Impeachment 3: The MF Has Been Impeached! The Trial Has Begun!

[Flossie]

Just tuned in.  God, the republicans are assholes.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Anyone else trying to figure out how they are going to get past McConnel and Graham outright stating publicly they aren't impartial when the constitution calls for impartial jurors?  Wouldn't this require to recuse them from participating or voting?

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I love this doozy from the WaPo live updates thread:

Quote

White House says Trump ‘working all day’ as he tweets again about impeachment proceedings

As debate continued, White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham issued a statement saying Trump “will be working all day” and suggesting he wasn’t watching much of the impeachment proceedings.

“He will be briefed by staff throughout that day, and could catch some of the proceedings between meetings,” Grisham said.

Shortly after her statement was issued, Trump returned to Twitter to weigh in again — this time in all capital letters — on what was taking place in the House.

“SUCH ATROCIOUS LIES BY THE RADICAL LEFT, DO NOTHING DEMOCRATS,” he wrote. “THIS IS AN ASSAULT ON AMERICA, AND AN ASSAULT ON THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!!”

 

[scoutsadie]

4 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Anyone else trying to figure out how they are going to get past McConnel and Graham outright stating publicly they aren't impartial when the constitution calls for impartial jurors?  Wouldn't this require to recuse them from participating or voting?

 

I have wondered this, too.

39 minutes ago, Flossie said:

Just tuned in.  God, the republicans are assholes.

Old white guy after old white guy, with an old white woman occasionally showing up.

[fraurosena]

22 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Anyone else trying to figure out how they are going to get past McConnel and Graham outright stating publicly they aren't impartial when the constitution calls for impartial jurors?  Wouldn't this require to recuse them from participating or voting?

 

 

15 minutes ago, scoutsadie said:

I have wondered this, too.

Although you would think that the senators would be jurors in an impeachment trial, the Constitution itself states that in an impeachment trial senators are not jurors in the traditional sense of the word, but instead are 'triers of law and fact'.

When a chief justice reminded senators in an impeachment trial that they were not jurors

Quote

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell created a predictable stir when he told Fox News host Sean Hannity that he would structure the impending impeachment trial of President Donald Trump in “total coordination with the White House counsel’s office.” He added, “There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this.” 

This outright rejection of neutrality drew immediate protests from Democrats. Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.), who may well be one of the House impeachment managers in the Senate trial, called for McConnell’s recusal, saying “No court in the country would allow a member of the jury to also serve as the accused’s defense attorney.” 

House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) likewise slammed “the foreman of the jury” for saying he would “work hand and glove with the defense attorney.”

Demings and Nadler made a valid point, but they used the wrong analogy. Senators at an impeachment trial are not the equivalent of a jury and they are not held to a juror’s standard of neutrality.

Harkin’s objection

The principle, that senators are not jurors in the traditional sense, was well established at the outset of the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton.

Tasked with delivering an opening statement for the House Managers – who present the House’s case to the Senate – Rep. Robert Barr (R-Ga.) reminded the senators of Clinton’s tendency to “nitpick” over details or “parse a specific word or phrase of testimony.” To Barr, the conclusion was obvious: “We urge you, the distinguished jurors in this case, not to be fooled.”

That was the moment Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, had been waiting for. 

“Mr. Chief Justice,” he said, addressing William Rehnquist, who was presiding over the trial, “I object to the use and the continued use of the word ‘jurors’ when referring to the Senate.” 

Harkin had prepared well, basing his argument on the text of the Constitution, the Federalist Papersand the rules of the Senate itself. 

He explained that “the framers of the Constitution meant us, the Senate, to be something other than a jury.” 

Instead, Harkin continued, “What we do here today does not just decide the fate of one man. … Future generations will look back on this trial not just to find out what happened, but to try to decide what principles governed our actions.”

Chief Justice weighs in

The Chief Justice sustained the objection.

“The Senate is not simply a jury,” he ruled. “It is a court in this case.”

Rehnquist thus admonished the House Managers “to refrain from referring to the Senators as jurors.” For the balance of the trial, they were called “triers of law and fact.”

Rehnquist and Harkin got it right. Article III of the Constitution provides that “Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury,” and for good reasons.

Oath or affirmation required

McConnell, the Senate’s leader, has more leeway and far more power than any juror or even a jury foreperson. 

The Constitution’s only procedural limitation is the requirement in Article I that the senators be placed under “oath or affirmation.” 

Although the Constitution does not specify any particular wording (unlike the presidential oath, which is included word-for-word), the Senate adopted rules for impeachment trials in 1986 requiring each senator to affirm or swear to do “impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.”

“Impartial justice” does not demand the enforced naiveté of jury service, which would be impossible in an impeachment trial. For example, the senators all have prior knowledge of at least some of the facts, and several of them are currently vying to run against Trump in 2020, while others are backing his reelection campaign.

But the Senate’s oath of impartiality clearly calls for at least some commitment to objectivity. Thus, the problem with McConnell’s announcement was not that he failed to behave like a juror. 

Rather, he has declared an intention to disregard the Senate’s prescribed oath, which was fixed long ago by the very body that elected him its leader.

When Tom Harkin disclaimed a juror’s role at the Clinton trial, his purpose was not to affect the outcome of the case, but rather to underscore the full scope of the Senate’s decision-making responsibility. In contrast, Mitch McConnell appears to have boldly renounced open-mindedness itself on the impeachment court, whether as juror, judge or “trier of law and fact.”

As you can see though, McConnell and Graham have both stated publicly that they are going to disregard the Senate's prescribed oath to do 'impartial justice according the the Constitution and laws'. And that should be the reason they should have to recuse themselves. 

I hope the Dems call for it at the start of the Senate trial, and have Chief Justice Roberts (who will preside over the proceedings) make a ruling about the issue.

Edited December 18, 2019 by fraurosena
clarity

[thoughtful]

26 minutes ago, scoutsadie said:

Old white guy after old white guy, with an old white woman occasionally showing up.

The two old white women in this house say "fuck you" to all of them. My Mom and I characterized the Republicans' behavior as "adults having toddler temper tantrums." Just like their orange leader.

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

3 minutes ago, thoughtful said:

The two old white women in this house say "fuck you" to all of them. My Mom and I characterized the Republicans' behavior as "adults having toddler temper tantrums." Just like their orange leader.

 

This old white woman sitting at her desk agrees with you both, and your mom.

[fraurosena]

11 minutes ago, thoughtful said:

The two old white women in this house say "fuck you" to all of them. My Mom and I characterized the Republicans' behavior as "adults having toddler temper tantrums." Just like their orange leader.

Sorry to contradict, but the the mango moron is not having a toddler temper tantrum... he's having a screaming fit toddler temper tantrum.

 

[Flossie]

The fucker views himself as "America" and the Republican party as his minions.

[thoughtful]

9 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

This old white woman sitting at her desk agrees with you both, and your mom.

My mom is the other old white woman in this house. ?

The only other living beings here are canine and avian (both male, both old), and I bet even they are smarter, more ethical and kinder than those fucking republicans.

[fraurosena]

1 minute ago, thoughtful said:

I bet even they are smarter, more ethical and kinder than those fucking republicans.

The chance of that statement being incorrect is infinitesimally small.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Oh, this is sad you guys.

Just outside of my office is the production office where 5 people sit.  They were listening to the impeachment and talking about it, but I didn't know what they were saying as it was all in Spanish.  (I noticed because it's the first time they've ever had the news on in there.)

My boss mentioned it and then it came out - they all thought if he was impeached today he was out of office immediately.  They were really following it hoping it was going to happen apparently...they looked so defeated as he explained that removal is separate and the role of the Senate, etc.  The mood in there right now is absolutely deflated.  

And I broke my own rule of no politics at work and said a couple of things that made it clear I am also bummed today doesn't mean removal.  

[mamallama]

39 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Sorry to contradict, but the the mango moron is not having a toddler temper tantrum... he's having a screaming fit toddler temper tantrum.

 

I can't wait til we get to the part where he holds his breath, turns blue and passes out.

[fraurosena]

@HerNameIsBuffy, those poor people! I feel for them. How disheartening that must be. Did you happen to make a case for the need to get out and vote when you spoke to them?

Joy and Joyce have some reality checks on the trumplican arguments on Dems wanting to 'overturn' an election.

And another point that they don't make, but that is equally important to note: Trump's removal from office doesn't suddenly mean that Hillary or any other Democrat becomes president. Sadly for us, there will still be a trumplican in the Oval Office, because Pence will automatically take Trump's place. 

I really don't get this trumplican angst about Trump's removal. Why are they so hellbent on keeping him in office, when they have Pence, a lickspittle to be sure, but more competent by far than Trump to fulfil the presidency? Not only would it be better for the country as a whole to be rid of Trump and his dangerous antics, it would also be better for the repugliklans as a party not to have a complete bungling idiot in the Oval Office. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

10 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

I really don't get this trumplican angst about Trump's removal. Why are they so hellbent on keeping him in office, when they have Pence, a lickspittle to be sure, but more competent by far than Trump to fulfil the presidency? Not only would it be better for the country as a whole to be rid of Trump and his dangerous antics, it would also be better for the repugliklans as a party not to have a complete bungling idiot in the Oval Office. 

Because they can't "own the libs" if he is removed from office.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

14 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

those poor people! I feel for them. How disheartening that must be. Did you happen to make a case for the need to get out and vote when you spoke to them?

Yes - explained 2020 was the only way he leaves office.  My boss was talking about how the whole impeachment thing was a waste of time and money and ridiculous and I, despite my smarter instincts, pointed out there is a lot that's come out and is now in the historical record that wouldn't be otherwise.  Not that it matters much now, but it's all we have unfortunately.

ETA a sizable percentage of my co-workers can't vote due to their immigration status.  People in that situation have to rely on the rest of us to do the right thing.

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by HerNameIsBuffy

[thoughtful]

2 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Because they can't "own the libs" if he is removed from office

Yeah, there doesn't seem to be anything resembling logic, practicality or doing their jobs in their behavior. I don't know what benefits any of them think they will get (let alone their party or the country) if Trump continues to be president.

Unless they are all running entirely on childish stubbornness, I'm leaning towards the theory that someone (Putin?) is holding huge scandals over all of their heads.

[fraurosena]

Holy Rufus, did you guys see this part?

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Just now, thoughtful said:

Unless they are all running entirely on childish stubbornness, I'm leaning towards the theory that someone (Putin?) is holding huge scandals over all of their heads.

This has been my theory ever since the Pete Sessions campaign fund stuff came out.  I truly believe, based on my own cynicism, that especially with McConnell and Graham someone (Putin) has career ending dirt on them - hence the about face on Trump from the get go.

[fraurosena]

7 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

someone (Putin) has career ending dirt on them - hence the about face on Trump from the get go.

Yeah, it wasn't only the DNC that got hacked in 2016... they got into the RNC as well, and boy did they hit the mother-load!

[Dandruff]

1 hour ago, Flossie said:

The fucker views himself as "America" and the Republican party as his minions.

If he's America my clogged toilet is the Grand Canyon.

[fraurosena]

Sweet Rufus! I'm astounded... not so much about what he says, but how articulate* he is. 

*it still isn't exactly eloquent, but in comparison to his current speech patterns it's way better

[fraurosena]

Finally! Terri Sewell noted that not all of the aid to Ukraine has been released. About time too. 

[Dandruff]

37 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Sweet Rufus! I'm astounded... not so much about what he says, but how articulate* he is. 

*it still isn't exactly eloquent, but in comparison to his current speech patterns it's way better

His "mother tongue" may still have been English then.

[fraurosena]

BEC alert.

Who is that bloated toad with the *pink* tie sitting behind the trumplican lectern?