• 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.
I see where the House dropped the subpoena for Bolton aide Charles Kupperman but am much less clear on subpoenas for other people, like Pompeo. We're they formally dropped? Can the House reissue subpoenas for firsthand Ukraine witnesses?
 
theprestige said:
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?
Click to expand...

The Senate is depending on the Trial appearing to be legitimate. Witnesses, or at the very least their depositions, are part of that.
Of course, if they don't care about even the appearance of Due Process, they can do without and probably pay for it in the Elections.
 
Belz... said:
Presumably they would choose a champion. Schiff would get some MMA guy and Trump would probably pick someone whom he didn't know was dead.
Click to expand...

Trump is the Chosen by God (or God himself, it isn't clear from listening to Evangelicals). Only if he fights, personally, will his victory be assured.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The Senate is depending on the Trial appearing to be legitimate. Witnesses, or at the very least their depositions, are part of that.
Of course, if they don't care about even the appearance of Due Process, they can do without and probably pay for it in the Elections.
Click to expand...

This does not seem to dispute the foundation I laid out, nor the conclusions I built on it.

The argument,

"The Senate needs to let us present evidence and question witnesses in public because otherwise the trial won't look legitimate and they'll lose credibility",​

Is very different from,

"The Senate needs to let us present evidence and question witnesses in public because we want the public to see this and we didn't think to do it ourselves in the House."​

That's how I see it, anyway.
 
theprestige said:
This does not seem to dispute the foundation I laid out, nor the conclusions I built on it.

The argument,

"The Senate needs to let us present evidence and question witnesses in public because otherwise the trial won't look legitimate and they'll lose credibility",​

Is very different from,

"The Senate needs to let us present evidence and question witnesses in public because we want the public to see this and we didn't think to do it ourselves in the House."​

That's how I see it, anyway.
Click to expand...
Its also very different from:

"The Senate needs to let us present evidence and question witnesses in public because we want the public to see this and we were regularly stonewalled by the administration, and think the Senate would be more effective in getting access to various witnesses and documents."

(Which is probably closer than your "didn't think to do it ourselves" claim.)
 
From Twitter

McConnell: You don’t have any witnesses
Schumer: Here are witnesses.
McConnell: They can’t testify plus you have no evidence.
Schumer: Here is evidence.
McConnell: You can’t use that plus we need more time.
Schumer: Here is more time.
McConnell: I said THYME.
 
Meadmaker said:
Got any specifics?

Anything can go to SCOTUS, but I can't imagine them taking the case if it's about the trial itself.
Click to expand...
I'm unaware of anything in the Constitution, or federal law, or Senate procedures, or SCOTUS precedent, that would send any dispute arising from an impeachment trail to be adjudicated by the SCOTUS, especially since the Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, which SCOTUS precedent has determined pretty much gives them final and complete say.
 
Paul2 said:
I'm unaware of anything in the Constitution, or federal law, or Senate procedures, or SCOTUS precedent, that would send any dispute arising from an impeachment trail to be adjudicated by the SCOTUS, especially since the Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, which SCOTUS precedent has determined pretty much gives them final and complete say.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the courts have ruled EXACTLY this.
 
theprestige said:
This does not seem to dispute the foundation I laid out, nor the conclusions I built on it.

The argument,

"The Senate needs to let us present evidence and question witnesses in public because otherwise the trial won't look legitimate and they'll lose credibility",​

Is very different from,

"The Senate needs to let us present evidence and question witnesses in public because we want the public to see this and we didn't think to do it ourselves in the House."​

That's how I see it, anyway.
Click to expand...
You don't think there is more evidence the public deserves to see? There are lots of documents and testimonies that were withheld from the House of Representatives, by the DOD, the State Department as well as the White House. Let's hear what Bolton, Giuliani, Mulvaney, Parnes have to say. Let Trump be deposed.

What's wrong with that?
 
varwoche said:
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.
Click to expand...

Schiff mentioned Roberts should rule on the relevance of witnesses/documents. Not sure he actually can or will mind you.
 
theprestige said:
This does not seem to dispute the foundation I laid out, nor the conclusions I built on it.

The argument,

"The Senate needs to let us present evidence and question witnesses in public because otherwise the trial won't look legitimate and they'll lose credibility",​

Is very different from,

"The Senate needs to let us present evidence and question witnesses in public because we want the public to see this and we didn't think to do it ourselves in the House."​

That's how I see it, anyway.
Click to expand...

At the mcgahn subpoena appeal, the DoJ argued that the subpoena was non justiciable and that remedy needed to be congressional use of political power. If so, then the house proposal or rolling forward is prudent by the DoJs own standard.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/1219388863141097473



Video embedded in tweet.
Click to expand...

Last night on Colbert a video of Dershy was shown with him saying one need not have committed a crime to be impeached.

CNN has the video
In August 1998, during the summer leading up to then-President Bill Cinton's impeachment, Dershowitz argued that a president does not have to commit a "technical crime" in order for it to constitute impeachable conduct.
"It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime," Dershowitz told "Larry King Live."
He added: "We look at their acts of state. We look at how they conduct the foreign policy. We look at whether they try to subvert the Constitution."
Click to expand...
 
acbytesla said:
You don't think there is more evidence the public deserves to see? There are lots of documents and testimonies that were withheld from the House of Representatives, by the DOD, the State Department as well as the White House. Let's hear what Bolton, Giuliani, Mulvaney, Parnes have to say. Let Trump be deposed.

What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...

If the house thinks people need to see it, they didn't act like it. The Senate would be taking the house's lead by not hearing from key witnesses.
 
varwoche said:
Dershowitz and Toobin on CNN talking about what would likely happen If Bolton claimed executive privilege.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean. The court wouldn't step in on the question of calling him, but they might on the question of what to do if he doesn't show up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom