House Impeachment Inquiry

[acbytesla]

Part II

Moscow Mitch has been going on about it too suggesting that those Democrat Senators who are running for the Democratic Nomination would not be wanting to be sitting in silence day after day after day stuck in the Senate when they really want to be out campaigning.

I have been reading the rules for Impeachment Senate Trial written in 1986 and 1999 which are pretty much unchanged

Here's the part about the Senators having to shut up. Amusing actually.

the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct the Sergeant at Arms to make proclamation, who shall, after making proclamation, repeat the following words, viz:
``All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against ------ ------ '';

However certain things are somewhat interesting and concerning. The rules also say the following.


The Presiding Officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.
VI. The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs, precepts, and judgments, to preserve order, and to punish in a summary waycontempts of, and disobedience to, its authority, orders, mandates, writs, precepts, or judgments, and to make all lawful orders, rules, and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice. And the Sergeant at Arms, under the direction of the Senate, may employ such aid and assistance as may be necessary to enforce, execute, and carry into effect the lawful orders, mandates, writs, and precepts of the Senate.

This leaves a lot of gray area. The Defense team for POTUS I imagine promoting the conspiracy theories and the majority Senate could embrace those theories and order subpoenas for Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, even the whistleblower.

But hey, maybe I'm just paranoid.

 

[portlandatheist]

This leaves a lot of gray area. The Defense team for POTUS I imagine promoting the conspiracy theories and the majority Senate could embrace those theories and order subpoenas for Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, even the whistleblower.

But hey, maybe I'm just paranoid.

This is my fear too, that the Senate turns this whole thing into a trail of the Bidens and a continuation of Trump's Bigfoot expedition.

 

[Minoosh]

No evidence to the contrary from Trump, he must still be strongly considering giving evidence himself under oath.

I don't think he ever will. He may be self-aware enough to realize that he *can't* go 5 minutes without lying without TONS of preparation. And he doesn't prepare.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yes, because we know what she thinks about people who misspell others' names.

No, not 'other people'. I often see my name spelled with an "e" on ISF. If you misspelled my name, I might nicely point it out but think nothing less of you for it. On the other hand, the president misspelling the name of the man at the center of his own impeachment hearings is more than a bit odd. One might expect Trump to make it a point to know how to spell the names of the other heads of state he deals with.

Face it; your reaction was because you felt the need to rush to Dear Leader's defense because I poked fun at him. But you made no objection to Trump's intentional use of "Schitt" for Schiff.

 

[Stacyhs]

Not at all, I'm expecting them to be doing the wrong thing, and giving them a case where one or more elements aren't water tight gives them a point of attack to try and sink the entire case. If you have been watching the hearings then you'd see this is exactly their tactic, when they actually bother to go after the evidence and not some CT.

Absolutely correct. They resort to things like "but did you hear the president use the words bribery, extortion, or quid pro quo in relation to the money or WH meeting?

I'm well aware of this and have posted it in this thread, even pointing out that they are blatantly lying about a lot of things knowing that those lies will be sound bites for FOX and the Sinclair Group viewers who will never see the rebuttals to the lies.

Correct again. They rely on viewers not to watch the actual hearings but to get their info from FOX or conservative blogs, etc.

That's not how a senate trial works. The Senators have to sit there and listen and not speak. Those that will be speaking will be members of the House chosen to present the Prosecution's case, Lawyers who will be defending Trump, and the Witnesses.

Now yes I expect the GOP to try and muddy things in TV interviews and likely they will go off bat during the deliberation debates, but for the trial itself, the Defense Legal Team has to be careful in what they say and do because it is far closer in procedure yo an actual trial than the current hearings are.

Happily, Nunes, Jordan, and RaTcliffe won't be able to spend 15 minutes at a time frothing at the mouth in defense of poor Pres. Trump who's being picked on by the Evil Democrats.

Having said that, I don't expect any of the Republicans, save perhaps Kerry, to buck the party line even if Trump admitted it all on the stand.

Sadly, I have to agree.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

“The support for Impeachment is not there. I think the Democrats will have to come up with a new game plan.” @jasoninthehouse @FoxNews

 

[Darat]

I'm not saying that it didn't happen, I think that it did, but it is harder to prove that it did. There are a lot of other reasons that the money could have been held up, and regardless of how credible they are, or aren't, the Republicans will hold them up as the "real reason" it was delayed. Also there is no absolute proof that it was, rather a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing towards it, and a lot of people believing it was held up because of that.



Whereas with the WH Meeting, there are none of those issues. It was held up and never given, there are a lot of people saying that the investigations were absolutely required for getting that meeting. The Ukrainians knew that to get the WH Meeting they had to announce the investigations, and there was a lot of work that was done to get a statement done, and there is no argument that the requirements for the WH Meeting were directly attributable to Trump.



The hold on the aid might be the "worst" of the two offences, but the case for the Meeting is the far stronger of the two.

Problem is that they haven't as far as I know yet said why the money was actually delayed.

 

[varwoche]

Nunes gets involved:

Linky.

a CNN reporter asked Nunes about it and Nunes replied:

I don't talk to you in this lifetime or the next lifetime. At any time, on any question.

Things are so surreal lately, sometimes I wonder if the last three years is just a vivid dream nightmare.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That's not how a senate trial works. The Senators have to sit there and listen and not speak. Those that will be speaking will be members of the House chosen to present the Prosecution's case, Lawyers who will be defending Trump, and the Witnesses.

Okay and outside of a blustering "You can't do that!" what exactly is the plan when the Republicans, inevitably, turn the whole thing into a Dog and Pony show about the Bidens (and you know the other top Democratic candidates are going to get drawn into it as well) anyway?

Angrily tell them "But you can't do that!" again?

The Impeachment is the best re-election campaign Donald Trump could have asked for.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

But there were tapes.

True. But we have video.

For example, of Trump on the White House lawn asking China to investigate “the Bidens”. Of all the people on the planet who might be involved in corruption, targeting the leading Democrat in the presidential primaries and his son.

Not to mention tweets.

I sincerely hope the Judiciary Committee includes a wide range of charges in their Articles of Impeachment, under the general categories of Obstruction of Justice, Witness Intimidation, Emoluments Violations and Election Interference. Force the Republican Senators to take a stand on each and every one.

 

[Galaxie]

This talk of shady behavior by Nunes reminds me that WI senator Ron Johnson should be scrutinized too: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...lomat-two-weeks-before-trump-call/3942618002/

 

[dasmiller]

I have been reading the rules for Impeachment Senate Trial written in 1986 and 1999 which are pretty much unchanged

<snip>

However certain things are somewhat interesting and concerning. The rules also say the following.


The Presiding Officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.
VI. The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs, precepts, and judgments, to preserve order, and to punish in a summary waycontempts of, and disobedience to, its authority, orders, mandates, writs, precepts, or judgments, and to make all lawful orders, rules, and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice. And the Sergeant at Arms, under the direction of the Senate, may employ such aid and assistance as may be necessary to enforce, execute, and carry into effect the lawful orders, mandates, writs, and precepts of the Senate.

This leaves a lot of gray area. The Defense team for POTUS I imagine promoting the conspiracy theories and the majority Senate could embrace those theories and order subpoenas for Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, even the whistleblower.

But hey, maybe I'm just paranoid.

(hilite mine)

But do I understand correctly that the Presiding Officer is the Chief Justice? Might that constrain the Republicans in their pursuit of squirrels?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

(hilite mine)

But do I understand correctly that the Presiding Officer is the Chief Justice? Might that constrain the Republicans in their pursuit of squirrels?

Inconvenience more than constrain: with a simple majority, the Senate can change the rules whenever they want in whatever way they want - and the Chief Justice has to play by them, since it's not his Court.
For all intends and purposes, the Senate Majority Leader can second-guess the Chief Justice during an Impeachment Trial.

But it will make Republicans look pretty stupid and partisan if the force Roberts' to change his decisions via a rule-change vote.

 

[Babbylonian]

Inconvenience more than constrain: with a simple majority, the Senate can change the rules whenever they want in whatever way they want - and the Chief Justice has to play by them, since it's not his Court.
For all intends and purposes, the Senate Majority Leader can second-guess the Chief Justice during an Impeachment Trial.

But it will make Republicans look pretty stupid and partisan if the force Roberts' to change his decisions via a rule-change vote.

Not really. They'll say Roberts is a Never-Trumper and their base will jump right on board.

 

[theprestige]

(hilite mine)

But do I understand correctly that the Presiding Officer is the Chief Justice? Might that constrain the Republicans in their pursuit of squirrels?

The role of President of the Senate is largely ceremonial. Its most significant duty is to cast tiebreaker votes. Normally the Vice President fills the role. However, when the Senate is considering removal of the president or the vice president, the role of President of the Senate is assumed by the chief justice.

 

[quadraginta]

I do look forward to the unauthorized biography on Nunes with the title "The Man That Sued Imaginary Cows".

A little more interesting like this, I thought.

 

[Garrison]

Trump Tweets

“The support for Impeachment is not there. I think the Democrats will have to come up with a new game plan.” @jasoninthehouse @FoxNews

By which he means that Senate Republicans will not vote to find him guilty regardless of the evidence. If tomorrow Trump admitted to linking the aid to investigating Biden, they will simply deny it constitutes wrong doing as they have so many times before.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

Adam Schiff will be compelled to testify should the Democrats decide, despite the fact that my presidential conversations were totally appropriate (perfect), to go forward with the Impeachment Hoax. Polls have now turned very strongly against Impeachment!

Joe Concha, The Hill: “In Emerson College Poll, Impeachment among independents, 49% Oppose, 34% Support. You see why Pelosi is reluctant to go in with this. Dems have to go home and explain why they haven’t done something on Opioid crisis, drug prices, USMCA, the Border, etc.

“The Democrats dirty tricks have started this whole thing. The Whistleblower, the guy who took his case to Schiff’s staff first, is what really blows the lid off this entire saga. He worked for Biden on Ukraine policy when Biden was VP. He worked for deep state henchman John

.....Brennan, too. And the Whistleblower also worked for Susan Rice. It’s an understatement to say that this is a Witch Hunt.”
@IngrahamAngle
They spied on my campaign!

 

[acbytesla]

The role of President of the Senate is largely ceremonial. Its most significant duty is to cast tiebreaker votes. Normally the Vice President fills the role. However, when the Senate is considering removal of the president or the vice president, the role of President of the Senate is assumed by the chief justice.

You're talking about the Vice President, not the Presiding officer of the Senate. Generally what you're saying is correct. The Presiding officer of the Senate runs the Senate floor which under regular circumstances is more menial since most of what happens in the Senate happens either in committee or in caucusing with other members. But an impeachment trial is not that.

Roberts will have a lot of authority presiding. Whether he wields it or not is another issue.

 

[smartcooky]

This is my fear too, that the Senate turns this whole thing into a trail of the Bidens and a continuation of Trump's Bigfoot expedition.

Remember that the Senate trial is presided over by the Chief Justice. I can't see him allowing that to happen.