Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[Horatius]

I still hold it was a major blunder making the impeachment charges so “narrow”.

I would have preferred that several obstruction charges from the Mueller report be included. And possibly at least one emoluments violation. I have not seen a convincing argument against doing so.

Republicans are already jumping on the limited charges, asking “That’s all?” and putting forth “They’re not even crimes”. Whereas offenses outlined in Mueller were crimes, with all three elements of the crime of obstruction laid out.

I fear that yet again, the Democrats are being outplayed.

The problem is, since they have no intention of saying anything even close to the truth, that they'd come up with pithy propaganda slogans about anything that was put in the articles of impeachment.

"They're throwing everything against the wall in hopes that something might stick! So Desperate!"

"Mueller Report? The "No Collusion!" Report? What's next? 'Trump guilty of not kicking orphans and puppies'?"

"Trump cleared of 90% of Fake Charges!"

This isn't about convincing Republican Senators to convict Trump, that ship has sailed. It's about clearly demonstrating to voters who might still vote against the GOP that the GOP is entirely corrupt, and in the pocket of Trump. One crystal-clear example of them letting Trump get away with a blatant abuse of office is probably going to be more effective than a laundry list of overlapping charges that would provide ample opportunities for the GOP to lie and obfuscate in order to confuse the issues.

It will also tend to expose their party-line responses. With a hundred different charges, you give them a hundred different excuses for not convicting. With only one or two charges, then it becomes clear that they're all using the same cheap excuse.

 

[webfusion]

Apparently, there will be no witnesses called, and the entire Senate 'trial' will last exactly one day.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...lity-of-quick-impeachment-trial-idUSKBN1YE2RH

The Majority Leader today said that 51 senators could come together (a majority of the 100 senators) and quickly decide "that they’ve heard enough already and believe they know what would happen and we can move to vote immediately on these two articles of impeachment sent over to us by the House."

 

[acbytesla]

Apparently, there will be no witnesses called, and the entire Senate 'trial' will last exactly one day.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...lity-of-quick-impeachment-trial-idUSKBN1YE2RH

The Majority Leader today said that 51 senators could come together (a majority of the 100 senators) and quickly decide "that they’ve heard enough already and believe they know what would happen and we can move to vote immediately on these two articles of impeachment sent over to us by the House."

There will have to be a trial that the Chief Justice presides over. It can last 5 minutes, but there has to be a trial.

 

[theprestige]

There will have to be a trial that the Chief Justice presides over. It can last 5 minutes, but there has to be a trial.

What's the Chief Justice supposed to do during those five minutes?

 

[acbytesla]

What's the Chief Justice supposed to do during those five minutes?

He has to call the trial to order. recognize a motion, call the vote, record the vote and adjourn the trial.

 

[Belz...]

Apparently, there will be no witnesses called, and the entire Senate 'trial' will last exactly one day.

A show trial.

If anyone had any doubt about how much Republicans care about honor, justice, the rule of law and democratic principles, well, there you have it.

At this point you're either pro-Trump, or pro-America.

 

[Hellbound]

A show trial.
If anyone had any doubt about how much Republicans care about honor, justice, the rule of law and democratic principles, well, there you have it.

At this point you're either pro-Trump, or pro-America.

Normally, show trial is used for a situation where the appearance of a trial is given, but the outcome is predetermined. This is like, the opposite of that. Not even the appearance of a trial. A no-show trial?

Kinda like railroading, but that usually refers to pushing someone into being found guilty. What's the opposite of railroading? Freewaying?

But really, does this confirmation that rule of law is less important than political power actually surprise anyone?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Apparently, there will be no witnesses called, and the entire Senate 'trial' will last exactly one day.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...lity-of-quick-impeachment-trial-idUSKBN1YE2RH

The Majority Leader today said that 51 senators could come together (a majority of the 100 senators) and quickly decide "that they’ve heard enough already and believe they know what would happen and we can move to vote immediately on these two articles of impeachment sent over to us by the House."

I think the article is barking up the wrong tree by saying that that would put him at odds with Trump. I expect it has been said after consultation with Trump and Trump's legal team. That Trump has previously said that he wants a full trial with witnesses is irrelevant, just as it was irrelevant that he complained about closed-door hearings and then against public hearings.

If he actually didn't want to deny saying the things that he clearly said (which he might, since it's a tactic that's worked for him before), then he could go the route of saying "I did want a full trial which would truly prove my innocence, but Mitch McConnell is a very intelligent man, a true patriotic man, a great man, and he believes that it's best for the country to just move past this hoax as quickly as possible. It's a shame, but it's a sacrifice I'm happy to make for the country, so I can get back to making America great again!"

 

[Belz...]

Normally, show trial is used for a situation where the appearance of a trial is given, but the outcome is predetermined. This is like, the opposite of that. Not even the appearance of a trial. A no-show trial?

Kinda like railroading, but that usually refers to pushing someone into being found guilty. What's the opposite of railroading? Freewaying?

But really, does this confirmation that rule of law is less important than political power actually surprise anyone?

No, but it's the last straw for me. Anyone who supports the GOP now can no longer be considered to have the best interests of the USA or its people in mind.

 

[acbytesla]

Normally, show trial is used for a situation where the appearance of a trial is given, but the outcome is predetermined. This is like, the opposite of that. Not even the appearance of a trial. A no-show trial?

Kinda like railroading, but that usually refers to pushing someone into being found guilty. What's the opposite of railroading? Freewaying?

But really, does this confirmation that rule of law is less important than political power actually surprise anyone?

This will be the second time in 25 years the GOP will have done this. (Held an impeachment trial with no witnesses) They hurried through the Clinton trial too.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

The problem is, since they have no intention of saying anything even close to the truth, that they'd come up with pithy propaganda slogans about anything that was put in the articles of impeachment.

"They're throwing everything against the wall in hopes that something might stick! So Desperate!"

"Mueller Report? The "No Collusion!" Report? What's next? 'Trump guilty of not kicking orphans and puppies'?"

"Trump cleared of 90% of Fake Charges!"

Respectfully disagree.

They undoubtedly will come up with more “propaganda slogans”. But I if they go the “show trial” abbreviated route, I still think it would be better to put them in a position where it was clear they were whitewashing a larger number of charges, any one of which could have been worthy of removal from office if given a fair trial. The end result - Trump remaining in office - would not change, but I think exposing it as a sham trial would make clear they had no interest in honoring their Constitutional duty to hold a “real” trial. Their base would not be swayed, but independents and fringe, swayable Republicans might be, and ultimately historians could more clearly define the beginning of the end of the Republican Party.

In any case, I think it will be easier to escape relatively unscathed with fewer, rather than more articles of impeachment.

 

[Trebuchet]

No, but it's the last straw for me. Anyone who supports the GOP now can no longer be considered to have the best interests of the USA or its people in mind.

I passed that point long before Trump was even part of the party. And I grew up as a Republican.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Respectfully disagree.

They undoubtedly will come up with more “propaganda slogans”. But I if they go the “show trial” abbreviated route, I still think it would be better to put them in a position where it was clear they were whitewashing a larger number of charges, any one of which could have been worthy of removal from office if given a fair trial. The end result - Trump remaining in office - would not change, but I think exposing it as a sham trial would make clear they had no interest in honoring their Constitutional duty to hold a “real” trial. Their base would not be swayed, but independents and fringe, swayable Republicans might be, and ultimately historians could more clearly define the beginning of the end of the Republican Party.

In any case, I think it will be easier to escape relatively unscathed with fewer, rather than more articles of impeachment.

I think either strategy has risks. Bring too many articles, and it leaves open the rebuttal of Democrats throwing everything they can to see what sticks. Too few and it leaves open the rebuttal of having investigated for an inordinately long time and all they could find was 2 things that aren't even crimes.

I think the latter at least has the advantage of giving a clear, simple message. Too many articles and the general public are just not going to bother to try to retain the information.

 

[Minoosh]

Can I just check that the Democrat led part of the system is going to ask the Republican led part of the system to impeach the Republican president and they're going to say 'no'?

I realise this may be answered in the thread but it's awfully long.

Here’s an equally valid way to frame it: “The House is going to impeach Trump, but the Senate may not convict.”

Your interpretation is valid, but I would hope that the country moves away from seeing this as purely partisan. IMO it is genuinely not a partisan issue. If I knew more about Brexit, I’d probably be able to think of an illustrative analogy.

 

[Minoosh]

Respectfully disagree.

They undoubtedly will come up with more “propaganda slogans”. But I if they go the “show trial” abbreviated route, I still think it would be better to put them in a position where it was clear they were whitewashing a larger number of charges, any one of which could have been worthy of removal from office if given a fair trial.

If evidence of a big honkin’ felony arises, the House can always add it. They’ve established that they can formulate well-founded articles in a relatively brief, focused and FAIR process.

Strategically, I’m liking the streamlined approach. Get it out of the House, carry on with governing, revisit if overwhelming evidence compels the House to reconsider.

 

[Minoosh]

Sometimes you have to flush the toilet more than once. Dispose of the most pressing need, but be prepared if the poop train keeps on coming.

ETA: Judging from the Reuters picture, even McConnell knows there may be another load coming.

 

[Stacyhs]

Sometimes you have to flush the toilet more than once. Dispose of the most pressing need, but be prepared if the poop train keeps on coming.

According to Trump, 10 or 15 times!

 

[Minoosh]

According to Trump, 10 or 15 times!

In his case, I believe it. You can tell by his public appearances that he's always trying to pinch off a loaf but when his minders check he's just damp. It probably takes hours of Executive Time finally clear out his colon.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think this is exactly why the Senate will dismiss that particular Article. I honestly think that it would fail in a non-partisan Senate, too. That someone intends to abuse the system and wouldn't comply with a court ruling if it went against them doesn't imply that they're not entitled to take that matter to court. It doesn't even mean that they shouldn't be allowed to.

2-4 don't address the actual Article.

I wasn't just addressing the article, I was addressing the France 24 Trumpundit.

But what you are saying is, because Trump puts up a lie that in normal circumstances could be plausible, he wins.

Of course he does, because people are still thinking that he'll be Presidential any day now.

But the bottom line doesn't have anything to do with reality. All the Trumpers are doing is giving the GOP Senators cover.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

err - no.
The Senate has control of how it does the trial. The Chief Justice has only as much to say as McConnell lets him.

I'm not so sure. It depends on if they radically change the rules they agreed on for Clinton's impeachment. Because if you look at the transcript of the Senate trial, the House most definitely presented their side.

McConnell would have to say, only the Republicans can present anything in a drastic rules motion. Maybe the GOP Senate would vote to accept those rules, but it would be a public relations disaster for McConnell. And why should he risk that when he knows the Senate will clear Trump?