Impeachment

[Voronwë the Faithful]

We got to remember what the Constitution started with: "We the People," not "Me the President
-- Colin Powell

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[RoseMorninStar]

We got to remember what the Constitution started with: "We the People," not "Me the President
-- Colin Powell

I admire Colin Powell. I wish he'd have run for President. I don't think the people supporting Trump care what Colin Powell or any respectable Republican from the past has to say. They won't listen to him any more than they listened to John McCain. Trump supporters/Republicans sat by while Trump, someone who was never in the military and has never seen combat let alone faced the type of situations that require leadership & courage of McCain, denigrate McCain, a war hero - someone who served America with honor all of his life. They are now a party of sycophants, cowards, and conspiracy theorists.

TIME: Colin Powell: The Republican Party Needs To 'Get a Grip' and Stand Up to Trump

[Voronwë the Faithful]

So at the last second, the State Department (read "the White House") ordered Gordon Sondland, the Ambassador to the EU who was one of the individuals on the text messages released last week and the one who told Sen. Ron Johnson that the Ukrainian Aid was being held up until they investigated Biden, not to appear. Frankly, I think Pelosi et al. have made a big mistake in not taking a vote authorizing the impeachment inquiry, because they have made it very easy for Trump et al. to refuse to cooperate.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

On the other hand, Sondland (who is a strong backer of the president as shown by the million dollar donation that he made to the Trump Inaugural Committee) was very likely to testify that nothing was done wrong, that Johnson was mistaken about what he said, and that there was never any quid pro quo whatsoever, giving the supporters of the president strong talking points. Instead, the narrative is that the administration is continuing to obstruct justice by preventing relevant witnesses from testifying. So perhaps the strategy makes more sense than I first thought.

[River]

On the other hand, Sondland (who is a strong backer of the president as shown by the million dollar donation that he made to the Trump Inaugural Committee) was very likely to testify that nothing was done wrong, that Johnson was mistaken about what he said, and that there was never any quid pro quo whatsoever, giving the supporters of the president strong talking points.

Then why block his testimony?

[elengil]

Then why block his testimony?

Probably the possibility of being caught between a lie and a damaging truth?
Or maybe just the same insane power trip.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

On the other hand, Sondland (who is a strong backer of the president as shown by the million dollar donation that he made to the Trump Inaugural Committee) was very likely to testify that nothing was done wrong, that Johnson was mistaken about what he said, and that there was never any quid pro quo whatsoever, giving the supporters of the president strong talking points.

Then why block his testimony?

Who knows? Often times, things simply don't make sense. But if I had to guess, I would say it is one of two things (or maybe a combination).

1) There are actually damning documents (texts and/or emails) on Sondland's phone that they are trying to hide.

2) They are setting a precedent for refusing to allow others to cooperate, including preventing other State Department employees such as Bill Taylor who are likely to have much more damning things to say from testifying, and refusing to produce documents from the White House, the OMB, and the Pentagon (all of whom have been subpoenaed.

It appears likely that we are heading for a major showdown in the Supreme Court similar to what happen with Nixon in Watergate with the tapes. In that situation, Congress brought a court action to force the White House to produce the tapes and then fast tracked it to the SCOTUS. I believe it took about 3 months from the time that they first brought the action to the high court's unanimous ruling (8-0, with future Chief Justice and then Associate Justice Rehnquist recusing himself) that the tapes needed to be turned over. Nixon resigned weeks later. Of course, there is no guarantee that the current court would rule the same way, or that it would matter if it did. And it wasn't an election year then.

What a clusterfuck!

[Alatar]

<aside>wtf happened to the profanity filter? </aside>

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Two new developments that shed some light on the action.

1) Several media outlets are reporting that during the five hours between the text that Bill Taylor sent to Sondland saying that he thought it was crazy that they were tying military aid to investigation of a political rival and the text that Sondland sent back with very formalized language saying that Taylor was wrong and that was not what Mr. Trump intended, and that they should not be talking about this in writing, Sondland spoke on the telephone directly with Mr. Trump. That is pretty remarkable.

2) The White House finally sent their letter to the Congressional Democrats basically saying screw you we are not going to cooperate with your "illegal" investigation.

Also, this morning in a hearing held before Chief Judge Beryl Howell on the Congressional Democrats' attempts to get the grand jury and other redacted information from the Mueller report as part of their impeachment inquiry, the lawyers for the justice department stunned the judge by telling her that Watergate happened today, they would block the evidence.

DOJ: If Watergate Happened Today, We’d Block Evidence From Congress

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And then there is this stunner from the Times

Trump’s Ukraine Call Was ‘Crazy’ and ‘Frightening,’ Official Told Whistle-Blower

The inspector general, Michael Atkinson, handed the two-page memo over to Congress last week along with other documents that shed light on the whistle-blower and his actions. A person familiar with their contents, which Fox News first reported, described them to The New York Times. A lawyer for the whistle-blower did not comment.

So this is part of the documentation that Congress already has. There is a lot more that they know than has been publicly revealed.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Cerin]

So at the last second, the State Department (read "the White House") ordered Gordon Sondland <snip> not to appear. Frankly, I think Pelosi et al. have made a big mistake in not taking a vote authorizing the impeachment inquiry, because they have made it very easy for Trump et al. to refuse to cooperate.

I had asked previously about subpoena power related to the decision not to take a vote, and you had said not taking a vote wasn't an issue, but now you seem to see it as making a difference, vis-a-vis the ease of Trump et al to refuse cooperation. My understanding is that the Dems would have more weight behind them, so to speak, if going to court to enforce a subpoena having taken a full House vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry. 

But the wording in this article (below) is illuminating, if it is accurate. It implies that the requests for (at least some of the) information and testimony thus far have been just that -- requests for voluntary cooperation, not subpoenas. If voluntary cooperation is refused, then subpoenas will be issued, but without any effort to enforce them; instead the refusals of subpoenas would be cited as impeachable offenses.

This seems like a rather unorthodox approach to me. It could suggest that a thorough inquiry into impeachable offenses is not the goal. If they really wanted the information, wouldn't they try to enforce the subpoenas? Why not take the vote and enforce the subpoenas? Because then there would be no going back on a full blown, official inquiry, which idea Pelosi was never very enthused about?

So they give the Pres. an excuse not to comply (no official vote), then issue subpoenas without enforcement so they can impeach him for obstructing the inquiry. Perhaps they just want a streamlined process since the chances of a Senate conviction are slim. Weird.

House Democrats have said they would issue a subpoena to the White House for the additional documents sought if they were not voluntarily turned over. If the White House does not comply, Democrats have said they would not consider contempt or any other penalties, instead using the non-compliance as evidence of obstruction for impeachment.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/1 ... /23831969/

[Voronwë the Faithful]

To be clear, there is absolutely no requirement that they take a vote. It has absolutely no effect on their subpoena power. However, the only real enforcement power that they would have would be with the cooperation of the Justice Department, which obviously is not forthcoming.

They have consistently asked for voluntary cooperation before issuing subpoenas, but they have issued subpoenas too the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon, and the OMB. And they issued a new subpoena directly to Sondland today for his documents and testimony. I'm sure they will all be ignored.

I'm fairly sure that even if they took a vote the White House would still refuse to cooperate. But they would have one less talking point.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Cerin]

However, the only real enforcement power that they would have would be with the cooperation of the Justice Department, which obviously is not forthcoming.

You spoke earlier about ultimately going to court to enforce the subpoenas. That would not require the cooperation of the Justice Dept., would it?


I thought of two reasons for the Dems to go the route they appear to be going at this hour, that is: 1. not taking a vote, which permits them to keep the inquiry in various committees, led by Schiff's committee, as opposed to an official proceeding being moved to the Judiciary committee, which would happen after a vote; 2. not planning to enforce subpoenas to get to information but instead, citing refusal of subpoenas as grounds for impeachment:

Reason 1 -- they can keep the inquiry behind closed doors (intelligence committee), thereby preventing public scrutiny and retaining complete control of the narrative;

Reason 2 -- not attempting to enforce subpoenas will keep the name 'Biden' out of the conversation to a greater degree than if the background information were examined minutely

[RoseMorninStar]

Some people are guessing that what the WH wants is that the obstruction of justice charge to go forward rather than have whatever it is they are hiding come out.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

However, the only real enforcement power that they would have would be with the cooperation of the Justice Department, which obviously is not forthcoming.

You spoke earlier about ultimately going to court to enforce the subpoenas. That would not require the cooperation of the Justice Dept., would it?

To be clearer, in order to hold someone in contempt of Congress and take any action against them, they would need the cooperation of the Justice Dept. Going to court to enforce the subpoenas is a different route. The Justice Dept. likely would submitting briefings in support of the administration. And even assuming that Congress won, it would take months, even if they are able to fasttrack it to the Supreme Court. Also, I would not be shocked if this administration even disregarded a final court order.

I thought of two reasons for the Dems to go the route they appear to be going at this hour, that is: 1. not taking a vote, which permits them to keep the inquiry in various committees, led by Schiff's committee, as opposed to an official proceeding being moved to the Judiciary committee, which would happen after a vote; 2. not planning to enforce subpoenas to get to information but instead, citing refusal of subpoenas as grounds for impeachment:

Reason 1 -- they can keep the inquiry behind closed doors (intelligence committee), thereby preventing public scrutiny and retaining complete control of the narrative;

Reason 2 -- not attempting to enforce subpoenas will keep the name 'Biden' out of the conversation to a greater degree than if the background information were examined minutely

None of this is remotely correct. First of all, given their actions so far, there is no reason to believe that anything is true other than they are certainly going to take every possible action to enforce the subpoenas. Secondly, there is no reason why taking a vote would prevent them from continuing to proceed in several committees, or to take depositions in private (which is a very standard procedure). There is nothing in the Constitution, no statutes, and no House rules that say that if they take a vote confirming the inquiry it needs to proceed only in Judiciary, and it already is an official proceeding.

While it is true that the last two times there were impeachment proceedings for presidents they took a vote authorizing the action, the reason they did so was that at the time, the House rules did not provide for subpoena power otherwise. However, when the GOP took over the House after the 2010 election they changed the House rules to give the majority party the power to issue subpoena (but not the minority party). So because of that change, it is not necessary to hold a vote. And while there is no recent precedent of having an impeachment inquiry of a president conducted without a full vote of the House, there are plenty of precedents of impeachments of other executive officers without a full vote.

As for the complaint being made in that incredibly ridiculous letter sent by the White House counsel that they were being denied "due process" because they weren't being given the opportunity to interview witnesses, that shows a willful and fundamental misunderstanding of the impeachment process. The House is not conducting a trial or quasi-trial of the president; that is the job of the Senate. The House is acting in the same role that a grand jury would act in, investigating to determine whether charges should be brought. A person does not have the right to have counsel cross-examining witnesses in a grand jury.

All that being said, I still think the House should hold a vote authorizing the impeachment inquiry, just to remove one talking point from the administration and its allies, illegitimate though it may be. I'd be interested to see what they do then. I'm sure they would come up with another reason not to cooperate.

[RoseMorninStar]

Voronwë, second to last paragraph, don't you mean a trial is the job of the Senate (not the president)?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's what it says.

(Thanks. My fingers do tend to type different things than my brain thinks.)

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[RoseMorninStar]

I do the same. You can do away with these posts if you wish.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Nah, we'll leave 'em here for posterity's sake. I can always use a little dose of humility.

I did want to respond to what you wrote last night.

Some people are guessing that what the WH wants is that the obstruction of justice charge to go forward rather than have whatever it is they are hiding come out.

Be that as it may, the Democrats are not going to go forward only on the obstruction of justice charge (or more properly, obstruction of congress charge, which was one of the three articles of impeachment that the House was getting ready against Nixon when he resigned). They will definitely include charges based on the Ukraine conduct, and perhaps additional obstruction of justice charges based on the conduct detailed in the Mueller report, as they believe (and I agree) that there is sufficient information to make that case with what they have, even if the White House blocks everything else (and they will argue that the blocking of other material should be considered evidence of guilt).

One interesting question that comes up is what happens if the House does impeach and then the administration produces information at the Senate trial that had not been previously turned over that they say contradicts the narrative being argued by the House? I think the House will have a very compelling argument at that point the information is being cherrypicked so that only the apparently exculpatory is being provided while the damning evidence is continuing to be hidden.

[RoseMorninStar]

I would imagine that Trump wants a vote so he can use that to attack, threaten, intimidate, bully, belittle, and name-call whomever votes for the inquiry. When the polls show a strong 55% wanting impeachment/inquiry (and it's getting there) he's really going to be in trouble.