us)) would make mincemeat of him.

I think the managers in the Senate have to be members of Congress -- typically House Judiciary members. I think staffers like Dan Goldman can only play at the committee level or work behind the scenes. For Clinton, there were 13 member/managers and I think they were the only ones who participated and spoke at the Senate trial.

Schiff would fillet the President. Bring it on.

Good point about the depositions in the Clinton impeachment. Bolton still worries me, however. I think he could blow up on the Dems. Something funky is going on with him. Why hasn’t the House subpoenaed him? There must be a reason. And if he really wanted to testify, he would do so after accepting service of a friendly subpoena and would not be making noises that it has to go to court. To be continued, I guess.

You really think Trump would defy a subpoena issued by the Senate, approved by John Roberts? Boy, I think that would be extremely damaging politically.

Clinton was represented by counsel in the Senate. I don’t understand why the House managers couldn’t be represented by counsel as well. One side can have a lawyer but the other can’t? There are very few situations I can think of where you are not permitted to be represented by a lawyer. And I can’t think of any type of trial where you can’t be represented by a lawyer.

So a big part of the Rs justification for, and therefore not worthy of impeachment, impeachable behavior on the part of Trump is centered on the idea that possible corruption on the part of Joe Biden and son, and the debunked idea that it was Ukraine and not Russia who had the drive and wherewithal to affect our elections warranted (and seemingly still warrants) a considerably greater corruption scheme perpetrated by the President and his cronies to try to coerce a foreign government to perform a political favor or two for our pathetic, uninformed, self consumed POTUS, and shore up the debunked conspiracy claims that points the blame away from Russia and towards Ukraine as far as who our true enemies might be. Why does it matter when the real culprit is the ubiquitous "deep state" so obviously in the pocket of the "Russia bad" "Ukraine good" apologists who somehow think that Vlad and his democracy sympathizers over in motherland Russia are a bigger threat to our country than the perhaps human flesh eating monsters in the Ukraine who so obviously hate Trump and our democracy with such unbridled vehemence.

Trump will just refuse to testify, no matter what Roberts and/or SCOTUS does. The remedy for POTUS violating a SCOTUS order is (wait for it) … impeachment and removal.

And 100% of the Republican Senators will vote to keep Trump in office, no matter what he does or doesn't do, up to and including shooting Joe Biden stone cold dead on Fifth Avenue.

calourie wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:47 pm So a big part of the Rs justification for, and therefore not worthy of impeachment, impeachable behavior on the part of Trump is centered on the idea that possible corruption on the part of Joe Biden and son, and the debunked idea that it was Ukraine and not Russia who had the drive and wherewithal to affect our elections warranted (and seemingly still warrants) a considerably greater corruption scheme perpetrated by the President and his cronies to try to coerce a foreign government to perform a political favor or two for our pathetic, uninformed, self consumed POTUS, and shore up the debunked conspiracy claims that points the blame away from Russia and towards Ukraine as far as who our true enemies might be. Why does it matter when the real culprit is the ubiquitous "deep state" so obviously in the pocket of the "Russia bad" "Ukraine good" apologists who somehow think that Vlad and his democracy sympathizers over in motherland Russia are a bigger threat to our country than the perhaps human flesh eating monsters in the Ukraine who so obviously hate Trump and our democracy with such unbridled vehemence.

There have been recent briefings in the Senate from the intel community about the Russian efforts behind the false Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election theory - echoing what Fiona Hill testified to the HIC...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/us/p ... rence.html

Trump will just refuse to testify, no matter what Roberts and/or SCOTUS does. The remedy for POTUS violating a SCOTUS order is (wait for it) … impeachment and removal.

Ding ding ding. SCOTUS has previously ruled that impeachment proceedings are not subject to judicial review. So you'll never get to the high drama show down that Nixon faced over the tapes. Which was a federal court order saying you must comply. In the Senate process, it is just one more Congressional witch hunt subpoena to blow off. I'm not sure how much Roberts' signature on the page would change it. But the downside to the Dems would be to big -- presidents almost never ever ever testify in person to Congress. The optics just scream "separation of powers." I just don't see them going there.

Clinton was represented by counsel in the Senate. I don’t understand why the House managers couldn’t be represented by counsel as well.

This is a gray area under the Senate rules imo. House counsel did not participate in Clinton's Senate trial -- just the House members. Nixon never got to a Senate trial. No idea how Andrew Johnson was handled. Clearly the president can have counsel (as Clinton did).

Bolton still worries me, however. I think he could blow up on the Dems. Something funky is going on with him. Why hasn’t the House subpoenaed him? There must be a reason. And if he really wanted to testify, he would do so after accepting service of a friendly subpoena and would not be making noises that it has to go to court. To be continued, I guess.

Hard to say what cat/mouse game Bolton is playing. Beyond trying to max out his publicity and importance. And also keeping his options open to judge which way the wind is blowing.

Now that Trump is completely out of the danger zone, I think Bolton will want to testify. Which suggests his testimony wouldn't be that great for the Dems. TBD/TBC.

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:49 pm

Bolton still worries me, however. I think he could blow up on the Dems. Something funky is going on with him. Why hasn’t the House subpoenaed him? There must be a reason. And if he really wanted to testify, he would do so after accepting service of a friendly subpoena and would not be making noises that it has to go to court. To be continued, I guess.

Hard to say what cat/mouse game Bolton is playing. Beyond trying to max out his publicity and importance. And also keeping his options open to judge which way the wind is blowing.

Now that Trump is completely out of the danger zone, I think Bolton will want to testify. Which suggests his testimony wouldn't be that great for the Dems. TBD/TBC.

Bolton has a dilemma - his financial future is with the Fox Media/other conservative ecosystem appearances, and so he does not want to burn the wrong bridges. But he was tossed out unceremoniously by Trump, and in the end Bolton seriously differed with the administration approach on a whole lot of policy moves. But given that he thought the whole Rudes/Ukraine/Burisma play was a "drug deal" he would not necessarily be a witness that would support Trump in a major way...

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:49 pm

Bolton still worries me, however. I think he could blow up on the Dems. Something funky is going on with him. Why hasn’t the House subpoenaed him? There must be a reason. And if he really wanted to testify, he would do so after accepting service of a friendly subpoena and would not be making noises that it has to go to court. To be continued, I guess.

Hard to say what cat/mouse game Bolton is playing. Beyond trying to max out his publicity and importance. And also keeping his options open to judge which way the wind is blowing.

Now that Trump is completely out of the danger zone, I think Bolton will want to testify. Which suggests his testimony wouldn't be that great for the Dems. TBD/TBC.

I have to believe few 'want to testily' ever, out of fear for revealing their own skeletons in the closet.

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:38 pm Ding ding ding. SCOTUS has previously ruled that impeachment proceedings are not subject to judicial review. So you'll never get to the high drama show down that Nixon faced over the tapes. Which was a federal court order saying you must comply. In the Senate process, it is just one more Congressional witch hunt subpoena to blow off. I'm not sure how much Roberts' signature on the page would change it. But the downside to the Dems would be to big -- presidents almost never ever ever testify in person to Congress. The optics just scream "separation of powers." I just don't see them going there.

So then why the heck did Clinton agree to a deposition? I STILL don't understand why he did that, or why he answered one single question pertaining to legal activity (sex).

An impeachment trial is different from a run-of-the-mill congressional hearing. This is all academic, of course, because it is highly unlikely to happen, but I think it would be very damaging politically for Trump to refuse to honor a subpoena issued by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and authorized by a majority of the Senate. He has ignored congressional subpoenas, but I don’t think he has ignored any court orders. (I would regard a subpoena authorized by Roberts to be a court order.) In theory, the Senate could send its sergeant at arms to arrest Trump. Obviously that wouldn’t happen, but the subpoena is enforceable.

The impeachment process is at the very heart of separation of powers. The president does not have the constitutional right to ignore it or fail to cooperate with it. I don’t think he has a separation of powers defense to being subpoenaed to testify before the Senate. Might he ignore his legal obligations if subpoenaed? Sure, but I don’t think he would.

Again, what is the downside to the Democrats of calling Trump? I see only upsides or neutral outcomes.

I would be very surprised if the House were to be denied the right to use outside counsel if they wish to do so. Are you saying Trump could have a lawyer examining witnesses but the House couldn’t? I think that is highly unlikely. In the Clinton case, no witnesses testified live before the Senate. Some deposition excerpts were played. Thus, the situation did not come up.

Maybe they will use depositions this time as well. As I recall, a key driver for using depositions was the fact that Monica was only 25 years old at the time and it was thought it would be highly unfair to her to force her to sit in the well of the Senate on national TV. The same concern didn’t apply to the other two witnesses, Blumenthal and Jordan, but I think they figured if they were going to use one deposition, they should use all three.

In the Clinton impeachment, the House elected to use their own members. I don’t recall there being any effort by them to use outside counsel which was refused.

The document production issues are interesting. The Clinton impeachment was not, shall we say, a document case. I don’t think there were any substantial issues about having to gather relevant documents in that matter. Here, of course, Trump has stonewalled and refused to produce documents. He has no constitutional right to do so, as the Supreme Court held in U.S. v. Nixon, but if either side wanted to subpoena substantial documents in the Trump trial, that would really bog things down, as I think you have said. I suspect neither side would want to go that route, but who knows?

I will be really interested to see if the Republicans push to subpoena Hunter and Joe Biden, and, if they do, how Roberts rules, and then what the Senate decides. I suppose Trump could try to argue that he had a good faith basis to believe the Bidens violated the law and that was why he wanted the Ukrainians to investigate them. If I were Roberts, I would require the Republicans to make a pretty plausible showing of that, with documents, before I authorized any subpoenas. I highly doubt Trump would be able to do so.

njbill wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:26 pm I suppose Trump could try to argue that he had a good faith basis to believe the Bidens violated the law and that was why he wanted the Ukrainians to investigate them

If this were true, the FBI would have gone to work, no questions asked . No need for Trump to lift a finger.

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:24 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:38 pm Ding ding ding. SCOTUS has previously ruled that impeachment proceedings are not subject to judicial review. So you'll never get to the high drama show down that Nixon faced over the tapes. Which was a federal court order saying you must comply. In the Senate process, it is just one more Congressional witch hunt subpoena to blow off. I'm not sure how much Roberts' signature on the page would change it. But the downside to the Dems would be to big -- presidents almost never ever ever testify in person to Congress. The optics just scream "separation of powers." I just don't see them going there.

So then why the heck did Clinton agree to a deposition? I STILL don't understand why he did that, or why he answered one single question pertaining to legal activity (sex).

I’m too lazy to look this up, but didn't the dress come out after his testimony, which was to a grand jury. Bill never thought Monica would keep the dress or that she wouldn’t launder it or that she would tell Linda Tripp about it or that Linda would talk to Ken Starr. In short, he thought he could talk his way out of it with his silver tongue. It was bizarre, bizarre, bizarre.

Edit: looked it up. Clinton also gave a deposition in the Paula Jones case in which he lied about his relationship with Monica. This is in addition to his grand jury testimony.

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:29 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:26 pm I suppose Trump could try to argue that he had a good faith basis to believe the Bidens violated the law and that was why he wanted the Ukrainians to investigate them

If this were true, the FBI would have gone to work, no questions asked . No need for Trump to lift a finger.

Agreed. No doubt in my mind that Bill Barr hasn’t already looked into this and come up empty.

So in the end, based on what you guys say, nothing will happen and Trump and the R clan will (obnoxiously) claim victory. That's how it all plays out?

I'm dubious about how much new Bolton can bring, beyond what Hill brings.
By the time of the drug deal, Bolton had lost Trump's confidence & was out of the loop.
He'd been banished to Outer Mongolia, literally.

DMac wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:41 pm So in the end, based on what you guys say, nothing will happen and Trump and the R clan will (obnoxiously) claim victory. That's how it all plays out?

Yes, butt It's all about down ticket. How much will the optics hammer the Republican brand?


Well that, and future Presidents will know you can't "investigate" you political opponent.

njbill wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:32 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:29 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:26 pm I suppose Trump could try to argue that he had a good faith basis to believe the Bidens violated the law and that was why he wanted the Ukrainians to investigate them

If this were true, the FBI would have gone to work, no questions asked . No need for Trump to lift a finger.

Agreed. No doubt in my mind that Bill Barr hasn’t already looked into this and come up empty.

Don't need an indictment. Just motivate the MSM to lay out all the inconvenient details of Bidens-Burisma-Archer-Kerry-State Dept-USAID.

Might not be anything criminal but it sure smells like business as usual.

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:47 pm

DMac wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:41 pm So in the end, based on what you guys say, nothing will happen and Trump and the R clan will (obnoxiously) claim victory. That's how it all plays out?

Yes, butt It's all about down ticket. How much will the optics hammer the Republican brand?


Well that, and future Presidents will know you can't "investigate" you political opponent.

Horowitz & Durham might emphasize that point.

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:44 pm I'm dubious about how much new Bolton can bring, beyond what Hill brings.
By the time of the drug deal, Bolton had lost Trump's confidence & was out of the loop.
He'd been banished to Outer Mongolia, literally.

Agreed.

In looking him up today, I learned two things about Bolton I didn’t know. One, he is a graduate of McDonogh School. Two, he is only 5’7”. I thought it was taller.