Impeachment

[RoseMorninStar]

I read an article today that seemed to put things in (an awful sort of) perspective: Be prepared to fight a dangerous new wave of disinformation during the Senate trial.
The purpose isn't so much about Trump per se, it is about chaos and a breakdown of trust in our society & its institutions. The destruction of the Democratic experiment. In part the article states:

A cumulative effect of all these tactics is nihilistic debasement of the very concept of truth. Putin is not trying to win the argument; instead, his propaganda machine aims to convince that there is no truth, no right and wrong, or no data or evidence, only relativism, point of view and biased opinion.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

McConnell has released his proposed resolution for the impeachment trial rules and they are dazzling in their ludicrous-ness. He proposes that each side shall have 24 hours to present their case divided over just two days. This despite the fact that the trial won't start until 1 pm each day in order to accommodate Chief Justice John Roberts' schedule. That means that with breaks the trial will go to a at least 3 in the morning each day. Truly ludicrous.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[River]

If he gets enough votes to pass that, those who voted yes will have no one but themselves to blame for the sleep deficit and eventual REM rebound. May their dreams be especially weird and haunting and may they lose their jobs anyway.

[RoseMorninStar]

It is ludicrous. Especially after the histrionics they went through over the house rules which were more than rational and fair by comparison.

[Frelga]

They aren't even pretending anymore, are they.

[RoseMorninStar]

They aren't even pretending anymore, are they.

No.

[elengil]

Here's a puzzle.

WH lawyers argue that Trump cannot be indicted or tried for a crime while in office, then they criticize impeachment for not specifying a crime.

Incidentally, if anyone is curious, here are all the impeachments held in the US to date
https://history.house.gov/Institution/I ... ment-List/


I keep seeing the argument that Democrats are setting dangerous precedent for making impeachment political. I feel Republicans are setting dangerous precedent saying that the President is above the law, above questioning, above the other branches, above subpoenas, that he can claim executive privilege over absolutely any and everything that pertains even slightly to him, that he can prevent witnesses from testifying, withhold Congressionally apportioned funds, use "national security" as a blanket excuse without the slightest shred of evidence to overstep his power in terms of funding for his wall and imposing tariffs, that he can brazenly funnel government money to his private businesses, continue to receive payments form foreign governments at his private properties, that he can directly request interference in his upcoming election, ignore national security by spilling classified information anytime he wants to feel important (yes, I know the president can declassify anything), can ignore national security threats against our election process, can ignore his own government intelligence because he thinks he knows more than they do...

Is this really the next Democratic president y'all want? Do you really think there isn't going to be a future Democratic president and Congress that you don't want to get away with the above abuses? A president above oversight, above the law?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

McConnell made two last minute changes to the resolution, reportedly because some GOP senators were uncomfortable with it. Instead of giving each side 24 hours over two days, which would have required sessions to likely go as late as 3 or 4 in the morning, he changed it so that it would be 24 hours over 3 days for each side. It still will require that sessions go deep into the night, but that is not quite as unreasonable (although there is no reason not to follow the pattern of the Clinton impeachment trial of having the 24 hours spread over 4 days for each side. I would not be surprised if quietly Chief Justice Roberts made it known that the original plan was unacceptable to him. Remember, the trial starts each day at 1:00 p.m. so that he can hear oral arguments in his normal gig in the morning. Under the original plan, he probably would have had to begin preparing for the next morning's oral arguments just a couple of hours after the impeachment trial session ended! The other change is that rather than requiring votes to admit each piece of evidence, the rule now only require a vote if there is an objection to the admission of evidence.

These changes make the resolution somewhat less ludicrous, though it is still clear that McConnell is doing everything he can to rush the trial and hide the presentation of evidence behind the cover of darkness. The real test will still be later in the trial, after both sides make their 24 hour opening arguments, and the votes on hearing witnesses and subpoenaing documents take place.

[River]

I was wondering how McConnell's 12 hour days starting at 1 pm would go over with his caucus. If my boss suggested I do something like that I'd start aggressively looking for a new job, have a conversation with my husband about whether or not we can sustain the temporary loss of income, and depending on the outcome of that conversation hand in my parking permit and access badge immediately or after I have an offer in hand. And all of that would come after asking my boss if he's out of his ****ing mind.

[Frelga]

Another change

At the last minute, a change to this provision: House evidence now will be admitted automatically unless there's an objection, rather than requiring a pro-active vote to admit it

This is Trump's typical strategy - propose something completely librarian-poo, change it to something merely ludicrous, and claim that this is them being reasonable and open to compromise.

[elengil]

Another change

At the last minute, a change to this provision: House evidence now will be admitted automatically unless there's an objection, rather than requiring a pro-active vote to admit it

This is Trump's typical strategy - propose something completely librarian-poo, change it to something merely ludicrous, and claim that this is them being reasonable and open to compromise.

And then they can claim they 'compromised'.

[Dave_LF]

Ha; I came here to post exactly that

(but with a different metaphor )

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Another change

At the last minute, a change to this provision: House evidence now will be admitted automatically unless there's an objection, rather than requiring a pro-active vote to admit it

This is Trump's typical strategy - propose something completely librarian-poo, change it to something merely ludicrous, and claim that this is them being reasonable and open to compromise.

That's not another change. That is one of the two changes that I described in my post.

You have to admire McConnell's sheer unscrupulous canniness. I'm sure that this was exactly the resolution that he wanted in the first place, but if he had proposed 3 days in the first place it would have seemed an outrageous deviation from the Clinton trial. This way, it makes it look like a concession.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In contrast, I think Schumer's strategy of offering up and making the Senate debate on and vote on a series of amendments that have no chance of passing and only serve to piss off the few GOP senators that might eventually vote to support subpoenaing some witnesses and maybe some documents is stoopfid.

[elengil]

Voronwë, I had asked this before and don't believe I ever got an answer (not maliciously or anything, just probably got overlooked) - how much weight does the Chief Justice have in this process? Can he force a matter that is in debate? Can he require something even if the Senate had 'voted' against it? Just what does it mean for him to preside over the trial?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

elengil, his role is really largely ceremonial. In theory, he can be asked to rule on evidentiary matters, but in practice, even if he is asked to rule on an evidentiary matter, he can be overruled by a majority vote of Senators, which is the same exact requirement for passing a motion on evidentiary matters if he is not asked to rule! One open question is whether he would be able to break a tie if the senators split on a vote 50-50.

Apparently, in the first impeachment trial of a president, that of Andrew Johnson, Chief Justice Chase took quite an active role. However, in the second, that of William Jefferson Clinton, Chief Justice Rehnquist (in his own words), "did nothing, and did it very well."

I very much expect Chief Justice Roberts to emulate his immediate predecessor, not his longer-distance one.

[elengil]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/21/politics ... index.html

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump's personal attorneys on Tuesday attacked the House of Representatives for impeaching the President while not going to court to force some officials' testimony and for refusing to wait for federal court rulings on whether witnesses must testify.

But at the same time, the White House has attempted to use the courts during impeachment to their advantage to delay and to dodge the House's subpoenas for information. Specifically, Trump's Justice Department has defended the President by arguing in several federal court cases against the House that judges have no role in deciding disputes between Congress and the administration

"(W)hile these lawyers for the President are here before you today saying the House should have gone to court, they're in court saying the House may not go to court to enforce subpoenas. I kid you not," the California Democrat said.
"Other lawyers, maybe not the ones at this table, but other lawyers for the President, are in the court saying the exact opposite of what they're telling you today," Schiff added. "They're saying you cannot enforce congressional subpoenas. That's non-judiciable. You can't do it."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I happened to be listening during that part. I thought Schiff was very effective.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[RoseMorninStar]

I realize this is a month+ old and we're beyond this, but I thought it laid out the constitution/impeachment process rather well. From VOX: https://youtu.be/ika0Ym-6074

[Sunsilver]

Oh my, history repeating itself...just HAD to post this!