• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is the narrow impeachment a tactical mistake by Democrats?

Belz... said:
Nonsense. The cultural and political structure of the United States of America can only lead to one title: Emperor.
Click to expand...

No, Americans aren't that theatrical. It would be some boring corporatesque title. "Chief Executive" is already in use. Something like that.
 
theprestige said:
I suppose anything is possible. In your question, who would be doing the ordering?
Click to expand...
A federal judge.

Found this on CBS News, from yesterday:

The White House claims that the president's senior officials have "absolute immunity" from congressional subpoenas. That stance led more than a dozen current or former Trump officials to refuse subpoenas related to the impeachment process of the president.

House Democrats, however, withdrew their demand for his [Kupperman's] testimony last month, citing the length of time it would take to litigate the case. Without Kupperman's testimony, the House started the formal impeachment process on Tuesday, after weeks of hearings with more than a dozen other witnesses. In court, House lawyers said Democrats will neither hold Kupperman in contempt nor attempt to subpoena him again.

Nevertheless, Kupperman has pushed ahead with his lawsuit, citing fears of being held in contempt of Congress and violating his oath of office.
Click to expand...

If he's "pushing ahead," does that mean a court remains involved even if the House considers the matter moot?

CBS just says federal court.

Similarly for Don McGahn. A district court judge ruled he must appear, then stayed her order for 7 days pending Justice Department appeal. That was a couple of weeks ago. Has the House just dropped that case and said never mind? And if it has, could a judge then say "Hmm, I'd like to rule anyway"?

And finally, I think there's a chance John Bolton might simply change his mind and step forward as a witness. What then would happen? Would he be called as a witness in the Senate trial?

It's not that difficult to get a few people in suits together for a structured Q-and-A session under oath. That's what a deposition is. That's what a trial is.

I'm not speaking at all to whether the House committee can bring an obstruction of Congress charge. I'm talking about any mechanism that would open the way for testimony from key figures in the Trump administration.
 
Last edited:
I see the judge lifted her short-term stay in McGahn's case. But so far I haven't seen "what happens next" addressed in the media. It could be there; I just haven't seen it.
 
Belz... said:
Except that as you know the GOP will not convict. So why did you post that at all?
Click to expand...

No. I don't know that the Senate will not "convict". We're taking it for granted that they won't convict in the scenario that's actually playing out. But we don't actually know that (though it does seem pretty likely).

I think that if the President were to openly defy a Supreme Court order, it's highly likely that the Senate would convict, regardless of partisan preference.
 
Minoosh said:
I see the judge lifted her short-term stay in McGahn's case. But so far I haven't seen "what happens next" addressed in the media. It could be there; I just haven't seen it.
Click to expand...

They haven't ruled on Kupperman but they will. It will be dismissed as moot. The subpoena was withdrawn.
 
This lays it out clearly. It's an op-ed, though.

https://www.courant.com/opinion/op-...0191212-2nmxf3gfy5c4bgghg3cjaspwle-story.html

So, the argument goes, if Democrats would just wait for the Supreme Court, they might have a stronger, or at least a clearer, case for the president’s removal. The flaw in this argument is that neither the House nor the Senate is confronted with such a binary choice: waiting for the Court to decide or forgoing testimony and evidence from these key, some would argue crucial, witnesses.
Click to expand...
 
theprestige said:
No. I don't know that the Senate will not "convict". We're taking it for granted that they won't convict in the scenario that's actually playing out. But we don't actually know that (though it does seem pretty likely).

I think that if the President were to openly defy a Supreme Court order, it's highly likely that the Senate would convict, regardless of partisan preference.
Click to expand...

That's a huge assumption. GOP members have done nothing that would make me believe they might grow a spine.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
They haven't ruled on Kupperman but they will. It will be dismissed as moot. The subpoena was withdrawn.
Click to expand...

You're probably right, but I could also see a judge wanting to rule on the broader question. Kupperman says he wants to press forward.

Does a judge have any discretion not to dismiss it as moot? Kupperman himself may be off the hook, but I think it's possible a judge might still have the prerogative to rule on the question.
 
Minoosh said:
You're probably right, but I could also see a judge wanting to rule on the broader question. Kupperman says he wants to press forward.

Does a judge have any discretion not to dismiss it as moot? Kupperman himself may be off the hook, but I think it's possible a judge might still have the prerogative to rule on the question.
Click to expand...

Yes and Yes. The judge has the discretion to do either or both. But it would be likely dismissed on appeal. Judges are unlikely to make work for the judiciary unless they feel the issue is very important. This is a case going nowhere.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
They don't.

The only reason for a House impeachment inquiry to involve the courts is if they think they need to sell the public on a legal argument to remove the president, and they think a court decision will help with that.



Congress has broad powers, including the power to straight up remove the president from office if they don't like the cut of his jib. That's very far from potted plant territory.

But there limits to the power Congress has over the Executive. They can remove him from office, but they can't necessarily dictate how he conducts the work of the Executive branch. You know this. You understand this. You believe this is a good thing. You're just convinced that subpoenas fall on the Congressional authority side of the line. I think that's still an open question.

Your argument that subpoena authority necessarily follows from impeachment authority does not convince me.
Click to expand...

You people act like US v Nixon doesn't even exist...
 
Minoosh said:
Would he be called as a witness in the Senate trial?
Click to expand...

You're assuming any witnesses will be called in the Senate trial. The reports are that the Republicans are leaning against that and will instead have a single day's debate before ruling.
 
theprestige said:
If you don't want hypothetical answers, don't ask hypothetical questions.
Click to expand...

I have too high an opinion of your intelligence to believe that you don't see the difference between a very likely hypothetical (he's ignored everyone else so far) with an outlandish one (the GOP magically turning on him).

But I suppose it's not as outlandish as it could be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom