• 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.

Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
https://twitter.com/HeidiNBC/status/1219420297503309824

Since Trump was impeached:

1. OMB email: “Clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold.”
2. Bolton volunteers to testify if subpoenaed. (Lawyer has said he has new info.)
3. Parnas agrees to empty his phone/hand over docus/grants interviews.
4. GAO says Trump broke the law.

Under McConnell resolution, none can be considered in Trump's trial unless there is:
1) a successful vote to agree more evidence = more truth.
2) votes on what, specifically, can be admitted.

REMINDER: the second article of impeachment against Trump is Obstruction of Congress.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not sure of Pelosi's "he'll be impeached forever." deal. If he's acquitted like Clinton was, why would it be a bigger stain on his "legacy" than it was on the latter?
 
Belz... said:
I'm not sure of Pelosi's "he'll be impeached forever." deal. If he's acquitted like Clinton was, why would it be a bigger stain on his "legacy" than it was on the latter?
Click to expand...

The "Legacy Stain" argument they keep bringing up is just an escape clause, a moral win to hang their reputation on when nothing comes of this.

As you said he'll be no more "stained" then Clinton.
 
Meadmaker said:
Keep in mind that they already know the outcome of the trial, and everyone on the "jury" already is aware of all the evidence. Team Trump won't actually be launching a defense in any meaningful sense of the word. This is a campaign commercial, on both sides.

My guess is that they will talk as much as possible about Ukranian corruption, the need to investigate it, and they will say the name "Biden" as much as possible.

I would be stunned if Trump's team used anywhere near their allotted 24 hours.
Click to expand...
That's all well and good for senators who are in safe seats and not up for re-election in this cycle. The point will not be the outcome, but whether vulnerable GOP senators are willing to advocate for a real trial with witnesses and evidence. My GOP senator is going to be in serious trouble if they don't push back at least a little on McConnell's efforts to bury this thing. The time thing itself might not be too bad. Plenty of it will be in prime time. I think the House managers can fill every bit of 24 hours up painting a picture of a Trump who doesn't give a **** about corruption (and who is now pushing for looser bribery laws), who cared only for an announcement from Ukraine, who only released aid when exposure was imminent, who said the ambassador was going to go through some things (and what things? She'd already been recalled), who trashed-tweeted a witness in real time, who called repeatedly to out a protected whistleblower, who went into cover-up mode way back in July, and it goes on and on. They can point out that GOP House members had equal time to question witnesses and that Trump ordered other witnesses - who would surely would have backed him up, even if they had to lie like rugs - to refuse to testify.

You may think none of that is a big deal but if presented well it's going to be binge-worthy television not just to Trump's detractors but to the whole country and globally as well.

Meanwhile the GOP will do as you say and attack Biden over and over again without being able to show a shred of a real defense.

If commercials they be, they'd best be as entertaining as possible and the House managers have much better material. They actually don't need to grandstand because they have an interesting *story* to tell while Team Trump will be rehashing a 6-page letter that was already a rehash of Trump's feeble tweets and tantrums. It will be boring. I dislike the overuse of the word "narrative" but in this case the House managers have one while the defense is limited to repeating a bunch of weak ejaculations that are for the most part laughably lacking in substance to begin with.

And does his team really want to say that only bribery and treason count? Because there's a strong argument that this was bribery, and his lead lawyer has said actual treason - allowing a foreign adversary to seize and occupy Alaska, thus ceding a large piece of the U.S. to Russia - would not be impeachable. It wouldn't be a crime, either. Then what would it be? Tiddlywinks? I do so hope Dershowitz uses this example in his opening.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
The "Legacy Stain" argument they keep bringing up is just an escape clause, a moral win to hang their reputation on when nothing comes of this.

As you said he'll be no more "stained" then Clinton.
Click to expand...

Yeah, as we all know, no one ever brings up the fact that Clinton is impeached whenever he's talked about. *he posts sarcastically in a thread about Trump's impeachment when Clinton can't stopped being mentioned on every page*.
 
The screed above is premised on House managers getting out of their own way which I hope they manage to do. They shouldn't waste a lot of time in rhetoric. Just tell the story. Tell us what they're going to say, then say it, then tell us what they just told us. I'm not so sure this is going to be a long-winded campaign ad. Or rather - neither side can afford to just play to their base. They have to appeal to the "middle" as well (if there is one, and I think there is).

Now what shall I do? Call my senator, write an email or write an actual letter? Maybe a fax? Wonder if sock puppets will be doing the same.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
The "Legacy Stain" argument they keep bringing up is just an escape clause, a moral win to hang their reputation on when nothing comes of this.

As you said he'll be no more "stained" then Clinton.
Click to expand...

Oddly the image of "legacy stain" made me think about semen. The odd part is, I was thinking of it in connection to Trump, not Clinton!

I wonder if Monica still has the dress.
 
Minoosh said:
Four days of filibusters could put everyone get desperate to finish this thing off. Maybe that's the strategy. But the House probably has 24 hours worth of material even if all they can do is read testimony into the record. But defenders aren't going to have any evidence. All they can do then is argue that the House probe was illegitimate. I suppose they can stretch this to 24 hours.

It seems nuts to me to do it this way and I'm not even sure what makes it a trial. But I'm assuming the House will be able to read testimony into the record. The Senate has NO testimony obtained under oath.

I wondered if Roberts has any say in this.
Anyway, IMO everyone should be urging their senators to push for a real trial. Like, timorrow! And the House should probably be considering another article.

Hope McConnell gets some pushback on this terrible plan.
Click to expand...
I've been wondering all along what Roberts' can and can't do. I'm now satisfied that he has no power. The senate can override him.

I'm also semi-satisfied that certain legal challenges that occur during the proceeding can go to SCOTUS, contrary to popular notions.
 
Last edited:
So the rules McConnell proposed last night basically boil down to a bunch of variations on "We're only going to pretend we're taking this seriously as long as we feel like it."
 
varwoche said:
I'm also semi-satisfied that certain legal challenges that occur during the proceeding can go to SCOTUS, contrary to popular notions.
Click to expand...

Got any specifics?

Anything can go to SCOTUS, but I can't imagine them taking the case if it's about the trial itself.
 
WRT Cipollone being a fact witness: https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1219630071310376967

Interesting move by House Dems. Cipollone certainly has personal knowledge of facts and under existing precedent they would not be privileged.

Their willingness to settle for disclosing his knowledge—rather than disqualification—suggests they acknowledge uphill battle in Senate.
Click to expand...
 
JoeMorgue said:
So the rules McConnell proposed last night basically boil down to a bunch of variations on "We're only going to pretend we're taking this seriously as long as we feel like it."
Click to expand...

Which we pretty much knew anyway.

We know that the Senate has sole authority to try impeachments.

We know that the Senate has sole authority to set its own rules for how it exercises its authority.

The only people who thought this was going to be a courtroom trial with a judge and a jury and "objection!" and cross examination and all were the This is the One Thing anti-Trumpers.

The time for the House Democrats to bring their evidence and their arguments to the public was during the impeachment itself, in the House, where they had authority and control of the proceedings.
 
theprestige said:
Which we pretty much knew anyway.

We know that the Senate has sole authority to try impeachments.

We know that the Senate has sole authority to set its own rules for how it exercises its authority.

The only people who thought this was going to be a courtroom trial with a judge and a jury and "objection!" and cross examination and all were the This is the One Thing anti-Trumpers.

The time for the House Democrats to bring their evidence and their arguments to the public was during the impeachment itself, in the House, where they had authority and control of the proceedings.
Click to expand...

There is no foundation to this claim.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
There is no foundation to this claim.
Click to expand...

I think I just laid out the foundation. The House controls proceedings in the House. If they want to hold public hearings, question witnesses on C-SPAN, collect and publish documentary evidence, and even publish their arguments for removal, they can do that in the House.

The trial takes place in the Senate, where the House has no authority. Just like the Senate could not control how the House conducts the impeachment, the House cannot control how the Senate conducts the trial.

If the House Democrats are depending on Senate good will, so they can publicize things during the trial that they could have publicized without the Senate's permission during the impeachment, that would be a strategic blunder of epic proportions. Do you really think Pelosi is that stupid?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom