Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[acbytesla]

It's an interesting question. The Articles of Impeachment are a matter of public record, and are in fact documented acts of government. I wouldn't be surprised if act of voting them into existence gives the Senate everything necessary to conduct a trial based on those Articles.

It would be kind of tragicomic of the Senate voted to begin the trial tomorrow, and voted to acquit before Pelosi could get together a prosecution.

Good luck with that. It doesn't.

 

[jeremyp]

Now the House Dems just need to figure out what is right, and whether they stand for it.

Two weeks ago, "right" seemed to be putting the President on trial for his high crimes and misdemeanors. Today, "right" appears to be not putting the President on trial, and instead farming the impeachment process for as much partisan political advantage as possible.
Except that the impeachment process ended when the Articles went to a floor vote. So apparently the "right" thing to do was to have an impeachment, and then stop there. For partisan political advantage in the upcoming elections.

Two weeks ago the leader of the "jury" hadn't come out and said he was colluding with the accused.

 

[Paul2]

My argument is that the powers of the President of the Senate are identical to the powers of the President of the Senate, regardless of whether it's the Vice President or the Chief Justice that's presiding. And that ruling on objections during an impeachment trial is one of the powers of the President of the Senate.

From the current rules of the Senate for impeachment:
The Presiding Officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.


The Senate shall have power to compel the attend- ance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders, man- dates, writs, precepts, and judgments, to preserve order, and to punish in a summary way contempts of, and disobe- dience to, its authority, orders, mandates, writs, precepts, or judgments, and to make all lawful orders, rules, and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice. And the Sergeant at Arms, under the direction of the Senate, may employ such aid and assist- ance as may be necessary to enforce, execute, and carry into effect the lawful orders, mandates, writs, and precepts of the Senate.

And the Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some

 

[Paul2]

Are these powers specifically enumerated somewhere?

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/sman/113/05


Scroll down to Rules for Impeachment Trials

 

[acbytesla]

Get this through your heads people. The House impeached Donald Trump. PERIOD. It's in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. It will ALWAYS be in it. People will ALWAYS refer to Trump as having been impeached.

There is a process for delivering bills to the Senate, just as there is a process to delivering bills to the President. There is a process for impeachments. House managers prosecute impeachments. Whether it be a District Court Judge, a Senator or the President. The Senate does not mount the defense. They are the jurors. They keep their mouths shut, they sit on their asses and they vote. They cannot vote on a bill they don't have.

 

[theprestige]

Two weeks ago the leader of the "jury" hadn't come out and said he was colluding with the accused.

I'm sure Nancy Pelosi is shocked - shocked! - to learn the the Senate is planning acquit the president. Because she's an idiot that can't see further than the tip of her own nose. And this is the person you're relying on to run this impeachment thing. An idiot that didn't notice what the rest of the country had already figured out.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Does he, though? What difference does it really make?

Which is just more incentive to squash it utterly, no?

It's not going to be okay whatever happens. It'll get, at most, 2 or 3 weeks in the Senate with no witnesses called, and then Trump will be acquitted. It might even last less than a day, with an immediate motion to dismiss, supported by a Republican majority.

Pelosi withholding the Articles doesn't do anything to change that. It just gives a boost to the Republican narratives that this isn't a fair process and that the Democrats' case is so weak that they don't even want to bring it to trial.

You're leaving out public opinion. 52-54% currently want Trump out.

The majority (in the 70s) want witnesses at the trial.

You don't know if that will continue to go up or not.

Trump is certainly worried about it, he's off on a love-me campaign.

The issue for McConnell and other GOP legislators (mentioned above and/or on NPR) is losing to a primary challenger.

Everything depends on the public's reaction in the next few days or weeks. But I don't see any evidence at all that A) Trump is not worried about it, he is; B) the public is gaining resentment against the Democrats or the impeachment, only one poll report from a couple days ago showed Trump up, impeachment down. But even that report still has impeachment on top even if only by a small amount.

The majority of polls show impeachment leading by a small margin. Independents and Democrats want Trump out by a large margin. It is only Repupnicans that don't and apparently they are not the majority.

How do you get from this that the impeachment or Pelosi holding out is hurting the Democrats?

How do you get from the 70% in the polls that want witnesses, that Pelosi holding out hurts the Democrats?

WA Po, 12-17: Power Up: Almost 2 in 3 Republicans want Trump to allow top aides to testify at Senate trial, new Post-ABC poll finds

USA Today 12-21: Poll: Majority approve of Trump's impeachment and removal from office

 

[varwoche]

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/sman/113/05


Scroll down to Rules for Impeachment Trials

Thanks. Very helpful. The rules ultimately put the senate in charge in seemingly every situation.

However, I'm dubious the senate is allowed to put the constitution aside. Say Hunter Biden testifies, and he takes the 5th. And then the senate places him in jail.

Uncharted water.

 

[jeremyp]

I'm sure Nancy Pelosi is shocked - shocked! - to learn the the Senate is planning acquit the president. Because she's an idiot that can't see further than the tip of her own nose. And this is the person you're relying on to run this impeachment thing. An idiot that didn't notice what the rest of the country had already figured out.

That we all knew the Senate is going to acquit is one thing. That the leader of the Senate has openly admitted he will collude with the accused is quite another.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why do you think that?

There’s certainly a block of loyal Republicans that are thoroughly disgusted with Trump, and would jump on the opportunity to vote for someone with positions more in line with traditional Republican ideology.

I don’t care for Pence overall, but think he’d at least be a stabilizing force. Though I’m promising right now I will not vote for any Republican now that I’ve seen the depths they’ve sunk to in support of Trump.

Given Trump being ousted, if it did occur, would be months from now, that doesn't leave GOP candidates a lot of time to gear up for the Primary. So oust Trump and Pence is the likely candidate. Not that that is certain. But whoever is the candidate, they have to win the election. Some Trump supporters who believe in the deep state might just not vote or they might write in Trump.

Bottom line, the GOP will not be a perfectly clean campaign machine.

 

[Paul2]

Thanks. Very helpful. The rules ultimately put the senate in charge in seemingly every situation.

However, I'm dubious the senate is allowed to put the constitution aside. Say Hunter Biden testifies, and he takes the 5th. And then the senate places him in jail.

Uncharted water.

Interesting scenario. The Senate cannot put him in jail, as they are limited to changing the rules or over-ruling the Chief Justice, and it's unlikely this Chief Justice would thrown Biden in jail.

I would bet a fair bit that this scenario doesn't happen. But not my entire life savings.

Ultimately, I dunno.

 

[theprestige]

That we all knew the Senate is going to acquit is one thing. That the leader of the Senate has openly admitted he will collude with the accused is quite another.

Is it really, though?

The House Dems were all set to send the Articles to the Senate for acquittal, right up until the Senate majority leader said "yep, that's how it's going to be." And then suddenly they're all surprised and discombobulated and don't know what to do. Suddenly Pelosi has to buy time to figure out what happens next.

Do you not see how this is going to play with American voters?

 

[acbytesla]

I'm sure Nancy Pelosi is shocked - shocked! - to learn the the Senate is planning acquit the president. Because she's an idiot that can't see further than the tip of her own nose. And this is the person you're relying on to run this impeachment thing. An idiot that didn't notice what the rest of the country had already figured out.

What a stupid post. Pelosi is ten steps ahead of you. The Senate has EVERY RIGHT to acquit the big old orange mass of fecal matter. That is, if they get the case.

Pelosi has every right to insist the Senate conduct a fair trial. That evidence and fact witnesses are presented. That the world can see Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton etc raise their right hands. That the jurors raise their hands and swear to impartiality.

Here we see the Republicans whining like stuck pigs because Pelosi outplayed them. What a bunch of losers.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You keep repeating this over and over. Yet, you're guessing like everyone else. I think you're 100 percent wrong about your conclusions. The Democrats could lose and the Republicans could lose. I think hammering home Trump's corruption and the GOP's brazen hand waving it away a winner for the Democrats and a loser for the Republicans. Pelosi is doing exactly what she should be doing.

+1

 

[acbytesla]

Thanks. Very helpful. The rules ultimately put the senate in charge in seemingly every situation.

However, I'm dubious the senate is allowed to put the constitution aside. Say Hunter Biden testifies, and he takes the 5th. And then the senate places him in jail.

Uncharted water.

Biden could take the 5th. But why would he? He did nothing wrong. The only complaint I keep hearing is that he was overpaid. But I'd like to point out that Roberts could rule his testimony to be irrelevant to what Trump did. (And it is)

 

[Paul2]

Is it really, though?

The House Dems were all set to send the Articles to the Senate for acquittal, right up until the Senate majority leader said "yep, that's how it's going to be." And then suddenly they're all surprised and discombobulated and don't know what to do. Suddenly Pelosi has to buy time to figure out what happens next.

Do you not see how this is going to play with American voters?

What evidence do you have that Pelosi and the Dems were surprised, and by what were they surprised, and that they were discombobulated and don't know what to do next? That they did not transmit the articles immediately to the Senate might support your interpretation, but it would also support other interpretations, too, so you're gonna need more evidence to eliminate those other scenarios -- in particular, the scenario that the Dems were not surprised (one piece of evidence there is that nothing surprising happened before they decided not to transmit the articles, and that they know what they are doing, what the plan is. that one might think the plan will fail is not the same as saying they don't have a plan.

 

[Ziggurat]

Here we see the Republicans whining like stuck pigs because Pelosi outplayed them. What a bunch of losers.

Whether she outplayed them seems to depend upon how the public reacts. Why are you confident that you know how they will react?

 

[varwoche]

Biden could take the 5th. But why would he? He did nothing wrong. The only complaint I keep hearing is that he was overpaid.

It's a hypothetical violation of the constitution. I'm sure there are more realistic examples that would raise the same untested (?) quandary.

 

[jeremyp]

Is it really, though?

Yes.

The House Dems were all set to send the Articles to the Senate for acquittal, right up until the Senate majority leader said "yep, that's how it's going to be." And then suddenly they're all surprised and discombobulated and don't know what to do. Suddenly Pelosi has to buy time to figure out what happens next.

What makes you think they are surprised and discombobulated? What makes you think Pelosi is buying time? It seems to me that she is now in a position to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate pretty much exactly when she wants to.

Do you not see how this is going to play with American voters?

I think the American voters have almost all made up their minds about Trump. I don't think it's about swaying opinions and changing minds but how many of each side can be mobilised on election day.

Take you, for example. Despite everything that has come to light about Trump since he came to office, you are still here defending him. It's really a case of whether the Dems can get enough of their supporters to vote to dump that lying sack of **** out of office. If I'm honest, I'm pessimistic. I don't think they will but I don't think the timing of the impeachment trial will have any effect.

 

[acbytesla]

Whether she outplayed them seems to depend upon how the public reacts. Why are you confident that you know how they will react?

They already have.