Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Stupid move by whom?

Stupid by the democrats to let the Bidens testify? Or stupid for the republicans to do the bolton-for-Biden exchange? (Your post wasn't completely clear on that.)

I think it would be very smart for the republicans and very dumb for the democrats to let Biden testify or do a Bolton/Biden exchange. Why? Because there is already significant evidence that Trump is guilty...Bolton certainly adds to that evidence, but I doubt he would be bringing up anything incredibly shocking. (I can understand why the Republicans would want to avoid him testifying but it wouldn't be the end of the world if he did.) On the other hand, having either Joe or Hunter Biden as witnesses would allow the republicans to make the impeachment case about them. That would allow the republicans to go on the offensive (probably with all sorts of leading questions, like 'when did you stop beating your wife').

Stupid for the Republicans to release more evidence of Trump's guilt (explicitly undermining the defence they'd given just a day or two before that nobody in a position to know had ever said that Trump was conditioning the release of the aid on the investigations into the Bidens) in the hopes that that would get the Democrats to agree to allow Joe Biden to testify.

The only thing this has done, really, is make it harder for the Republicans to justify not allowing Bolton to testify. I don't think that "We'll let you have one if you let us have one" is something that's ever been suggested by anybody who has any claim to knowing what's going on with either party. I've never seen it as anything more than internet speculation about what might happen - and even then I don't think I've seen it as speculation from anybody that has much in the way of relevant experience or knowledge.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's still firmly in "I'll believes it when I sees it" territory, but Romney, who you figure has at least some pull behind the scenes, is calling it "very likely" that enough Republican Senators will vote for John Bolton to testify.

Susan Collins of Maine is, yet again, so very, very concerned.

 

[Paul2]

I'm still trying to make heads or tails of the Democrats' apparent dichotomy of "we have enough evidence to make a compelling case for removing the Presdident"/"we can't make a compelling case unless we are allowed to produce more evidence".

The Dems didn't want to wait for the conclusion of the appeals process, and decided to move forward to trial without it. Now they're complaining that they can't move forward without it.

And it's stupid anyway. Even if the Senate issued subpoenas, the White House would still appeal them. The appeals process would still take a year or more. To me, this is a textbook Rumsfeldian scenario: You go to trial with the witnesses and evidence you have, not the witnesses and evidence you wish to have or plan to have at a later date.

But the Democrats are trying to have it both ways.

There is a potential for equivocation with the word "compelling." Do you mean compelling as able to convince a rational person, or compelling as able to convince a Senator? And did you mean "compelling" in the same sense both times you used it?

Just because you have a compelling case to a rational person doesn't mean that Senators in the Cult of Trump will be convinced to vote to convict. That means that every bit of evidence you can add to the pile is necessary.

 

[pgwenthold]

In terms of the "the White House must have leaked it" keep in mind what it means that SOMEONE in the White House spilled the beans about Bolton's manuscript. Even if they were a loyalist, if they are anything like Trump, they are not unwilling to blow their hole and spout off about things they shouldn't.

The White House has never run a tight ship, despite Trump's complaints.

 

[plague311]

It's still firmly in "I'll believes it when I sees it" territory, but Romney, who you figure has at least some pull behind the scenes, is calling it "very likely" that enough Republican Senators will vote for John Bolton to testify.

Susan Collins of Maine is, yet again, so very, very concerned.

Bring forth the pikes!

 

[Cabbage]

I'm still trying to make heads or tails of the Democrats' apparent dichotomy of "we have enough evidence to make a compelling case for removing the Presdident"/"we can't make a compelling case unless we are allowed to produce more evidence".

The Dems didn't want to wait for the conclusion of the appeals process, and decided to move forward to trial without it. Now they're complaining that they can't move forward without it.

And it's stupid anyway. Even if the Senate issued subpoenas, the White House would still appeal them. The appeals process would still take a year or more. To me, this is a textbook Rumsfeldian scenario: You go to trial with the witnesses and evidence you have, not the witnesses and evidence you wish to have or plan to have at a later date.

But the Democrats are trying to have it both ways.

Who are you quoting there? You are the first person I've seen saying that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'd wager even among the most hard cord of Trump inner circle loyalist your boss being impeached and tried in the Senate, regardless of what odds they think it has of going against them, is the kind of thing you at least start making vague, back of your head plans for escape hatches and parachutes for.

If some miracle does happen and the stars align and Trump is convicted I wouldn't be shocked at all if some of these leaks did come from people hoping to have a lifeline to save their asses with in case that happened.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There is no reason for the Biden's to be called as witnesses.

Correct. And Joe Biden has said that he wouldn't comply with a subpoena.

They have as much to do with the trail as does Donald Jr. or Ivanka. While the press keeps posting the question of a Bolton for Biden witness swap, I don't believe I've heard any Democratic Senators think it's a good idea. Just Republicans so they can have more distractions from the facts.

Can you link to any Republican saying that they would vote for a witness swap? I've not seen any politician endorse that on either side. The Democrats because they don't want to allow the trial to become about the Bidens, and the Republicans because they're terrified of what witnesses would say.

As for Bolton, he is a Trump guy. He won't be doing anything, under oath, that could harm Trump.

He's already said that he would.

Nothing he released in a book will harm Trump legally or politically. Under oath, it could have an impact but how much of one is also debatable.

If he's written it in his book, he's automatically waiving any rights to silence.

You're suggesting that the Republicans would purposely release something that's damaging to Trump, that shifts the focus away from where they want it to be, and which alienates the people they're relying on to vote to make this all go away - and all for a faint hope that absolutely nobody has endorsed of getting a witness swap and, in the process, putting evidence that's even more damaging to Trump on the record. I think you're way off. This is bad for the Republicans. There is no up side for them.

 

[Paul2]

Who are you quoting there? You are the first person I've seen saying that.

That was my first draft of a reply to thepresitige; I edited it out, went in a slightly different direction, but I'm glad you caught it anyway.

 

[Paul2]

I'd wager even among the most hard cord of Trump inner circle loyalist your boss being impeached and tried in the Senate, regardless of what odds they think it has of going against them, is the kind of thing you at least start making vague, back of your head plans for escape hatches and parachutes for.

If some miracle does happen and the stars align and Trump is convicted I wouldn't be shocked at all if some of these leaks did come from people hoping to have a lifeline to save their asses with in case that happened.

I think we can be secure in a politician's ability to be careful with their career and have contingency lies plans in place.

 

[Meadmaker]

What makes you think the Supreme court would necessarily act any faster here?

Trump has a hardcore base that will accept him regardless of whatever he does, illegal or not.

The supreme Court can move faster. Back in the Nixon era there were plenty of actions executed. And bush v gore took about a week.


As for his hard core base, you're right. Most people who vote republican, including people who vote Trump, are not hard core base. A lot of them don't even like Trump. They are hard core anti Democrats.

It occurs to me that, politically, impeachment would have been easier to accomplish after the election, if necessary.

 

[Tero]

I've studied the words of great scholar Dershowitz. Presidents can be impeached for any reason at all. Like Anything Clinton did or for being Obama. Only, Trump is special so he can never be removed. The lesson of impeachment also does not apply to Trump.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The supreme Court can move faster. Back in the Nixon era there were plenty of actions executed. And bush v gore took about a week.


As for his hard core base, you're right. Most people who vote republican, including people who vote Trump, are not hard core base. A lot of them don't even like Trump. They are hard core anti Democrats.

It occurs to me that, politically, impeachment would have been easier to accomplish after the election, if necessary.

But making the voters angry at Republicans is best done before the election.
That way Democrates take the Senate back just like the tea party did.
Same play book different play.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Allowing Bolton to testify in exchange for Biden to testify

I don't think that "We'll let you have one if you let us have one" is something that's ever been suggested by anybody who has any claim to knowing what's going on with either party. I've never seen it as anything more than internet speculation about what might happen - and even then I don't think I've seen it as speculation from anybody that has much in the way of relevant experience or knowledge.

Well, the rumors were significant enough that Schumer actually commented on them...

From: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/22/tru...er-says-dems-wont-trade-bolton-for-biden.html
...speculation grew on Capitol Hill that a possible deal could be struck whereby Bolton – who vowed that he would appear in the Senate if he was subpoenaed – could be allowed to testify if Hunter Biden was also brought in as a witness....“No, I think that’s off the table,” Schumer said when asked about the possibility of a witness trade. “That trade is not on the table.”

So it does appear to be more than just idle 'internet speculation'. (Of course that doesn't mean that it was a serious suggestion by republicans or democrats, just that the issue wasn't totally foreign to those in charge.)

 

[theprestige]

The Democrats did make a compelling case for impeachment.

But, as always, MORE evidence is better than LESS evidence.

Its as simple of that.

I don't fault the Democrats for trying to get more evidence. I do fault them for complaining that it's not working and they need it to proceed.

Yeah, I can't understand why the democrats would want to wait for a lengthy (possibly year long) appeals process to carry though. I mean its not like there was an election Trump was trying to influence that was coming up in that time frame.

Oh, wait....

You can't understand it? I can. It makes total sense to me, that the Democrats would make a strategic decision to skip the appeals process and get straight to the trial.

But I don't think it's obstruction, to appeal the subpoenas and pursue the appeals process to its conclusion, before complying. And I don't think the Democrats have a rational complaint, that they are forced to go to trial without that evidence, simply because their strategy called for an immediate trial and the appeals process got in the way of that. They can't have it both ways. Contesting the subpoenas is legitimate. Going to trial without the subpoenas is legitimate. The Dems need to own their strategic choices.

Although its an imperfect comparison, the House was acting in the capacity of a grand jury, and the Senate is acting as a trial court. Because of their different functions, a senate subpoena might be viewed differently. Plus, the Senate is controlled by the republicans (the same party as Stubby McBonespurs). A republican president ignoring a subpoena issued by a republican-controlled body will be much more problematic.

This seems like wishful thinking.

It also seems to depend on Donald Trump being an establishment politician in the GOP camp. He isn't. Romney or Jeb might feel constrained to cooperate with their party on something like this. I doubt Trump feels any such constraints.

 

[JPK]

Can you link to any Republican saying that they would vote for a witness swap? I've not seen any politician endorse that on either side. The Democrats because they don't want to allow the trial to become about the Bidens, and the Republicans because they're terrified of what witnesses would say.

On several occasions, including just moments ago, Senator Graham said that if the Dems get witnesses than the President should be allowed to have a his own witnesses called, including the Bidens.

He's already said that he would.

He said that he would answer a Senate issued subpoena. That doesn't mean he would say anything that Trump would say is covered by privilege. Again, I suspect this whole Bolton testifying issue was a to get the Bidens to testify. Certainly McConnell and the vast majority of Republicans didn't want any witnesses. Th Hey wanted this to be wrapped up as soon as possible. Trump wants the circus.

If he's written it in his book, he's automatically waiving any rights to silence.

Most likely but that would be a legal battle again. Any legal battles benefit Trump because it drags things out and they really want this wrapped up before the State of the Union.

You're suggesting that the Republicans would purposely release something that's damaging to Trump, that shifts the focus away from where they want it to be, and which alienates the people they're relying on to vote to make this all go away - and all for a faint hope that absolutely nobody has endorsed of getting a witness swap and, in the process, putting evidence that's even more damaging to Trump on the record. I think you're way off. This is bad for the Republicans. There is no up side for them.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Not the Republicans, but it wouldn't shock me if Trump leaked it himself. Trump wants witnesses and thinks he knows better than McConnell or anyone else. Or as has been demonstrated several times already, it just got released because this entire White House has been leaky.

 

[JoeMorgue]

In an ideal, hell any sane, world this wouldn't be an issue.

Bolton can testify to events relevant to this trial, Biden cannot.

 

[Segnosaur]

The supreme Court can move faster. Back in the Nixon era there were plenty of actions executed. And bush v gore took about a week.

Those incidents happened decades ago, with a very different composition on the court. We currently have a majority of Republican-appointed judges, with several of them appointed under very contentious circumstances. And recent history shows them more than willing to play politics.

As for his hard core base, you're right. Most people who vote republican, including people who vote Trump, are not hard core base. A lot of them don't even like Trump. They are hard core anti Democrats.

Depending on the poll, Trump has an approval rating of anywhere from ~80-95%. I'm pretty sure that constitutes his 'base'.

It occurs to me that, politically, impeachment would have been easier to accomplish after the election, if necessary.

That would be incredibly dumb.

Lets say the democrats decide to wait until after the election to proceed with impeachment, to let all the subpoenas play out in court. Trump engages in illegal activities to fix the election (extorting Ukraine to interfere, perhaps allowing Russia to continue its activities). It tips the balance in favor of the republicans again.

So, the democrats impeach. And 'win'. And they are STILL left with a republican president, who continues to have the authority to nominate right-wing judges, issue executive orders that push a racist agenda, etc.

Much better to, you know, make sure any election is FAIR. i.e. not subject to illegal manipulation by Trump and the republicans, rather than to try to take action AFTER the election is finished.

 

[theprestige]

Here is one from CNN.

It says:

Thanks!

 

[Delphic Oracle]

No, that's really not what I'm saying.

If they thought he was legally required to testify, and he refused, they should have gone to court to compel testimony. I'm confident courts would have "fast tracked" that case to get it heard quickly. Sure it would have delayed things an extra week or two, but that's not a big deal (as recent events showed). If he defied a court order, then that would be a good reason to impeach him.

Fast-tracked?

A week or two?

Are you joking?

I think you just revealed how deeply uninformed you are about the matter.