SENATE: impeachment trial.

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 9124
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am
Location: Home to gators, pythons and now trump. trump is the only one that scares me.

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#51

Post by Slim Cognito »

Can the House still schedule a hearing with a new subpoena?
Goldie in her Zombie Hunter costume.
ImageImageImage x4
User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 3345
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III
Occupation: Criminal defense attorney - I am not your lawyer, and my posts do not constitute legal advice

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#52

Post by fierceredpanda »

Apparently "resolve the serious competing issues" is how you say "I couldn't testify because my testimony being public would scotch my chances of getting a seven-figure advance for my book" these days.

He says he will testify because he knows he won't be subpoenaed. It's that simple.
"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 43693
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#53

Post by Addie »

The Hill
Romney wants 'to hear from John Bolton' in impeachment trial

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said on Monday that he wants to hear from John Bolton after the former White House national security adviser offered to testify in President Trump’s impeachment trial if subpoenaed.

Romney told reporters at the Capitol that he wants to hear from Bolton and find out “what he knows” about Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.

“I would like to be able to hear from John Bolton. What the process is to make that happen, I don’t have an answer for you,” he added.

Romney is the first GOP senator to specifically say he wants to hear from Bolton since the former Trump administration official said earlier Monday that he is willing to testify if the Senate subpoenas him.

Romney did not indicate if he thinks there needs to be a deal on hearing from Bolton at the outset of the trial, saying Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) are still working on trying to get a deal on the rules.
User avatar
Addie
Posts: 43693
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#54

Post by Addie »

Washington Examiner
Eleven Senate Republicans co-sponsor resolution to dismiss impeachment articles against Trump

Nearly a dozen Senate Republicans have put forth a resolution that, if passed, would seek to dismiss articles of impeachment against President Trump immediately.

"The Constitution gives the Senate sole power to adjudicate articles of impeachment, not the House," said Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, who introduced the resolution, in a statement Monday. "If Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi is afraid to try her case, the articles should be dismissed for failure to prosecute and Congress should get back to doing the people’s business."

The resolution would change Senate rules to allow the upper chamber to vote on articles of impeachment if the House fails to send the articles over within 25 days. Pelosi has so far refused to send the articles because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will not commit to having witnesses at the trial.
User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46912
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#55

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Fun fact: The House hasn't returned from its recess yet. Nevertheless, it has failed to prosecute the case.
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 18468
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#56

Post by Suranis »

From another forum
I follow John Bolton on twitter (mostly to hurl insults at him for my own pleasure), and he loves what is happening in the ME right now for the most part. His promise to testify is based on a gamble that A) the Senate will not call him to testify, and B) Schiff won't use that as a reason to re-issue a subpoena to him to testify in the House. And if the latter happens, he will twist his way out of it. It is a totally transparent ploy that is 90% likely to work in his favor, and the media are mostly buying his bullshit. The only way it backfires on him is if the Senate chooses to rebuke Trump anyway and allow witnesses, at which point the dam will have broken anyway, so there does not seem to be a downside for him.

Meanwhile, he sells more books. Not sure to whom.
The difference between the Middle Ages, and the Age of the Internet, is that in the Middle Ages no-one thought the Earth was flat.
User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 3345
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III
Occupation: Criminal defense attorney - I am not your lawyer, and my posts do not constitute legal advice

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#57

Post by fierceredpanda »

I am convinced that Bolton made the announcement because his publisher is worried book sales aren't going to match expectations, so they needed a big boost of hype to get his name in the media again and drive sales. And for people who don't need constant coverage to know who Bolton is, the story is now "this is the guy who would testify, if only they'd let him!" instead of "hey, isn't that the guy who won't testify but is busy writing a book?" That's a much more marketable narrative if all you care about is getting books off shelves.

Also, anyone who would trust John Bolton at this point in regards to anything needs to have their head examined.
"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton

User avatar
Stevie
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:36 am

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#58

Post by Stevie »

I get all that and I don't disagree, but doesn't this still make things a little harder for McConnell? Now he's got somebody who "wants" to testify and he has to publicly say no.
User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 3345
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III
Occupation: Criminal defense attorney - I am not your lawyer, and my posts do not constitute legal advice

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#59

Post by fierceredpanda »

Stevie wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:46 am I get all that and I don't disagree, but doesn't this still make things a little harder for McConnell? Now he's got somebody who "wants" to testify and he has to publicly say no.
Sure, but as I have thought about it, I believe the media is overstating the dynamic of pressure on threatened GOP senators (Collins, Gardner, Ernst, McSally). The reason I believe that is as follows: We all accept that the GOP is now the Party of Trump. Those who support Trump will be supported by Republican voters. Those who do not will be cleaved from the herd a la Justin Amash. To paraphrase Orwell, there is no loyalty except loyalty to Trump.

Now imagine you're Susan Collins, running in a tough race in Maine. Democrats and independent women voters are pissed at you over the Kavanaugh vote and cannot fucking wait to see you gone. They're never going to vote for you anyway. All that's left is to get 100% of Republican voters to turn out for you - and the only way to do that is to back Trump to the hilt. The same logic is in play for every single one of the senators I named. Tacking to the middle or voting to convict will just cause your base to abandon you and guarantee your defeat in November. These senators are pot-committed now (if you'll forgive the poker analogy); they have to go all-in on pleasing Republican voters and getting them to go to the polls in droves.

Now, I do agree that the optics of all of this are bad for Republicans. The idea that Bolton wants to testify and they don't want to hear from him is not good for McConnell or his majority. But putting a credibly accused rapist on the Supreme Court wasn't really a great look either, and they did that without batting an eye. The difference here is that Brett Kavanaugh didn't literally have the entire GOP electorate in thrall the way Trump does. McConnell doesn't give a shit about optics. Winning is the only thing he has ever cared about.
"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 16461
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#60

Post by Reality Check »

Collins and Murkowski caved and will side with the Turtle. (At least according to The Hill, not my favorite source.)

McConnell has the votes to block Democrats' witness demands in Trump impeachment trial
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has the votes to quash Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer’s (N.Y.) demands to require additional witnesses testify at the start of President Trump’s impeachment trial.

Two key moderate senators, Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), on Monday evening backed McConnell’s position that the Senate should follow the precedent of the 1999 Clinton impeachment trial and defer until later in the process the question of calling additional witnesses.

Collins told reporters at Monday evening votes that the Senate should follow the 1999 precedent and consider the question of subpoenaing additional witnesses and documents only after House impeachment managers and Trump’s defense team present their opening arguments.

She noted in a statement Monday that then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) adopted a resolution in 1999 to set out the rules for the proceeding that didn't include any agreement for specific witnesses to testify.

“The process moved to a period during which the Senate debated and voted that three witnesses should be deposed. I believe that this process — the Clinton approach — worked well,” she said.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016
User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 9124
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am
Location: Home to gators, pythons and now trump. trump is the only one that scares me.

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#61

Post by Slim Cognito »

Well, there goes my opinion of Murkowski.
Goldie in her Zombie Hunter costume.
ImageImageImage x4
User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 5781
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#62

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater »

But Collins showed so much concern!
User avatar
Addie
Posts: 43693
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#63

Post by Addie »

Cross-posting

CNN
Pelosi says House not voting on impeachment managers Friday as Senate trial delay continues

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said there will not be a vote Friday to name impeachment managers, a sign that the weeks-long impasse over starting President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate will continue at least into next week.

“No,” Pelosi told reporters Friday when asked if she would hold a vote before lawmakers leave town for the weekend on naming impeachment managers, a procedural step that’s necessary before the articles of impeachment are sent to the Senate.

Asked about when she will make an announcement on sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, she said, “I’ll be communicating with my members, and perhaps we’ll see that.”

Neither Pelosi nor Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have yet budged in their stare down over the two impeachment articles that the House passed last month, charging Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. ...

But McConnell has said he will not publish the rules resolution ahead of time and will not agree to witnesses before the trial begins. He’s argued that the Senate should agree to a rule to begin the trial and then later decide on witnesses, just as the Senate did during the 1999 impeachment trial of former President Bill Clinton. And he said this week he’s got the votes — all Republicans — to go that route.

Democrats argue that McConnell is not following the Clinton precedent, because the Senate witnesses in that trial had already testified before a grand jury, while the witnesses Senate Democrats are seeking — including former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney — refused to testify during the House’s impeachment inquiry.
User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 30614
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texoma and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer
Contact:

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#64

Post by Volkonski »

Michael Shepherd
@mikeshepherdME
In Bangor today,
@SenatorCollins
says she’s working with a small group (she won’t say how many) of Republican senators to ensure House Democrats and Trump’s counsel can call witnesses in next week’s impeachment trial. #mepolitics
10:41 AM · Jan 10, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
53
Retweets
75
Likes
Michael Shepherd
@mikeshepherdME
·
1h
Replying to
@mikeshepherdME
I asked
@SenatorCollins
if she thought the U.S. strike killing Solemani was offensive or defensive.

She didn't answer directly, but said she saw the "imminent" intel and noted the embassy storming as an example of present danger. #mepolitics
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
User avatar
bob
Posts: 29691
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#65

Post by bob »

The Hill: The Hill's 12:30 Report: Pelosi plans to send impeachment articles next week:
Three weeks after the House passed two articles of impeachment against President Trump, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced that she plans to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate next week.

Pelosi wrote in a letter to Democrats: "I have asked Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler to be prepared to bring to the Floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate. I will be consulting with you at our Tuesday House Democratic Caucus meeting on how we proceed further."
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46912
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#66

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Susan Collins will disappoint at the last minute.

It's what she does.

It's who she is.
User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 4082
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#67

Post by SLQ »

Volkonski wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 1:25 pm
Michael Shepherd
@mikeshepherdME
In Bangor today,
@SenatorCollins
says she’s working with a small group (she won’t say how many) of Republican senators to ensure House Democrats and Trump’s counsel can call witnesses in next week’s impeachment trial. #mepolitics
10:41 AM · Jan 10, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
53
Retweets
75
Likes
Michael Shepherd
@mikeshepherdME
Huh?
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda
User avatar
bob
Posts: 29691
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#68

Post by bob »

SLQ wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 4:54 pmHuh?
The House will transmit the impeachment articles to the Senate next week.

Then, soon-ish thereafter, at the "trial," the Senate will vote to acquit/dismiss/not be bothered. (Collins will be "concerned," but nonetheless vote with the majority.)
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 4082
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#69

Post by SLQ »

bob wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:09 pm
SLQ wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 4:54 pmHuh?
The House will transmit the impeachment articles to the Senate next week.

Then, soon-ish thereafter, at the "trial," the Senate will vote to acquit/dismiss/not be bothered. (Collins will be "concerned," but nonetheless vote with the majority.)
Yeah, I get that. But this guy said "next week's trial."
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda
User avatar
bob
Posts: 29691
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#70

Post by bob »

SLQ wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:15 pmYeah, I get that. But this guy said "next week's trial."
I think it is just sloppy writing intended to connote that the proceedings will shift to the Senate next week.

I also would not be surprised if the "trial" began and ended next week.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 9786
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#71

Post by neonzx »

Trump Says He Will Use Executive Privilege To Prevent John Bolton Testimony
https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/10/trum ... testimony/
“Why not call Bolton? Why not allow him to testify? This thing is bogus. Why not allow Bolton to testify?” Fox News’ Laura Ingraham asked in a recent interview set to air 10 PM Friday.

“No problem other than one thing,” Trump said. “You can’t be in the White House as president, future, I’m talking about future…any future presidents- and have a security advisor, anybody having to do with security, and legal and other things but especially…”

“Are you going to invoke executive privilege?” Ingraham said.

“Well I think you have to for the sake of the office,” the president responded.
Somerset
Posts: 4736
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#72

Post by Somerset »

neonzx wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 8:10 pm Trump Says He Will Use Executive Privilege To Prevent John Bolton Testimony
https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/10/trum ... testimony/
“Why not call Bolton? Why not allow him to testify? This thing is bogus. Why not allow Bolton to testify?” Fox News’ Laura Ingraham asked in a recent interview set to air 10 PM Friday.

“No problem other than one thing,” Trump said. “You can’t be in the White House as president, future, I’m talking about future…any future presidents- and have a security advisor, anybody having to do with security, and legal and other things but especially…”

“Are you going to invoke executive privilege?” Ingraham said.

“Well I think you have to for the sake of the office,” the president responded.
And if Bolton says, "Fuck off, IMPOTUS, I'm going to testify," what can the OSG do? Executive orders aren't law.
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 28175
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#73

Post by RTH10260 »

Does executive privilege even come into play in an impeachment trial? (Yes - I know - Senate makes up the rules - but will the Chief Justice approve)
User avatar
bob
Posts: 29691
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#74

Post by bob »

RTH10260 wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 9:39 pm Does executive privilege even come into play in an impeachment trial? (Yes - I know - Senate makes up the rules - but will the Chief Justice approve)
Even assuming there will be witnesses (hint: there won't), say the House managers subpoena someone, who then blows it off. House managers make a motion; a majority of the Senate overrules the Chief.

And Collins expresses "deep concern."
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Addie
Posts: 43693
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: SENATE: impeachment trial.

#75

Post by Addie »

Salon - Digby: An impeachment trial is finally coming — and it could be exciting after all

Blood in the water: McConnell will allow a vote on witnesses, and vulnerable Republicans are under pressure
Post Reply

Return to “Impeachment”