Somebody that understands the impeachment process help me out

[BABiscuit]

My understanding is the house didnt subpoena Bolton, Mulvaney, Guiliani, etc. Dems in the Senate want them to be called for the Senate trial, but it doesnt appear that McConnel has any interest in doing that. So, no new witnesses, nobody in the GOP breaks and it's done. Why is that preferable to the house going to court and compelling Bolton, etc to testify as part of their inquiry. The way they are doing it is going to allow the GOP to use the narrative that they weren't called by dems because they would have refuted the Ukraine hoax and that will be all the cover they need. It makes no sense to me. Make the public see the lengths Trump will go to prevent evidence from being made public.

 

[Jan Itor]

My understanding is the house didnt subpoena Bolton, Mulvaney, Guiliani, etc. Dems in the Senate want them to be called for the Senate trial, but it doesnt appear that McConnel has any interest in doing that. So, no new witnesses, nobody in the GOP breaks and it's done. Why is that preferable to the house going to court and compelling Bolton, etc to testify as part of their inquiry. The way they are doing it is going to allow the GOP to use the narrative that they weren't called by dems because they would have refuted the Ukraine hoax and that will be all the cover they need. It makes no sense to me. Make the public see the lengths Trump will go to prevent evidence from being made public.

IMO, the House Dems screwed up. Should have gone to court and tried to force the Emperor's criminals to testify. At least exhaust their resources to try and get it done. I think they decided not to for political reasons so they can get him impeached as soon as possible, and hope the public is disgusted by the way the Senate handles it.

I think if they could have gotten Bolton and the rest in to testify, they stood a better chance of nailing that bastard with more articles with more meat.

 

[Huey Grey]

The court won't decide if these witnesses can be subpoenaed until this summer.

 

[phantom_204]

My understanding is the house didnt subpoena Bolton, Mulvaney, Guiliani, etc. Dems in the Senate want them to be called for the Senate trial, but it doesnt appear that McConnel has any interest in doing that. So, no new witnesses, nobody in the GOP breaks and it's done. Why is that preferable to the house going to court and compelling Bolton, etc to testify as part of their inquiry. The way they are doing it is going to allow the GOP to use the narrative that they weren't called by dems because they would have refuted the Ukraine hoax and that will be all the cover they need. It makes no sense to me. Make the public see the lengths Trump will go to prevent evidence from being made public.

Let's say the Dems successfully get those guys to testify and they confirm what we have already heard and know. You think that changes McConnell's way ... at all? Lindsey Graham?
The best path forward for the Dems is to impeach him, but not send it to the Senate until after the 2020 elections. If Trump is voted out, it's a moot point. If the Dems take the Senate, he is out. If the Republicans have the Senate still, send it to them and let the sham trial happen.

 

[Jan Itor]

The court won't decide if these witnesses can be subpoenaed until this summer.

So? They just impeach him in the house, the senate doesn't convict, and he continues as though nothing happened.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

IMO, the House Dems screwed up. Should have gone to court and tried to force the Emperor's criminals to testify. At least exhaust their resources to try and get it done. I think they decided not to for political reasons so they can get him impeached as soon as possible, and hope the public is disgusted by the way the Senate handles it.

I think if they could have gotten Bolton and the rest in to testify, they stood a better chance of nailing that bastard with more articles with more meat.

They subpoened pretty much everyone but Bolton. Pence, Pompeo, Esper, Rudy, Vought, Mulvaney and others were subpoened and refused to appear and/or produce the documents requested. If the House waits for the courts to act - what's the point? The next admin should turn the DoJ loose on every one of them to find out if they were part of the attempt to bribe a foreign govt to interfere in US elections.

And Bolton is a sack of crap for hinting that he had information but refusing to testify.

 

[Rudolph]

The court won't decide if these witnesses can be subpoenaed until this summer.

Yeah, and meanwhile Dems are required to better present their policy ideas under the conditions of Trump running more obstruction.

There are arguments for both how this is playing out and for actually using the courts to force witness testimony. Obviously the arguments for the latter become stronger as time passes.

I can’t blame Dems either way, sort of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t deal.

Personally, I feel like the obstructions alone warrant impeachment. Puts the onus on everyone to decide the importance of checks and balances.

People were rightly concerned about Obama assuming too much executive power. Part of the concern was what happens when the next potus tries to take it a step further. Well, Trump did a Lebron five-step further, and still won’t give up the ball.

 

[hawkfan0319]

So? They just impeach him in the house, the senate doesn't convict, and he continues as though nothing happened.

It doesn't matter what the House sends to McConnell. He has openly said he is following the WH lead.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

So? They just impeach him in the house, the senate doesn't convict, and he continues as though nothing happened.

Or they don't impeach him in the House because Trump ran out the clock, the Senate never has to face a vote, and Trump STILL continues on as though nothing happened.

 

[rocketclone]

Senate runs the rules boys, karma is a bitch. Chuck can pound sand.

 

[cigaretternan]

 

[sober_teacher]

Yeah, and meanwhile Dems are required to better present their policy ideas under the conditions of Trump running more obstruction.

There are arguments for both how this is playing out and for actually using the courts to force witness testimony. Obviously the arguments for the latter become stronger as time passes.

I can’t blame Dems either way, sort of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t deal.

Personally, I feel like the obstructions alone warrant impeachment. Puts the onus on everyone to decide the importance of checks and balances.

People were rightly concerned about Obama assuming too much executive power. Part of the concern was what happens when the next potus tries to take it a step further. Well, Trump did a Lebron five-step further, and still won’t give up the ball.

The other part of this is - nobody from the Democrats or the GOP really, truly wants this dragged out until midsummer and becomes an election year issue. Trump is the only one who will continue to talk about this throughout 2020.

This doesn't even come down to which side of the aisle you come down on. Nobody other than Trump wants to discuss this some next September/October/November.

 

[cigaretternan]

 

[cigaretternan]

 

[ottumwan in tx]

The court won't decide if these witnesses can be subpoenaed until this summer.

and you guys should indeed have waited until then and let it drag on until October because that's when the election is. you guys did this thing a whole year too early

 

[ottumwan in tx]

The other part of this is - nobody from the Democrats or the GOP really, truly wants this dragged out until midsummer and becomes an election year issue. Trump is the only one who will continue to talk about this throughout 2020.

This doesn't even come down to which side of the aisle you come down on. Nobody other than Trump wants to discuss this some next September/October/November.

the problem is nobody wants any part of courts. the dems actually do want it going on next October, for the election. but courts are bad for these people

 

[gonegolfing]

Senate runs the rules boys, karma is a bitch. Chuck can pound sand.

It's all he's qualified to do.

 

[Lone Clone]

My understanding is the house didnt subpoena Bolton, Mulvaney, Guiliani, etc. Dems in the Senate want them to be called for the Senate trial, but it doesnt appear that McConnel has any interest in doing that. So, no new witnesses, nobody in the GOP breaks and it's done. Why is that preferable to the house going to court and compelling Bolton, etc to testify as part of their inquiry. The way they are doing it is going to allow the GOP to use the narrative that they weren't called by dems because they would have refuted the Ukraine hoax and that will be all the cover they need. It makes no sense to me. Make the public see the lengths Trump will go to prevent evidence from being made public.

What I'm hearing now is that the Senate may just dismiss the matter. That just takes a simple majority. Essentially says the House has brought such a weak case that they aren't going to bother with it.

The House Dems made a lot of mistakes, but one of the most glaring was not bothering to try to compel some of those witnesses to testify. Some of them, they wouldn't have gotten -- no judge is going to compel the president's national security adviser to testify about what the two of them discussed -- but some of them they might have. In any case, the fact the Dems didn't even try makes a joke out of the second impeachment item. As Turley testified, you can't reasonably charge the president with obstruction for doing what he has a legal right to do and what his prededecessors have done.

And then Schumer ices the cake by asking to call the witnesses; why would they be available now if they weren't available before?

 

[BioHawk]

IMO, the House Dems screwed up. Should have gone to court and tried to force the Emperor's criminals to testify. At least exhaust their resources to try and get it done. I think they decided not to for political reasons so they can get him impeached as soon as possible, and hope the public is disgusted by the way the Senate handles it.

I think if they could have gotten Bolton and the rest in to testify, they stood a better chance of nailing that bastard with more articles with more meat.

Which makes me wonder if this is more of a calculated move.

A) Establishment Democrats wanted no part of an impeachment trial during a Trump 1st term. Past experience has not been good to the impeaching party. After the phone call to the Ukraine, not impeaching Trump was likely going to cause more harm with their base and affect turnout in 2020. Many would see those Democrats as complicit and many might even see primary challenges if they didn't do something.

B) This impeachment isn't about removing Trump. The Democrats want to do that in the election next year and think they have a very good chance at doing it (yeah, 2016 blah blah blah). So the goal was to show how guilty Trump was but do that as quickly as possible as to not interfere with Primary season and election season. Going to court over Subpoena's pushes the impeachment trial back to the spring at the earliest and for a ruling in the Supreme Court that would not likely go the Democrats way anyway (which is another issue that needs to be taken up).

C) The goal is to put these Republican Senators in the position they are in right now, having to make absurd defenses of behavior that is absolutely ridiculous, with the hope that it costs the GOP seats in the Senate next year. The only issue is GOP voters have shown an astounding disregard for law and order and political norms so there is a good chance that even as dumb as all these Senators look, they won't care. How long is it before some of these Republicans just come out and say it? "Yeah, this really isn't an appropriate action and I would never stand by and let a Democrat do this, but we really need to keep Trump in the Presidency, even if it means temporarily shredding the Constitution in the process". They would probably get votes for honesty.

I think it is a gamble to not press the subpoena issue and it isn't how I would have run this. I would have given subpoena's, thrown their asses in jail when they didn't show up (which Trump would pardon them for, further weakening his position), and then held the vote anyway using those actions as further evidence of the GOP's guilt. I would probably move to impeach members not showing up for a subpoena if they still held an office as well. Not that that would go anywhere, but I would at least show the country I was doing everything I could to bring these people to justice. At the very least, I would show why I needed their help in 2020.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Why is that preferable to the house going to court and compelling Bolton, etc to testify as part of their inquiry.

This is pretty much Turley's entire argument against impeachment. But he was wrong. He even contradicted himself on this point.

The main reason not to subpoena those guys is because they had already made it clear they would refuse and would appeal any court order. That would delay impeachment until too close to the election.

In retrospect, they probably should have done that and used that as an excuse not to formally impeach. That way they could have kept the hearings and the drip-drip of misdeeds going while never suffering defeat in the Senate.

 

[Rifler]

Which makes me wonder if this is more of a calculated move.

Could be right,... that would at least explain the two incredibly weak articles of impeachment...

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The way they are doing it is going to allow the GOP to use the narrative that they weren't called by dems because they would have refuted the Ukraine hoax

Yes, they'll probably claim that. And it might even be true in some cases. But they don't want to risk it.

The Dems will counter that if that were true, you should be happy to call them.

The R base will believe whatever they are told.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Let's say the Dems successfully get those guys to testify and they confirm what we have already heard and know. You think that changes McConnell's way ... at all? Lindsey Graham?
The best path forward for the Dems is to impeach him, but not send it to the Senate until after the 2020 elections. If Trump is voted out, it's a moot point. If the Dems take the Senate, he is out. If the Republicans have the Senate still, send it to them and let the sham trial happen.

Interesting strategy.

If you think the failure to impeach will end up working in Trump's favor, then this makes sense.

You know that Trump and everybody from white supremacists to FOX will be screaming "exonerated" at the top of their lungs. And "vast left wing conspiracy" and so on.

 

[Lone Clone]

Which makes me wonder if this is more of a calculated move.

A) Establishment Democrats wanted no part of an impeachment trial during a Trump 1st term. Past experience has not been good to the impeaching party. After the phone call to the Ukraine, not impeaching Trump was likely going to cause more harm with their base and affect turnout in 2020. Many would see those Democrats as complicit and many might even see primary challenges if they didn't do something.

B) This impeachment isn't about removing Trump. The Democrats want to do that in the election next year and think they have a very good chance at doing it (yeah, 2016 blah blah blah). So the goal was to show how guilty Trump was but do that as quickly as possible as to not interfere with Primary season and election season. Going to court over Subpoena's pushes the impeachment trial back to the spring at the earliest and for a ruling in the Supreme Court that would not likely go the Democrats way anyway (which is another issue that needs to be taken up).

C) The goal is to put these Republican Senators in the position they are in right now, having to make absurd defenses of behavior that is absolutely ridiculous, with the hope that it costs the GOP seats in the Senate next year. The only issue is GOP voters have shown an astounding disregard for law and order and political norms so there is a good chance that even as dumb as all these Senators look, they won't care. How long is it before some of these Republicans just come out and say it? "Yeah, this really isn't an appropriate action and I would never stand by and let a Democrat do this, but we really need to keep Trump in the Presidency, even if it means temporarily shredding the Constitution in the process". They would probably get votes for honesty.

I think it is a gamble to not press the subpoena issue and it isn't how I would have run this. I would have given subpoena's, thrown their asses in jail when they didn't show up (which Trump would pardon them for, further weakening his position), and then held the vote anyway using those actions as further evidence of the GOP's guilt. I would probably move to impeach members not showing up for a subpoena if they still held an office as well. Not that that would go anywhere, but I would at least show the country I was doing everything I could to bring these people to justice. At the very least, I would show why I needed their help in 2020.

I wouldn't nitpick (A) or (B).

I disagree with (C). What the Senate Dems are trying to do now is minimize the mess they're being handed by the House (see A above). Schumer's opening ploy was demanding a do-over, where the Senate could do what the House tried to do; in other words, instead of serving as jurors, the Senate would re-investigate the whole shebang.

Your comment about subpoenae is correct, IMHO, in terms of what the House should have done. It's incorrect about throwing their asses in jail, because I think in most cases the courts would have found in Trump's favor -- especially in the case of Bolton. But it would have taken time and the Dems don't want to take the time.

 

[Obviously Oblivious]

Senate runs the rules boys, karma is a bitch. Chuck can pound sand.

Such a fine American you are. Party over country. Despicable.

 

[BioHawk]

Your comment about subpoenae is correct, IMHO, in terms of what the House should have done. It's incorrect about throwing their asses in jail, because I think in most cases the courts would have found in Trump's favor -- especially in the case of Bolton. But it would have taken time and the Dems don't want to take the time.

Courts would have backed it until the Supreme Court. No lower court is going to jeopardize subpoena power for prosecutors, which is what the ruling you are saying will do. Trump's picks had to pass the loyalty test, one of which is if they would rule in his favor in exactly this type of situation, and the other two ultra conservatives would vote to throw it out because they get their marching orders from The Heritage Foundation. It would fall on Roberts' shoulders on whether or not he wanted to throw our entire court system into chaos by weakening subpoena power at the national level. I have no idea which way it would rule on it.

Also, you have to throw people in jail for ignoring a subpoena. Otherwise, what's the consequence for not obeying one?

 

[Lone Clone]

Courts would have backed it until the Supreme Court. No lower court is going to jeopardize subpoena power for prosecutors, which is what the ruling you are saying will do. Trump's picks had to pass the loyalty test, one of which is if they would rule in his favor in exactly this type of situation, and the other two ultra conservatives would vote to throw it out because they get their marching orders from The Heritage Foundation. It would fall on Roberts' shoulders on whether or not he wanted to throw our entire court system into chaos by weakening subpoena power at the national level. I have no idea which way it would rule on it.

Also, you have to throw people in jail for ignoring a subpoena. Otherwise, what's the consequence for not obeying one?

Courts aren't going to force the president's attorney or his national security adviser to testify about conversations with the president. If you want to talk nonsense, you're on your own.

 

[BioHawk]

Courts aren't going to force the president's attorney or his national security adviser to testify about conversations with the president. If you want to talk nonsense, you're on your own.

I disagree, but I don't think that one has ever been tested. To my knowledge, no one has actually ever taken it to court. This is about an actual crime though so it might warrant over ruling executive privilege. However, there are many more subpoenas than those two that would not have nearly the case those two have. Not to mention all of the documents that the administration has refused to turn over.

 

[phantom_204]

Interesting strategy.

If you think the failure to impeach will end up working in Trump's favor, then this makes sense.

You know that Trump and everybody from white supremacists to FOX will be screaming "exonerated" at the top of their lungs. And "vast left wing conspiracy" and so on.

I think sending it to the sham trial now and having McConnell make a mockery of the process works in Trump's favor. They will scream "exonerated" and move on. The Dems would then look bad bringing him up for impeachment again in the future. Trump and the Republicans would say "they are just trying to get him" and you strengthen him that way. If he is impeached, but not sent to the Senate then people in the hotly contested Senate race states know what's at stake. Now, McConnell and the Republicans will scream bloody murder if the House doesn't send it to them for the show trial. To that, the Dems simply reply ... "Merrick Garland".

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Honestly in conflicts between the legislative and executive branches we just need to fast track these things to the SCOTUS.

 

[BABiscuit]

Courts aren't going to force the president's attorney or his national security adviser to testify about conversations with the president. If you want to talk nonsense, you're on your own.

I think they should have forced the issue with Guiliani so they could get legal arguments on the record as to whether Guiliani's work in the Ukraine was performed as Trumps attorney. Rudy says it was, but Trump isnt claiming that. Make them make a decision. Either attorney/client privilege and Trump has to admit this was being done for him personally or no privilege and Rudy cant hide behind it.

 

[Lone Clone]

I disagree, but I don't think that one has ever been tested. To my knowledge, no one has actually ever taken it to court. This is about an actual crime though so it might warrant over ruling executive privilege. However, there are many more subpoenas than those two that would not have nearly the case those two have. Not to mention all of the documents that the administration has refused to turn over.

What actual crime are we talking about? And we aren't just talking executive privilege. In the case of Giuliani it's attorney-client privilege.

 

[Lone Clone]

I think they should have forced the issue with Guiliani so they could get legal arguments on the record as to whether Guiliani's work in the Ukraine was performed as Trumps attorney. Rudy says it was, but Trump isnt claiming that. Make them make a decision. Either attorney/client privilege and Trump has to admit this was being done for him personally or no privilege and Rudy cant hide behind it.

What does Rudy have to hide about?

 

[BABiscuit]

What does Rudy have to hide about?

Is this a serious question? You dont think there is the possibility that some shady shit has been going down in Ukraine. His partners were arrested trying to leave the country. They were being paid by Russian oligarchs. He got an ambassador fired, potentially to help push through business interests of these shady people. The people that think the actions of an IRS agent 10 levels below Obama could have only been acting on the orders of the president sure seem to have a hard time connecting any dots when its their own side.

 

[Lone Clone]

Is this a serious question? You dont think there is the possibility that some shady shit has been going down in Ukraine. His partners were arrested trying to leave the country. They were being paid by Russian oligarchs. He got an ambassador fired, potentially to help push through business interests of these shady people. The people that think the actions of an IRS agent 10 levels below Obama could have only been acting on the orders of the president sure seem to have a hard time connecting any dots when its their own side.

Yes, it's a serious question. He's not being shy about what he's doing.

 

[BABiscuit]

Yes, it's a serious question. He's not being shy about what he's doing.

I think there is a lot we dont know and a lot that has come out that he didn't disclose on his own, but Trump is going to throw Rudy under the bus if necessary and claim he wasnt acting on his behalf. The dems should force them to make a decision now on how they want to argue the relationship.

 

[Lone Clone]

I think there is a lot we dont know and a lot that has come out that he didn't disclose on his own, but Trump is going to throw Rudy under the bus if necessary and claim he wasnt acting on his behalf. The dems should force them to make a decision now on how they want to argue the relationship.

Well, I think you're basically fishing. But the time for that was when the House was allegedly investigating. I assume they will do it during the next impeachment -- which you can absolutely bet is going to happen if Trump is re-elected, and maybe even if he isn't.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

My understanding is the house didnt subpoena Bolton, Mulvaney, Guiliani, etc.

People issued subpeonas by the House to either testify, produce documents, or both and the dates of the subpoenas:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (Sept. 27)

Rudy Giuliani (Sept. 30)

Vice President Mike Pence (Oct. 4) And I apologize - Pence was not officially subpoenaed but was asked to provide documents

Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney (Oct. 4)

Acting Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought (Oct. 7)

Defense Secretary Mark Esper (Oct. 7)

Energy Secretary Rick Perry (Oct. 10)

Giuliani associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman (Oct. 10)

Missed one:

Former Deputy National Security Adviser Charles Kupperman (Oct. 28)

 

[Lone Clone]

People issued subpeonas by the House to either testify, produce documents, or both and the dates of the subpoenas:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (Sept. 27)

Rudy Giuliani (Sept. 30)

Vice President Mike Pence (Oct. 4)

Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney (Oct. 4)

Acting Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought (Oct. 7)

Defense Secretary Mark Esper (Oct. 7)

Energy Secretary Rick Perry (Oct. 10)

Giuliani associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman (Oct. 10)

Which committee, just FMI?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Courts aren't going to force the president's attorney or his national security adviser to testify about conversations with the president. If you want to talk nonsense, you're on your own.

Can they force the president to release...oh...say...tape recordings of his conversations with senior staff? Neither executive privilege not attorney/client privilege apply to criminal activity, you know.