Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[plague311]

It's not a normal trial. It's a Senate impeachment trial.

Is it abnormal to call witnesses or introduce evidence during an impeachment trial? Is that how others have been run? Didn't Clinton testify at his own impeachment hearing?

If the House had bothered to line up and publicize all their evidence before going to trial, they would not now have to beg the Senate to conduct the trial in a way that's convenient to the House.

They did publicize all of their evidence but that doesn't mean they had all of the evidence. That's why there's an obstruction charge. They also aren't begging the Senate. They're requesting it of the Senate because that's the way it's been done in the past.

The fact you don't want as much transparency as humanly possible says more about you and the GOP's standards than anything else. We all know Trump isn't getting impeached no matter what evidence is shown. This is why I haven't been bitching about the Dems process recently. They have the GOP between a rock and a hard place. Don't call any witnesses or allow new evidence? It looks like a cover-up that the GOP is complicit in. Call new witnesses and allow new evidence? It'll make Trump look even more guilty, and also looks like the GOP is complicit in his dip ****-tery. Either way, it looks like this move by the Dems isn't as bad as some make it out to be.

 

[BobTheCoward]

What an incredibly foolish notion.

When you have a situation when there are time constraints (such as Trump actively working to subvert democracy), then extensive delays can mean that the legal and political system has failed.

For example, the Supreme court is expected to rule by June on subpoenas issued regarding Trump's financial records, and that was for subpoenas issued a long time ago. So the house likely wouldn't just be waiting a few weeks, they'd probably be waiting months/years to get access. So by the time they get access, the 2020 election would have been over, with whatever damages Trump has caused.

As a person that believes the importance of defendant rights to get a hearing, I also have a big problem with people in the role of prosecutors trying to undercut it. Your description is offensive.

 

[plague311]

As a person that believes the importance of defendant rights to get a hearing,

The defendant is getting a hearing, fella. In fact, he's doing everything he can to throw that hearing out the window. It seems it's more important to you than to the actual defendant.

I also have a big problem with people in the role of prosecutors trying to undercut it. Your description is offensive.

So is your implication that prosecutors are trying to undercut it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The defendant is getting a hearing, fella. In fact, he's doing everything he can to throw that hearing out the window. It seems it's more important to you than to the actual defendant.



So is your implication that prosecutors are trying to undercut it.

It isn't an implication. Segnosaur said they are not willing to wait for the defense to exhaust the right to appeal because they can't wait the years.

 

[theprestige]

A few things.
1) Trump blocked testimony from key players. Not incidentally, this is why obstruction of justice is a crime: it makes other crimes possible.

So impeach him for obstruction, then. It has the advantage of evidence without cooperation, even.

2) Democrats can still call witnesses after the fake trial concludes.

Yep.

3) While Democrats do not control the process, they can shame the Senate into bending (this appears to be working, though it's still far from a fair trial). They can further argue precedent (previous impeachments allow witnesses and admission of new evidence), as Schiff did earlier today.

They can try, anyway. But shaming the Senate isn't really the point of this exercise... Or is it?

I thought the point was to make a public case for removing the President, even if the Senate is unlikely to vote for removal. That case could have been made entirely in the House, without depending on the Senate's good will.

4) There are different standards of evidence for an impeachment/indictment versus a conviction.

Can you expand on this?

The risk for McConnell is by having a fake trial, then new evidence embarrassing the Senate and process. "The fix was in.

The House is depending on McConnell to do his own risk assessment in a way that furthers their own goals. I'm arguing that it would have been a better strategy to depend as little as possible on McConnell and the Senate.

 

[theprestige]

Is it abnormal to call witnesses or introduce evidence during an impeachment trial? Is that how others have been run? Didn't Clinton testify at his own impeachment hearing?

My position is that each impeachment trial, like each election, is unique. The question of abnormality doesn't enter into it, for me.

They did publicize all of their evidence but that doesn't mean they had all of the evidence. That's why there's an obstruction charge. They also aren't begging the Senate. They're requesting it of the Senate because that's the way it's been done in the past.

I'm a big fan of tradition, but I'm also a big fan of strategies that work.

 

[Segnosaur]

What an incredibly foolish notion.

When you have a situation when there are time constraints (such as Trump actively working to subvert democracy), then extensive delays can mean that the legal and political system has failed.

For example, the Supreme court is expected to rule by June on subpoenas issued regarding Trump's financial records, and that was for subpoenas issued a long time ago. So the house likely wouldn't just be waiting a few weeks, they'd probably be waiting months/years to get access. So by the time they get access, the 2020 election would have been over, with whatever damages Trump has caused.

As a person that believes the importance of defendant rights to get a hearing, I also have a big problem with people in the role of prosecutors trying to undercut it. Your description is offensive.

I believe Trials should be fair for all parties involved. However, Trump has effectively messed up the system in order to give himself an unfair advantage. (i.e. using government resources, namely Barr, to engage in a personal defense, at the cost to the American people.) And the republicans support that. THAT is more offensive than anything.

It should also be noted that as president, his actions automatically come under more scrutiny than they would for private individuals.

 

[acbytesla]

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

Yea and Dershowitz whined and called CNN bullies because of that.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

House Dems can't have it both ways. A month ago, they had enough evidence to proceed to trial. Now they're saying they can't have a trial without more evidence?

Prosecutors are never satisfied with just enough evidence when they can easily get overwhelming evidence via the power of a judge.

 

[theprestige]

Prosecutors are never satisfied with just enough evidence when they can easily get overwhelming evidence via the power of a judge.

Which judge would that be?

 

[acbytesla]

Delete

 

[plague311]

It isn't an implication. Segnosaur said they are not willing to wait for the defense to exhaust the right to appeal because they can't wait the years.

Right, because in a regular trial those decisions would be made on the spot. If a witness is subpoenaed and doesn't show up, they're in contempt of court. They get arrested, etc. That's not the case with the impeachment proceedings. In this case, the defense isn't hindered by them not exhausting the right to appeal. In fact, if you believe some posters here it's actually an advantage.

My position is that each impeachment trial, like each election, is unique. The question of abnormality doesn't enter into it, for me.

Didn't I reply to you saying:

It's not a normal trial. It's a Senate impeachment trial.

So abnormality obviously does enter into it for you. You seem to be wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

I'm a big fan of tradition, but I'm also a big fan of strategies that work.

As I said earlier, currently the GOP is in between a rock and a hard place. What isn't working about it?

We may see this differently, but nothing about my post is\was wrong.

 

[theprestige]

As I said earlier, currently the GOP is in between a rock and a hard place. What isn't working about it?

I don't think we've seen whether it's working, yet. My prediction is that it won't work as well as you imagine. This isn't a made-for-TV courtroom drama, where you catch the defendant in a lie and then you win the case and everybody claps and triumphant credits roll as you walk down the courthouse steps.

 

[plague311]

I don't think we've seen whether it's working, yet. My prediction is that it won't work as well as you imagine. This isn't a made-for-TV courtroom drama, where you catch the defendant in a lie and then you win the case and everybody claps and triumphant credits roll as you walk down the courthouse steps.

I have never implied that it is anything like that before, and I would argue that it is working. Senators have been stating they're on the fence about more witnesses, and evidence. Especially in states where they're vulnerable. The support for removal has ticked up recently as well.

I'm not joining the "this is the turning point" chorus, but as far as I can tell the needle is moving and not in Trump's favor. This is obviously getting to Trump and I truly believe that in his perpetual butthurt he's going to really **** up. I don't think he has any self control at all, and I think he'll either lash out or try something illegal to "fix" his problems that will backfire.

I could be, and probably am, completely full of ****, but I don't see any of this as really helping the GOP.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Current GOP POV: complain that the House had their chance, now it's too late.

And they are going on about ExPriv.

Seems to be all they have.

 

[Paul2]

Schiff mentioned Roberts should rule on the relevance of witnesses/documents. Not sure he actually can or will mind you.

Any decision Roberts makes can be overturned by a majority of the Senate.

 

[Paul2]

As a person that believes the importance of defendant rights to get a hearing, I also have a big problem with people in the role of prosecutors trying to undercut it. Your description is offensive.

There is no defendant here, as this is not criminal proceeding. We call it a trial, but it is more accurately described as "trial-like;" that is, it has some similarities to an actual legal trial, but differences, too. It's more like a job review. Ultimately, it is in its own category.


ETA: I concluded you were talking about the impeachment, but I see now that that might not be the case.

 

[cullennz]

Sounds like a complete and utter waste of time and money to me.

But then so was Clinton's

It will back-fire massively on the Dem's and the only people gaining from it will be the idiot orange one and lawyers

 

[acbytesla]

Sounds like a complete and utter waste of time and money to me.

But then so was Clinton's

It will back-fire massively on the Dem's and the only people gaining from it will be the idiot orange one and lawyers

It wouldn't be a waste of either if the Republicans would do their jobs.

But it serves the purpose of showing voters just how corrupt Trump and the GOP is.

 

[plague311]

Sounds like a complete and utter waste of time and money to me.

But then so was Clinton's

It will back-fire massively on the Dem's and the only people gaining from it will be the idiot orange one and lawyers

Yeah, you've made your position perfectly clear. It seems to be refuted by the available evidence, but at least you repeat it ad nauseum.

There were a few of you that have said nothing other than how damaging this is going to be to the Dem's. It doesn't really seem to be hurting the Dem's though, unless there's a metric I've missed. On the flip, the support for the impeachment and removal has steadily ticked up over this time. Care to comment on that or just more "dems are dip ***** and they're doing this wrong" opining without any support?