Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

[acbytesla]

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.

And wait a year for SCOTUS to rule?

You do get that the legal argument posed by Trump of total immunity from investigation has never been made in the last 230 years? That it is beyond risible.

You also understand that SCOTUS is so one sided now that they are not even trying to hide their bias?

I guarantee that if the House subpoenaed the government they wouldn't have heard the case for a year.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/DanaBashCNN/status/1221813036027207680

Source familiar w/ conversations ongoing since the Bolton news broke tells me the White House is hearing from GOP senators who are frustrated that at least someone in the WH had the Bolton manuscript since the end of December and they were kept in the dark.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay. GOP Senators have been "frustrated" with Trump before, just like Susan Collins is always so very, very concerned about what he is doing.

GOP Senators making some noise at Trump isn't all that rare. It just never translates to any actual meaningful opposition.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I suspect that whole game was to just use as a bargaining chip to get the Dems to agree to let the Biden's testify.

That would be an unbelievably stupid move on their behalf. I mean so incredibly stupid that you can't imagine them actually doing it. So far, far beyond the stupid things they have already done.

Bolton will have nothing to say.

Seems like he'd have a lot to say.

I suspect he will do what all of the others did and claim that he can't talk about it because the President "may" want to invoke privilege at some point in time.

He made a public statement weeks ago that if he was subpoenaed he'd testify.

Also, Bolton's lawyers are saying that it was the White House that leaked this.

Not quite. They're saying that people outside of the usual review process must have seen it, which implicates the White House in distributing it more widely than it should have been distributed.

This does not in any way imply that someone on Trump's side actually leaked it. Who knows what could have happened with this lot's approach to security? For all we know someone left a copy lying in a taxi.

 

[Meadmaker]

The public that cares needs to put pressure on the GOP Senators.

This is absolutely the right thing to do. Just like the other side is doing. Turn public opinion against him and the Senate would convict. Right now, not a chance.

 

[Segnosaur]

I suspect that whole game was to just use as a bargaining chip to get the Dems to agree to let the Biden's testify.

That would be an unbelievably stupid move on their behalf. I mean so incredibly stupid that you can't imagine them actually doing it. So far, far beyond the stupid things they have already done.

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').

 

[Meadmaker]

And wait a year for SCOTUS to rule?

Scotus can rule quickly if they are so inclined.


If he defies a scotus order, public opinion will shift against him. Anything less won't be enough to move the needle. Better to wait for a conviction than rush through an acquittal.

 

[theprestige]

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.

 

[theprestige]

He is defying a court order to produce the Kushner interview from the Mueller investigation - no appeal, no redaction, just refuses to release it.

Do you have a source for that?

Please let it not be any one of -

- HuffPo reports that the Guardian reports that CNN reports that the AP reports that... If the AP is the original report, just cite them directly.

- Soundbites, video clips, or tweets of people saying stuff. Reports of action (or absence of action), not of words, please.

 

[plague311]

Good morning. I'm still not sure I want Bolton to be called to testify. I suspect that whole game was to just use as a bargaining chip to get the Dems to agree to let the Biden's testify. Bolton will have nothing to say. I suspect he will do what all of the others did and claim that he can't talk about it because the President "may" want to invoke privilege at some point in time. Not that the President did invoke privilege but just that he might want to. Up until this point, thats all that needed to be done. No one, Dems or Republicans have forced the issue. Why not have the House subpoena the document? The Bolton draft that he sent to the White house? Documents don't lie. Bolton is a staunch Trump followed regardless of the very few disagreements he has had with the President. That's where I would start.

The only reason I don't agree with this is because Bolton wrote a book. It's tough to say "he might invoke privilege" when you wrote a book detailing the events.

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').

I was under the impression they couldn't do this even if he does testify. Don't the questions have to go through Roberts first?

 

[plague311]

Do you have a source for that?

Please let it not be any one of -

- HuffPo reports that the Guardian reports that CNN reports that the AP reports that... If the AP is the original report, just cite them directly.

- Soundbites, video clips, or tweets of people saying stuff. Reports of action (or absence of action), not of words, please.

Here is one from CNN.

It says:

Despite a court order, the Justice Department is holding back Mueller memos regarding the interviews conducted with the President's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner.

CNN and BuzzFeed have won access to thousands of pages of Mueller's witness memos. A judge ordered that the news organizations get access to the same group of documents the House saw, including the Kushner memos, this month.

The Justice Department would be able to redact and withhold some of those documents under Freedom of Information Act guidelines, so what the public sees wouldn't necessarily match what the House read.

 

[Segnosaur]

And wait a year for SCOTUS to rule?

Scotus can rule quickly if they are so inclined.

Ummmm... the supreme court is expected to rule on various subpoenas into Trump's financials in June 2020. The legal wranglings will have taken well over half a year by that time.

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

If he defies a scotus order, public opinion will shift against him.

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

 

[acbytesla]

Scotus can rule quickly if they are so inclined.

If he defies a scotus order, public opinion will shift against him. Anything less won't be enough to move the needle. Better to wait for a conviction than rush through an acquittal.

The highlighted part says it all. As I said before SCOTUS has been constantly making political calculations. As in accepting a case that would destroy the ACA but refusing to hear the case until late in the term insuring the public is ignorant about it during the next election.

 

[Segnosaur]

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').

I was under the impression they couldn't do this even if he does testify. Don't the questions have to go through Roberts first?

The authority of Roberts (his ability to issue rulings and control the impeachment proceedings and keep them 'fair') is one of these fuzzy things that I don't think anyone really has a good handle on. A lot of his 'power' in subject to senate control, so I suspect even if he does try to rule "That question is bad", the senate would probably just hold a vote to overrule him.

And lets face it, Roberts seems to be doing his best to be a non-actor in the impeachment proceedings.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And lets face it, Roberts seems to be doing his best to be a non-actor in the impeachment proceedings.

And Robert's is the sanest conservative on the Court Right now. He's just not making it any better. Kavanaugh would have brought a keg.

 

[Paul2]

I think this is true, but listen carefully to your own words, and imagine how they sound to others. The "context" here, is Trump. His this, his that, all the things he does and will no doubt do later.

In other words, this is a big deal, because it's Trump.

It's not clear if you think that, in actuality, my words show unfair bias against Trump - as opposed to how other people would interpret my words and perhaps come to a false conclusion that my words are unfairly biased against Trump even though my words are not unfairly biased.


Which did you mean?

 

[JPK]

Good morning Squeegee Beckenheim.

That would be an unbelievably stupid move on their behalf. I mean so incredibly stupid that you can't imagine them actually doing it. So far, far beyond the stupid things they have already done.

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

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

 

[JoeMorgue]

Which did you mean?

Here let me translate Trump-speak for you.

Everyone who doesn't like Trump is "biased" against him and therefore can be dismissed.

The only people who are allowed to criticize Trump are people who think he can do no wrong.

Essentially he's saying the trial is a farce because the Prosecutor thinks the defendant is guilty.

 

[Segnosaur]

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 Democrats did make a compelling case for impeachment.

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

Its as simple of that.

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.

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....

And it's stupid anyway. Even if the Senate issued subpoenas, the White House would still appeal them.

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.

 

[Trebuchet]

Good morning Squeegee Beckenheim.

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

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

I'd say Bolton is actually NOT a Trump guy. He's a classic neo-con; one of the architects of the Iraq war. He's more of a Cheney-Rumsfeld guy.
And Trump's bashing him on Twitter.