Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[smartcooky]

Yeah, they’ve been targeting ads at Andy Kim, NJ 3rd district, whose election was very tight. His is maybe the only vulnerable district in the Philadelphia region so they are trying to rally Trumpers to bully him.

Kim was seated after winning in the 2018 mid-terms. Would he be up for election again in 2020 ?

 

[Stacyhs]

Kim was seated after winning in the 2018 mid-terms. Would he be up for election again in 2020 ?

Representatives only serve for 2 years, senators 6. Reps are always running!

 

[acbytesla]

The Senate is compelled to hold a trial upon being presented articles of impeachment from the House, but the Constitution does not provide a time-line. So, theoretically at least, Mitch could just table things for a year or three. However, the point is moot right now, because Mitch has said a trial will happen more or less right away. I'm sure his intention is to make it happen very quickly, so the Senate can vote to dismiss the charges in time to keep the trial from interfering with the 2020 races. [/cynicism]

Actually no he couldn't. Not according to Senate rules. The GOP could theoretically change the rules, but It would also look terrible to the point of absurdity. There is an election in 10 months.

Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the 170 House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment, agreeably to such notice.

The word "shall" means "must" in legal speak.

 

[DallasDad]

Indeed, those are the current Senate rules. The Senate has the opportunity to change or affirm the rules at the beginning of each session, and has, under extraordinary circumstances, the option of changing the rules in the middle of a session. The optics would be horrible, but they can change the rules in January when convening for the second session of the 116th Congress. They could adjourn the current session early, in case the House tries to bring articles to the Senate before the end of the year.


I'm not saying this is likely, but if Mitch doesn't care about the optics, he can pull some shenanigans to stall the trial. Historically, Senate trials don't start the day the House submits articles anyway. The articles are acknowledged, and then the tedious business of setting up a schedule begins. Witnesses must be identified and dragged in; absent Senators recalled (or present ones make up emergencies to get called away); the Chief Justice must arrange his schedule, the House needs time to prepare their charges, etc.


It's not instantaneous (and hasn't been in the past), despite the wording of the Senate rules.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Excellent CSPAN Book TV on tonight, well worth watching and/or perusing the transcript.

Impeach: Former Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal made his case for why he thinks President Trump should be impeached.

Thoughtful lawyer that knows his stuff, brought up things not at the forefront at the moment.

The whole transcript doesn't show at the moment, maybe it isn't up yet.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

In my own family, we use "our" to refer to one of my sons, because he has three friends with the same first name. Since we're Anglophiles, we sometimes also use "proper" to mean "our."

As a Brit I don't understand what you mean by using "proper" to mean "our".

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Retweeted

Kimberley Strassel
@KimStrassel
Still waiting for my fellow members of the media to express their deep outrage and alarm that Intelligence Chair Schiff snooped thru and published phone records of member of the free press. The silence is deafening.

Democrats lecture about dirt-digging, even as they abuse their surveillance powers to demand phone records to smear political rivals.
https://wsj.com/articles/schiffs-su...shareToken=sta8bc333feb4d41da928eee549ae63e90 via @WSJ

I wondered how long it would be before media rushed to defend Schiff's indefensible subpoenas and intimidation of the media. Didn't take long... (Although this is hilariously weak tea.)
https://thedailybeast.com/adam-schi...mons-phone-records?source=twitter&via=desktop via @thedailybeast

From my new column: “There does not appear to be any basis to believe that a congressional committee is authorized to subpoena telephone records directly from a provider..." says former Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
https://wsj.com/articles/adam-schif...shareToken=stf82006f69db046469de36ee64a8fa8d5 via @WSJ

Also from my column: Constitutional lawyer David Rivkin makes the case that Schiff has opened himself up lawsuits from targets of these subpoenas.

 

[Darat]

Actually no he couldn't. Not according to Senate rules. The GOP could theoretically change the rules, but It would also look terrible to the point of absurdity. There is an election in 10 months.







The word "shall" means "must" in legal speak.

At one time statements as "but It would also look terrible to the point of absurdity." had some validity, but not these days.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Still waiting for my fellow members of the media to express their deep outrage and alarm that Intelligence Chair Schiff snooped thru and published phone records of member of the free press. The silence is deafening.

So what about that, "Resistance"?

 

[DetectedMotion]

Ted Cruz on Meet The Press is trying to make the case that Ukraine is the one who interfered with the elections and it's the main reason to investigate Hunter Biden and that Trump had done nothing wrong.
He then fully admits to Russia meddling in the 2016 elections along with China, but Cruz is just towing the GOP line and looking foolish doing it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/adam-schiff-no-we-didnt-subpoena-john-solomons-phone-records

Patrick Boland, the top spokesman for Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, told The Daily Beast on Thursday that investigators “did not subpoena call records for any member of Congress or their staff... or for any journalist,” including—Boland added—the committee’s ranking member, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) or John Solomon, a columnist formerly of The Hill whose reporting formed much of the public case for Rudy Giuliani and others to do their muckraking in Ukraine.

“Any questions about the fact that Members, congressional staff, or journalists appear in call records released by the Committee should be directed at those individuals, who were in contact with individuals of investigative interest to the impeachment inquiry,” Boland added.

It's exactly the same way that Trump's campaign was first linked to Russia by GCHQ, which led to the accusations of the FBI tapping Trump's phones - they were looking at the phone records of Russian agents and Trump and his associates kept showing up in those records.

Trump & his circle associate with criminals and agents of hostile foreign powers. Agencies surveil those criminals and agents of hostile foreign powers and notice that Trump & his circle keep showing up in that surveillance. Trump calls foul and spins a conspiracy theory about those agencies specifically surveilling him.

And people keep falling for it unquestioningly.

 

[smartcooky]

Representatives only serve for 2 years, senators 6. Reps are always running!

OK.

I have to say that seems very silly. Reps must be spending almost half their time campaigning!

 

[Segnosaur]

OK.

I have to say that seems very silly. Reps must be spending almost half their time campaigning!

To me it seems like there would be good and bad points.

Yes, it does mean that a representative needs to spend more time campaigning, which cuts into their time of actually representing their constituents.

On the other hand, it also means that the house is more reflective of the will of the people at any particular point of time. (Just think, if they had 4 or 6 year terms, the U.S. could still be stuck with republicans in control of both houses of congress, the Democrats might have still been stuck as the minority party in the House.

 

[Trebuchet]

Ted Cruz on Meet The Press is trying to make the case that Ukraine is the one who interfered with the elections and it's the main reason to investigate Hunter Biden and that Trump had done nothing wrong.
He then fully admits to Russia meddling in the 2016 elections along with China, but Cruz is just towing the GOP line and looking foolish doing it.

Stuff I don't get: Trump said Cruz's father was in on the assassination of JFK and his buddies at the National Enquirer said Cruz was sleeping with all of his assistants. And now he's defending Trump. Why? And he's not the only one.

 

[DallasDad]

As a Brit I don't understand what you mean by using "proper" to mean "our".

One of my brothers named his first-born son after himself. So we have Steve and Steve. My brother is "proper Steve," while his son is "other Steve." Either one could be "our Steve" if other Steves were somehow within context. I guess you're correct that using "proper" this way isn't the same as using "our," but its similar enough that I brought it up.

 

[calebprime]

Stuff I don't get: Trump said Cruz's father was in on the assassination of JFK and his buddies at the National Enquirer said Cruz was sleeping with all of his assistants. And now he's defending Trump. Why? And he's not the only one.

You don't get it because you're an honest person essentially and it doesn't occur to you that Trump doesn't believe what he says, at all. Or if he believed it, he changed his mind.

 

[acbytesla]

At one time statements as "but It would also look terrible to the point of absurdity." had some validity, but not these days.

I can appreciate why any of us would think that. But political calculations are being made by all. There's about 20 Republican Senators up for reelection next November. The impeachment trial is going to be a public event and too much gamesmanship is likely to backfire.

 

[KDLarsen]

OK.

I have to say that seems very silly. Reps must be spending almost half their time campaigning!

One of the segments on Last Week Tonight early on was about just that, and about how soulcrushing it was for some freshmen Reps, to be basically shuttled into an office to conduct fundraising over the phone. It's worth a watch in my opinion:

 

[acbytesla]

Indeed, those are the current Senate rules. The Senate has the opportunity to change or affirm the rules at the beginning of each session, and has, under extraordinary circumstances, the option of changing the rules in the middle of a session. The optics would be horrible, but they can change the rules in January when convening for the second session of the 116th Congress. They could adjourn the current session early, in case the House tries to bring articles to the Senate before the end of the year.

I'm not saying this is likely, but if Mitch doesn't care about the optics, he can pull some shenanigans to stall the trial. Historically, Senate trials don't start the day the House submits articles anyway. The articles are acknowledged, and then the tedious business of setting up a schedule begins. Witnesses must be identified and dragged in; absent Senators recalled (or present ones make up emergencies to get called away); the Chief Justice must arrange his schedule, the House needs time to prepare their charges, etc.

It's not instantaneous (and hasn't been in the past), despite the wording of the Senate rules.

It's not instantaneous. But I think the idea that people will delay for a year is highly unlikely. It would appear to EVERYONE as dishonest.

You can get away with anything...that is, if the public lets you.

If McConnell and more importantly all the GOP Senators up for reelection next fall thought they could get away with such shenanigans, they might play that kind of game. But there are senators like Susan Collins, Cory Gardner, Martha McSally, Thom Tillis, Kelly Loeffler that are all projected to have close races which might make them hesitate to jump on McConnell's train.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump Retweeted

Kimberley Strassel
@KimStrassel
Still waiting for my fellow members of the media to express their deep outrage and alarm that Intelligence Chair Schiff snooped thru and published phone records of member of the free press. The silence is deafening.

Democrats lecture about dirt-digging, even as they abuse their surveillance powers to demand phone records to smear political rivals.
https://wsj.com/articles/schiffs-su...shareToken=sta8bc333feb4d41da928eee549ae63e90 via @WSJ

I wondered how long it would be before media rushed to defend Schiff's indefensible subpoenas and intimidation of the media. Didn't take long... (Although this is hilariously weak tea.)
https://thedailybeast.com/adam-schi...mons-phone-records?source=twitter&via=desktop via @thedailybeast

From my new column: “There does not appear to be any basis to believe that a congressional committee is authorized to subpoena telephone records directly from a provider..." says former Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
https://wsj.com/articles/adam-schif...shareToken=stf82006f69db046469de36ee64a8fa8d5 via @WSJ

Also from my column: Constitutional lawyer David Rivkin makes the case that Schiff has opened himself up lawsuits from targets of these subpoenas.

Getting to the bottom here, one of those WSJ articles is an op ed and the other is penned by "the editorial board." So neither is exactly news. Why is that?

The Daily Beast op ed says this:

The WSJ editorial was worded carefully enough that it was unclear if the author believed Schiff actually subpoenaed Solomon’s phone records or if he or she was arguing that Schiff shouldn’t have published the metadata ensnaring Solomon that came from non-Solomon specific subpoenas. Similar Schiff critics have left it vague too, including The Washington Examiner’s Byron York and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).

GOP tactic, drown the fish.