Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

[Minoosh]

John Kelly voices support for Bolton

I keep thinking that people like Kelly and Mattis and Bolton move in high-level circles that involve continuing contact with U.S. senators, who despite the show of solidarity with Trump around impeachment must cringe at his ... naivety when it comes down to geopolitics and national security. I'm sure they know much more than they let on.

 

[Crossbow]

FIFY

Thanks much for the correction.

Or as a character said on one of my favorite animated TV series:

"With enough money, anybody can be popular."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In a real trial that would be the case.

However, the authority of Roberts to rule on witness admissions may be a bit... limited. The senate does have the ability to set rules and override Roberts (and I assume that would include rules on which witnesses to allow) based on a majority vote.

In the worst case scenario, the Republicans in the senate could decide "Lets call the Bidens and not Bolton/Mulvaney", and because they are in control of the rules there probably isn't much Roberts or the Democrats could do to prevent it.

The Senators are experiencing too much public pressure to do that. It would be better to have no witnesses than such an overtly biased attempt.

 

[Segnosaur]

In the worst case scenario, the Republicans in the senate could decide "Lets call the Bidens and not Bolton/Mulvaney", and because they are in control of the rules there probably isn't much Roberts or the Democrats could do to prevent it.

The Senators are experiencing too much public pressure to do that. It would be better to have no witnesses than such an overtly biased attempt.

Well, I did say it was a "worst case" scenario.

Yeah some senators are getting public pressure. I guess they are stuck having to balance the possible damage to Trump and the Republican brand if they let Bolton testify alone, vs. the damage to the brand if they call no witnesses, vs. the damage if they call irrelevant witnesses.

Every possible course of action risks damaging the republicans. Wish I could feel some sympathy for them, but I can't.

 

[plague311]

Every possible course of action risks damaging the republicans. Wish I could feel some sympathy for them, but I can't.

Exactly. For it being implied that the Dems didn't have a good course of action they've really put the GOP in a box here.

Even if, IF, they get Biden to testify all either of the Biden's have to say is that there has already been a Ukrainian investigation and no wrongdoing has been found.

The Democrats have proof of Trump's malfeasance. It's well documented by the House and has been presented to the Senate. Trump, the Senate, whoever has absolutely no evidence of Biden wrongdoing. All they can say is the younger Biden got paid, and that's about it. Bad optics, but nothing illegal. Trump can't say that.

 

[JPK]

Good afternoon. The only person that wants Biden to testify is Trump and only for a circus. McConnell doesn't want any witnesses and that's because he knows he doesn't have the votes to get it. Just like funding for the wall. Trump had control of the house and the Senate for two years and they couldn't get the votes. Now with the pressure from the release of the Bolton info, McConnell may be forced to at least have a vote on witnesses. This seems like another case of Trump thinking that he knows better than McConnell. As I said before, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Trump leaked the Bolton information himself because he thinks he knows better. It also wouldn't surprise me to learn that during the Impeachment hearings, Trump was more concerned with the tv ratings than he is with the content.

 

[plague311]

Good afternoon. The only person that wants Biden to testify is Trump and only for a circus. McConnell doesn't want any witnesses and that's because he knows he doesn't have the votes to get it. Just like funding for the wall. Trump had control of the house and the Senate for two years and they couldn't get the votes. Now with the pressure from the release of the Bolton info, McConnell may be forced to at least have a vote on witnesses. This seems like another case of Trump thinking that he knows better than McConnell. As I said before, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Trump leaked the Bolton information himself because he thinks he knows better. It also wouldn't surprise me to learn that during the Impeachment hearings, Trump was more concerned with the tv ratings than he is with the content.

The right-o-sphere are now claiming it was Lt. Col. Vindman's twin brother that leaked the book. I don't know what the dopes in the Senate are saying but that's on Washington Times, Brietbart, etc.

There was an article earlier today that said voting for witnesses was brought up in a closed-door meeting. The attitude towards it has certainly changed, and I think McConnell knows that if he calls witnesses it will do massive damage. First, it will stretch this out even further into the campaign season. Second, Bolton is bound to have something incriminating to say (possibly in more areas than just Ukraine). Lastly, I think McConnell thinks it could be a slippery slope. What names will Bolton spit out that would cause the GOP to have to bring in another witness, whomever that may be?

 

[Meadmaker]

Some of you are funny.

The point of the relevance question is that the people who are demanding only relevant witnesses have no power to make that decision. You dont. I dont. The talking heads on TV don't. The House Managers don't.

The only ones who have that power are senators, if they can get a group of 51 of them to agree. Not even the chief Justice has that power, unless the Senate cedes it to him.

And the funnier thing is that some people will still argue the point.


One minor correction. In an earlier post I said you "have to" allow both sides to call witnesses. That's not actually correct. If witnesses are called, I'm confident that they will allow both sides to call witnesses, but they don't actually have to. They only have to allow whatever 51 senators say they have to allow.

 

[plague311]

Some of you are funny.

The point of the relevance question is that the people who are demanding only relevant witnesses have no power to make that decision. You dont. I dont. The talking heads on TV don't. The House Managers don't.

The only ones who have that power are senators, if they can get a group of 51 of them to agree. Not even the chief Justice has that power, unless the Senate cedes it to him.

And the funnier thing is that some people will still argue the point.

I can't seem to find any posts that are actually arguing against what you're saying, and you didn't quote anything, so what the hell are you talking about? People are giving their opinions of what they would\wouldn't allow, but I don't see anyone saying they, personally, have the power to make that call.

I would even beg to differ with the point that we don't have any power. Judging by the statements from Senators on the radio and in the news, the pressure they're receiving is changing some Senators mind. That would lead me to believe that we, as the voting public, do have that power.

The news, talking heads, and House Managers inform the public and the public then puts pressure on the Senators.

One minor correction. In an earlier post I said you "have to" allow both sides to call witnesses. That's not actually correct. If witnesses are called, I'm confident that they will allow both sides to call witnesses, but they don't actually have to. They only have to allow whatever 51 senators say they have to allow.

I don't think there are many people here that didn't know that.

 

[Segnosaur]

Some of you are funny.

The point of the relevance question is that the people who are demanding only relevant witnesses have no power to make that decision. You dont. I dont. The talking heads on TV don't. The House Managers don't.

The only ones who have that power are senators, if they can get a group of 51 of them to agree. Not even the chief Justice has that power, unless the Senate cedes it to him.

Ummm... yes. That was a point I had made many many posts ago.

I (and other posters) DO recognize the difference about what should be done in a fair and impartial trial (i.e. calling only relevant witnesses) and what might happen in Trump's impeachment (i.e. they would call irrelevant witnesses like the Bidens). When we say "Don't call irrelevant witnesses" we are not predicting what will happen, but what should happen.

One minor correction. In an earlier post I said you "have to" allow both sides to call witnesses. That's not actually correct. If witnesses are called, I'm confident that they will allow both sides to call witnesses, but they don't actually have to.

I had assumed that your 'have to allow both sides to call witnesses" was something involving the fairness of the impeachment trial rather than what the senate will do.

i.e. "If its a fair trial both sides call witnesses" (which is not necessarily fair), as opposed to "In this particular trial both sides will call witnesses" (which may be what happens, but that doesn't automatically make it fair if the republicans call irrelevant witnesses).

 

[Cain]

Some of you are funny.

The point of the relevance question is that the people who are demanding only relevant witnesses have no power to make that decision. You dont. I dont. The talking heads on TV don't. The House Managers don't.

The only ones who have that power are senators, if they can get a group of 51 of them to agree. Not even the chief Justice has that power, unless the Senate cedes it to him.

And the funnier thing is that some people will still argue the point.

Causal inefficacy is irrelevant.

Seventy-five percent of the public favors witnesses. That's a bipartisan super-majority.

 

[Meadmaker]

I would even beg to differ with the point that we don't have any power. Judging by the statements from Senators on the radio and in the news, the pressure they're receiving is changing some Senators mind. That would lead me to believe that we, as the voting public, do have that power.
.

True.

 

[Meadmaker]

Causal inefficacy is irrelevant.

Seventy-five percent of the public favors witnesses. That's a bipartisan super-majority.

And for that reason, I think there will be wiynesses.

And I think there will be howls from people when "the other side" calls the "wrong" witnesses.

 

[a_unique_person]

In a real trial that would be the case.



However, the authority of Roberts to rule on witness admissions may be a bit... limited. The senate does have the ability to set rules and override Roberts (and I assume that would include rules on which witnesses to allow) based on a majority vote.



In the worst case scenario, the Republicans in the senate could decide "Lets call the Bidens and not Bolton/Mulvaney", and because they are in control of the rules there probably isn't much Roberts or the Democrats could do to prevent it.

In guessing that after being subject to sustained humiliation, Roberts won't be a friend of Mitch anymore.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Some of you are funny.

The point of the relevance question is that the people who are demanding only relevant witnesses have no power to make that decision. You dont. I dont. The talking heads on TV don't. The House Managers don't.

The only ones who have that power are senators, if they can get a group of 51 of them to agree. Not even the chief Justice has that power, unless the Senate cedes it to him.

And the funnier thing is that some people will still argue the point.


One minor correction. In an earlier post I said you "have to" allow both sides to call witnesses. That's not actually correct. If witnesses are called, I'm confident that they will allow both sides to call witnesses, but they don't actually have to. They only have to allow whatever 51 senators say they have to allow.

No one is saying both sides can't call witnesses. Of course they can. Using the threat, if you call Bolton we'll call Biden doesn't say much for the GOP case. They could vote to call Biden anyway if they thought Biden's supposed corruptness exonerated Trump, then why not call Biden?


You are avoiding the relevant question, what is the anticipated testimony of either Biden going to do to exonerate Trump?

Nothing.

They do add to the propaganda case, Trump is innocent. If we say it often enough people will believe.

Dershy looked like an idiot up there claiming no matter what he did, OJ er Trump is innocent.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So which is it, Trump pressured Zelensky because Trump was concerned about corruption, OR, Trump never pressured Zelensky?

 

[Segnosaur]

And I think there will be howls from people when "the other side" calls the "wrong" witnesses.

The difference is, when the republicans howl because the Democrats want Bolton et. Al to testify, their complaints are basically empty rhetoric, because Bolton would have relevant information regarding Trump and Ukraine.

If the Democrats howl over the prospect of the Bidens being called to testify, its because the Bidens were not involved in any way with Trump and the Ukraine. They were not involved in the phone call, they did not help to cover up the crime (by moving the phone call to a different server), they did not act to delay aid. They would have nothing to contribute.

Just because you have "2 sides" does not mean that both sides should be given equal respect.

Now, if the Republicans wanted to add (for example) Giuliani, Parnas, or someone who might have relevant information, that would be different. But that's not what they are doing. They are not trying to call factual witnesses who can say "This is what happened", they are trying to call irrelevant witnesses to create a distraction, to say "Don't pay attention to what happened, pay attention to this dog and pony show".

 

[BrooklynBaby]

There is no crime in the impeachment articles, so no witnesses are needed. The defense lawyers explained that to the Senate in no uncertain terms. Even if Trump actually did what the suspiciously timed leak attributed to Bolton said he did, it is not an impeachable offense. If the RINOs prevail and there are witnesses, I'm thinking all it will do is end Biden's candidacy. Not even the Democrats' fake news action arm can cover up the Bidens' corruption in an impeachment trial.

 

[Crossbow]

Good afternoon. The only person that wants Biden to testify is Trump and only for a circus. McConnell doesn't want any witnesses and that's because he knows he doesn't have the votes to get it. Just like funding for the wall. Trump had control of the house and the Senate for two years and they couldn't get the votes. Now with the pressure from the release of the Bolton info, McConnell may be forced to at least have a vote on witnesses. This seems like another case of Trump thinking that he knows better than McConnell. As I said before, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Trump leaked the Bolton information himself because he thinks he knows better. It also wouldn't surprise me to learn that during the Impeachment hearings, Trump was more concerned with the tv ratings than he is with the content.

Wow!

That is an excellent point that I had not considered before.

After all, the White House was provided with a copy of the Bolton book about one month ago to allow them to screen it for classified data. And Trump does have a well established history of leaking data to the press for his own selfish reasons.

Therefore, it may be true that Trump himself is the source of the leaked the data.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I hope they call the Bidens. I hope the Bidens proceed in this fashion:

Q: "when did you take a position on the board of Burisma?"

A: "several years before Trump engaged in the corrupt actions that this proceeding is meant to address."