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

[thoughtful]

3 hours ago, JMarie said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republican-senators-want-trump-to-stay-off-twitter-during-impeachment-trial/ar-BBYawBn?ocid=spartanntp

This is one of those "So . . . have you met the guy? Are we talking about the same Donald J. Trump?" moments.

Spoiler

 

[Botkinetti]

I have been grinning like crazy reading this thread.

It is a master stroke to leave trump in equal parts , enraged, scared and stupid.  He will be unable to contain himself and will implicate himself more. The rank and file republicans up for re-election must be exhausted trying to figure out how to play this to protect their own positions. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"‘Family feud’: Trump still grumbling about witness-free impeachment trial"

Spoiler

Publicly, President Donald Trump has deferred to a Senate Republican plan to hold an impeachment trial with as few surprises — and witnesses — as possible.

But privately, Trump is still harboring a desire to create a flashy, testimony-filled trial, fueled by a belief that such an approach would vindicate him and embarrass Democrats, according to six people familiar with the situation, including three who have spoken with the president.

Even though it seems unlikely that Trump will get his way, the president is still hearing from outside allies who are urging him to push for long-shot witnesses like Joe Biden’s son Hunter, impeachment leader Rep. Adam Schiff, even the anonymous whistleblower whose complaint sparked the impeachment probe. Trump leaves Friday for a two-week stay at his Mar-a-Lago resort in South Florida, where he’s expected to talk regularly — both in person and on the phone — with supporters and friends who back a more expansive Senate trial, the people familiar with the situation said.

“We don’t want a quick technical acquittal but complete exoneration,” said an outside adviser who speaks to the president.

Trump’s desire to fight — a constant inclination — is at odds with Senate Republican leaders, who are working to convince him that a quick trial with no witnesses will suffice. Even some White House aides have been trying to explain the benefits of a speedy, no-frills process. In interviews, though, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell insists he is working in lockstep with the White House on shaping the impeachment trial.

“There’s a family feud under the water between what Trump and McConnell think is the best strategy,” said Dan Eberhart, a major Republican donor and CEO of the drilling services company Canary, LLC.

The Senate will likely take up Trump’s impeachment trial in January, though the House has postponed sending over the articles until after the new year. Trump on Thursday night lashed out at the postponement, incidentally revealing in the process his simmering yearning for eye-catching witnesses.

"The reason the Democrats don’t want to submit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate is that they don’t want corrupt politician Adam Shifty Schiff to testify under oath, nor do they want the Whistleblower, the missing second Whistleblower, the informer, the Bidens, to testify!" he tweeted.

The House on Wednesday night approved two articles of impeachment in a mostly party-line vote, charging Trump with abuse of power for soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election and obstruction of Congress for blocking the House’s efforts to investigate.

Democrats say Trump conditioned a much-desired White House meeting for Ukraine’s leader, as well as millions in military aid, on Kyiv launching an investigation into Biden, a potential 2020 rival, and his son Hunter. Trump and his allies counter that the desired probe was part of a broader effort to eradicate corruption and uncover foreign wrongdoing in the 2016 presidential race.

The Senate has not yet set rules for its trial, which is likely to take place in January, after lawmakers return from their holiday recess. It takes only a simple majority of senators to approve a rules package, which would determine whether witnesses will be called.

With 53 Republicans senators, McConnell can get his preferred rules package through if he avoids too many GOP defections. To this point, most Republican leaders, including those close to Trump, have expressed a desire to move the Senate trial along swiftly.

“I hope the White House agrees with us on bringing this thing to a conclusion, not dragging it out,” said Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.).

It would take a two-thirds vote in the Senate to remove Trump from office, a remote prospect.

Trump declined to participate in the impeachment proceedings in the Democratic-controlled House, where his legal and political aides advised that his involvement would only legitimize the process. But he and his aides have been talking for weeks about what Trump wants in a Senate trial, including witnesses and a role for his staunchest House allies.

Trump is eager for Americans to hear evidence that he believes will show the Bidens are corrupt, the House Democrats rigged the impeachment investigation and that he never pressured Ukraine, according to the people who have spoken with him.

Trump has obsessed over the whistleblower both on Twitter and to confidants. He blames the individual for drawing undue attention to the July 25 call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump pressed Zelensky to investigate the Bidens.

“I wouldn’t mind the long process, because I’d like to see the whistleblower, who’s a fraud,” Trump told reporters recently, when asked about the Senate trial.

“For many Trump allies, the whistleblower is really priority one, two and three,” said Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Trump's 2016 campaign.

Trump and his allies think there's another benefit to a prolonged trial — it could hurt Democrats running for election 2020.

 

They are targeting 30 House Democrats who represent districts that voted for Trump in 2016. And there’s five Senate Democrats running for president — Michael Bennet, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — who will have to remain in D.C. for the impeachment trial, depriving them of campaign time just before the all-important Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary.

Still, McConnell has said he is opposed to having witnesses, arguing that Democrats would use the opening to turn the trial into “a kind of mutual assured destruction.”

“The president's not going to be removed from office,” he said during a radio interview on The Brian Kilmeade Show. “The only issue is how long do we want to take to get the final decision. I think that we've heard enough. We're going to listen to arguments, but my view is it's time to vote and move on.”

McConnell already dismissed Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s request for four administration witnesses to testify during the Senate trial: acting White House staff chief Mick Mulvaney, his deputy, Robert Blair, former national security adviser John Bolton and Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey, who apparently had a role overseeing the Ukraine aid.

It’s a stance shared by other GOP senators, including key Trump allies.

“I am not going to support witnesses being called for by the president,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-S.C.), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee and is close to the president. “I am not going to support witnesses being called for by Sen. Schumer. We’re going to vote on the same product the House used.”

Trump hasn’t openly contradicted McConnell and Senate Republicans.

“We did nothing wrong. So, I’ll do long, or short. I’ll do whatever they want to do. It doesn't matter,” Trump told reporters last week.

“The Senate is very very capable. We have great senators, Republican senators,” he reiterated on Thursday. “I’m going to let them decide what to do.”

But he has continued to discuss witnesses behind closed doors. After emerging from a Senate GOP lunch with Trump aides Eric Ueland and Kellyanne Conway Wednesday, Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) said he was hopeful Trump was reconsidering that position.

“I think there’s been a transformation over time, simply because now I think there’s a realization that witnesses are a double-edged sword and adds to the time,” Braun said. “Somewhere there’s been a rethinking of that.”

Some Trump allies predict Trump will eventually go along with McConnell because the president has come to respect his command of the Senate’s rules after watching him push through the president’s legislative priorities, including a tax overhaul bill and a record number of judge confirmations.

“Over the last three years, McConnell has proven his mettle,” said Sean Spicer, a former White House press secretary who remains in touch with Trump. “He has demonstrated to everyone what a shrewd tactician he is — including the president.”

But even those who expect Trump to defer to McConnell expect the president will inevitably feel frustrated as the trial moves forward.

“The president always wants to be heard,” said Michael Caputo, who has known Trump for three decades and served as a campaign adviser in 2016. “One of the most frustrating things about Washington for him is … they want him to pipe down.”

 

[fraurosena]

The latest Russia bombshell bolsters Democrats’ demand for evidence

Quote

The Post delivered another bombshell report just as Democratic and Republican senators departed for the holidays, still at loggerheads about whether a rule would guarantee the ability to introduce documents and witnesses at the Senate’s impeachment trial:

After meeting privately in July 2017 with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin at the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg, [President] Trump grew more insistent that Ukraine worked to defeat him, according to multiple former officials familiar with his assertions.

The president’s intense resistance to the assessment of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia systematically interfered in the 2016 campaign — and the blame he cast instead on a rival country — led many of his advisers to think that Putin himself helped spur the idea of Ukraine’s culpability, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions.

The report continues: “One former senior White House official said Trump even stated so explicitly at one point, saying he knew Ukraine was the real culprit because ‘Putin told me.’ Two other former officials said the senior White House official described Trump’s comment to them.” In short, “The concern among senior White House officials that Putin helped fuel Trump’s theories about Ukraine underscores long-standing fears inside the administration about the Russian president’s ability to influence Trump’s views.” Finally, "Three former senior administration officials said Trump repeatedly insisted after the G-20 summit that he believed Putin’s assurances that Russia had not interfered in the 2016 campaign. The officials said [chief of staff John] Kelly, national security adviser H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson all tried to caution Trump not to rely on Putin’s word, and to focus on evidence to the contrary that U.S. intelligence agencies had collected.”

So where are these former officials? As a preliminary matter, the thought processes of those former senior officials — who would anonymously say that Trump was a Putin puppet but refuse to come forward to provide testimony well before we even got to an impeachment proceeding, in part about Trump’s alleged betrayal of national security — boggles the mind. They have either given cover to a president who is practically a foreign asset, or they are creating unwarranted fear that he is.

There could be no better example as to why the Senate must be able to subpoena former officials for the impeachment trial and obtain documents Trump has concealed under a spurious absolute immunity defense. If a former secretary of state or a defense, homeland security or senior intelligence official (e.g., director of national intelligence, head of the National Security Agency) cannot do the patriotic thing when the security of the country is at stake, then it is essential to end the Trump coverup and figure out how to force their appearance in the Senate trial.

“If it is true that Trump was literally repeating talking points given to him by Putin, then it raises even more questions about his behavior and we need all of the White House records the House has asked for in order to have a fair trial," former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller told me.

Former prosecutor Joyce White Vance explained: “Russia’s goal has always been to disrupt our country and our way of life. Now, we’ve had more confirmation they seem to be succeeding, with confirmation of what’s been long suspected, that our president’s national security briefings come from Putin, not our own intelligence community.” She cautioned: “This could form the basis for another article of impeachment — a president who doesn’t put our national security ahead of all other concerns.” At the very least, it would shed additional light on the existing Article I that concerns Trump’s otherwise inexplicable obsession with debunked conspiracy theories that brought him to extort an ally at war with Russia.

As noted, on Thursday the Senate recessed, with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) insisting that there be no agreement on the admission of witnesses and documents in advance, but rather that these would be handled as they come up. McConnell said that is how it has always worked. However, it has never been the case that the majority leader conspired with the president or that senators declared they had no intention to be fair. Under these circumstances, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) seems entirely justified in holding back the articles of impeachment until this can be resolved.

McConnell talks tough by insisting that he does not want the trial anyway. However, Trump (to whom McConnell evidently thinks he reports) seems frantic to get the clean bill of health from a sham trial.

Pelosi and other Democrats would do well to turn up the heat on Senate Republicans who present themselves as beacons of moderation and fairness. It is time for Democrats to point the finger directly at Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and others. Do they want to be part of a sham that risks leaving in place Putin’s pawn?

 

[Howl]

@roywoodjr's tweet is closing on a half million "Likes."  

@fraurosena, at any other time in our nation's history, the information in that WaPo article you referenced would be a total bombshell that would bring the entire GOP government apparatus crashing down, starting at the WH.  Now? Just another news day and it was not even newsworthy.  But this.  THIS.

Quote

So where are these former officials? As a preliminary matter, the thought processes of those former senior officials — who would anonymously say that Trump was a Putin puppet but refuse to come forward to provide testimony well before we even got to an impeachment proceeding, in part about Trump’s alleged betrayal of national security — boggles the mind. They have either given cover to a president who is practically a foreign asset, or they are creating unwarranted fear that he is.

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by Howl

[WiseGirl]

From Aunt Crabby

[fraurosena]

Spin, spin, spin all you want.

The Constitution [link] clearly states The House has the sole power to impeach the president of the United States.

White House considers arguing that Trump wasn't impeached

Quote

The White House is considering making the argument that President Trump has not officially been impeached, given that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate, two sources involved in the president's impeachment defense told CBS News.

The House voted to impeach Mr. Trump on two articles of impeachment — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — on Wednesday. However, Pelosi told reporters on Thursday that the House would wait to deliver the articles until the Senate had laid out the rules for the trial.

"When we see the process that's set forth in the Senate, then we'll know the number of managers we'll have to move forward, and who we would choose," the California Democrat said. The House must vote on a resolution designating impeachment managers to prosecute the case against Mr. Trump in the Senate before delivering the articles. 

The White House is considering making the case that Mr. Trump has not been impeached based on an opinion piece by Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman on Bloomberg's opinion page Thursday. Feldman was one of the legal experts called by Democrats to testify before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month and has advocated for Mr. Trump's impeachment and removal from office.

"Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial," Feldman wrote in Bloomberg. "Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial."

"If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all," Feldman wrote.

However, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe wrote on Twitter that he disagreed with Feldman's analysis, saying that "under Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause 5, he was impeached on Dec 18, 2019. He will forever remain impeached. Period." That portion of the Constitution says that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

The sources told CBS News that the White House views Pelosi's delay as "a Christmas gift." They plan to use the delay to argue that the Democrats have so little faith in their own case for impeachment, they are too scared to trigger a trial they know they will lose. The two sources also say that the president, while "angry" about what he views as an unfair process, is actually in a "very good mood," and feels confident he can win the messaging war via Twitter while lawmakers are back home for the holidays.

A senior White House official said the White House might pursue that line of messaging, but the White House is also in a "wait and see" attitude over the Christmas holiday. Right now, the official said they preferred to focus on "happy" messaging, not "flogging" impeachment messaging over the holidays. 

Republicans in Congress are already making this argument. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor Thursday that Pelosi's decision to withhold the articles from the Senate shows Democrats "may be too afraid to even transmit their shoddy work product to the Senate." House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy echoed those comments: "She's admitting defeat by not sending them. By refusing to send impeachment over, she knows its outcome is not good."

Pelosi and Democrats in the House and Senate are trying to pressure the Senate to call for more documents and for witnesses who did not testify in the House impeachment proceedings because the White House prevented them from appearing.

"I told leader McConnell that we would not support any trial without witnesses or documents," House Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday.

Mr. Trump's legislative director told CBS News that Mr. Trump is "baffled" by the possibility that Pelosi might withhold articles of impeachment from the Senate for an extended period of time.

"I think the president is completely baffled at the theory that Nancy Pelosi appears to have that somehow holding back impeachment articles will leverage some sort of specific behavior out of the Senate," Eric Ueland told CBS News chief Washington Correspondent Major Garrett in an interview for "The Takeout" podcast. 

Ueland suggested that holding the articles could be "constitutionally questionable." He also said it would be "extraordinarily unprecedented" if articles were to be withheld in order to force a legislative outcome.

In a rare interview that will air Sunday, the president's daughter, Ivanka Trump, told "Face the Nation" moderator Margaret Brennan that her father was "energized" by his impeachment, which she called "the first purely partisan impeachment."  

Still, Ueland and White House counsel Pat Cipollone were offered the opportunity to tour the Senate floor, which would serve as a courtroom, and check out the support spaces behind the scenes. They also have the chance to be introduced to people who are there every day when the Senate is in session, and would be for any Senate trial.

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by fraurosena
did the merged post thing again

[fraurosena]

Praise our deer, sweet Rufus!

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[fraurosena]

1 minute ago, GreyhoundFan said:

 

Apart from his riffle-like spelling abilities, Trump's tweet is so contradictory it hurts. He's complaining about not having had due process or lawyers or witnesses in the House. But he's forgetting that it was he himself that refused to let witnesses testify, refused to hand over documents, and refused the offer of having his lawyers represent him during the official impeachment hearings. Add to that, that he wants a sham trial without witnesses or documents in the Senate. So, what exactly is it that he wants? Lawyers and witnesses, or not? 

[thoughtful]

25 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

So, what exactly is it that he wants?

To whine, rage, complain and try to pass blame off on others.

But you knew that.

[Dandruff]

5 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Spin, spin, spin all you want.

The Constitution [link] clearly states The House has the sole power to impeach the president of the United States.

White House considers arguing that Trump wasn't impeached

I called it...he's trying to cancel his impeachment.

[fraurosena]

9 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

I called it...he's trying to cancel his impeachment.

Yep, you predicted it. Except... There's no taking it back, no matter how much Trump wants it. No matter how much he gaslights his trumplican followers. 

Pelosi has gavelled him IMPOTUS. Twice. 

[Dandruff]

3 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Yep, you predicted it. Except... There's no taking it back, no matter how much Trump wants it. No matter how much he gaslights his trumplican followers. 

Pelosi has gavelled him IMPOTUS. Twice.

And every day that he's not acquitted is a day without the illusion of control.  I'm sure he finds this muchly irksome.

[fraurosena]

Oh, this is significant. Another Conservative outlet is siding with the dems on impeachment.

National Review Senior Editor Calls for Trump’s Removal from Office

Quote

The National Review — a pillar of conservative intellectual commentary since its inception in 1955 — published an entire issue dedicated to denouncing then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016. Although the outcry hasn’t been like that since the election, one ofthe magazine’s senior editors did make the case this week that Trump should be removed from office.

In Four Tests for Impeachment, Ramesh Ponnuru describes the bar impeachment advocates need to meet if they are to persuasively make the case for a president’s removal:

First, [impeachment advocates] should have to show that the facts they allege are true. Second, they should show that the fact pattern amounts to an abuse of power or dereliction of duty by the president. Third, they should show that this abuse or dereliction is impeachable. And fourth, they should show that it is prudent for Congress to remove the president for this impeachable offense: that it would produce more good than evil.

For each test, Ponnuru concludes that Trump has clearly exceeded the threshold and that his removal from office is warranted.

Regarding abuse of power, the conservative commentator contends that the argument President Trump was really concerned about corruption — and that his interest in Joe Biden was merely coincidental, as Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) recently argued — “requires a willful suspension of disbelief” in light of the publicly available evidence and testimony from current and former White House officials.

Rebutting one of the GOP’s most common Trump defenses, Ponnuru points out that there is no evidence that Biden or his son engaged in any wrongdoing.

“The theory that Joe Biden acted corruptly holds that he leaned on the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor who was looking into a company that had his son on the board. That prosecutor’s former deputy has said that there was no active investigation, and the Obama administration was on record urging the prosecutor to assist a British legal action against the company’s owner,” he wrote, adding that, “The theory about Ukrainian hacking has even less going for it.”

Ponnuru attempted to give Trump’s actions the benefit of the doubt, but still failed to see how the president should remain in office.

“It might be possible to regard Trump’s Ukraine misadventure as a lapse of judgment, with little harm done, if he showed any repentance or even understanding of what he has done wrong. Instead it looks more like a window into tendencies of his that are incompatible with performing the functions of his office,” he wrote. “The Constitution provides for impeachment and removal to protect us from officials, including presidents, who are unable or unwilling to distinguish between the common good that government is supposed to serve and their own narrow interests. Though he has done some good things in office, Trump is just such a president. Congress should act accordingly.”

 

[fraurosena]

Deer, sweet Rufus! Anyone else looking forward to the prospect of a second impeachment for Trump? 

House counsel suggests Trump could be impeached again

Quote

The House is open to the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump a second time, lawyers for the Judiciary Committee said Monday.

House Counsel Douglas Letter said in a filing in federal court that a second impeachment could be necessary if the House uncovers new evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct investigations of his conduct. Letter made the argument as part of an inquiry by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals into whether Democrats still need testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn after the votes last week to charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

“If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment,” Letter wrote.

It’s the first impeachment-related filing by the House since lawmakers voted, mostly along party lines, to impeach Trump over allegations stemming from efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his Democratic rivals. It comes just hours after the Justice Department argued that the impeachment votes undercut lawmakers’ ongoing court case demanding testimony from McGahn, who was special counsel Robert Mueller’s central witness.

In a brief filed early Monday morning, DOJ lawyers acknowledge that the House’s approval of two articles of impeachment — focused on Trump’s alleged effort to withhold aid from Ukraine and his blockade of the House inquiry — do not render moot the legal fight over McGahn.

However, the Justice Department attorneys said the House Judiciary Committee’s decision to move forward with impeachment means there’s no longer urgency to resolve the House’s case. That bolsters the Trump administration’s argument that the courts should simply butt out of the legal showdown, the DOJ filing says.

“The reasons for refraining are even more compelling now that what the Committee asserted — whether rightly or wrongly — as the primary justification for its decision to sue no longer exists,” the DOJ lawyers wrote, without elaborating on that claim.

House lawyers indicated in advance of last week’s committee and floor votes that the panel planned to push on with its impeachment-related investigations. Democratic lawmakers who led the House impeachment inquiry have long contended that their efforts to gather more evidence would continue and that the timing of the impeachment vote reflected the urgency of the matter, not the conclusion of the effort to obtain witnesses and documents.

Letter’s new filing emphasizes the fact that nothing precludes the House from impeaching Trump again if it unearths new evidence, though no member of Democratic leadership has suggested such a course, particularly with a looming Senate trial and the presidential primary season imminent.

Letter also notes that McGahn’s testimony could become crucial evidence in the upcoming Senate trial.

“McGahn’s testimony is critical both to a Senate trial and to the Committee’s ongoing impeachment investigations to determine whether additional Presidential misconduct warrants further action by the Committee," he argued. Letter added that McGahn’s testimony is important aside from these matters, as the House considers legislation that might arise from the details of Trump’s conduct.

The filings landed Monday amid an ongoing struggle between Democrats and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell over whether a Senate trial — whose contours remain unsettled — will include testimony from witnesses who never appeared before any House panel. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, in particular, has requested testimony from acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton.

Justice Department attorneys argued in their new submission that the coming Senate trial is yet another reason for the judicial branch to stand aside.

“If this Court now were to resolve the merits question in this case, it would appear to be weighing in on a contested issue in any impeachment trial,” the DOJ legal team wrote. “The now very real possibility of this Court appearing to weigh in on an article of impeachment at a time when political tensions are at their highest levels — before, during, or after a Senate trial regarding the removal of a President — puts in stark relief why this sort of interbranch dispute is not one that has ‘traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process.’”

“This Court should decline the Committee’s request that it enter the fray and instead should dismiss this fraught suit between the political branches for lack of jurisdiction,” the Justice Department lawyers added.

The DOJ filing was one of several submissions expected Monday in response to requests the appeals court issued about an hour after the impeachment votes last week, seeking clarification of the impact of the votes on the McGahn case and a parallel legal fight for access to grand jury secrets in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 campaign.

Both of those cases are expected to be heard on Jan. 3 by partially overlapping three-judge panels. The Justice Department, which brought the cases to the appeals court, is not urging any delay of those arguments. However, the DOJ lawyers said the court shouldn’t rush to get out a decision in the McGahn case — potentially leaving a ruling until after the expected impeachment trial is complete.

 

[fraurosena]

Seeing is believing though. I don't trust MoscowMitch one little bit, and he just might be saying this in an attempt to polish some of that corrupt tarnish from his image. Or, (and I'm rather partial to this theory), MoscowMitch knows he doesn't have enough trumplicans in the Senate who will refuse to vote 'yes' to witnesses, and he's now opening the door that he knows will be forced open anyway by a majority of senators wanting to hear witnesses. 

Mitch McConnell admits Republicans could still have to call witnesses at Senate trial

Quote

Republicans, led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), have made it clear that they would like the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump to be a summary affair, simply reviewing the facts that were discussed in the House inquiry and then moving to a vote without considering any new evidence or testimony — a setup that the GOP believes will most reliably keep their senators in line and ensure a smooth acquittal along party lines.

But on Monday, according to The Daily Beast, McConnell admitted in an interview on Fox & Friends that he couldn’t completely close the door to calling forth new witnesses.

“We haven’t ruled out witnesses,” said McConnell. “We’ve said, ‘Let’s handle this case just like we did with President Clinton.’ Fair is fair.” He argued that in that trial, senators decided on whether to call witnesses during the trial, rather than setting it in stone beforehand.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has demanded Republicans compel testimony from key witnesses like White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who has failed to appear before the House despite his direct involvement in the Ukraine scheme.

Trump, for his part, has demanded Republicans muddy the waters by calling witnesses like Hunter Biden and the anonymous whistleblower whose complaint triggered an investigation of his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

 

[fraurosena]

See, this is what I mean. It really looks like there aren't enough trumplicans in the Senate, and MoscowMitch may not have as tight a hold on the Senate as he thought he did.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[WiseGirl]

[GreyhoundFan]

From a Georgetown Law professor: "McConnell has less power to shape the impeachment trial than Democrats think"

Spoiler

A vigorous debate has broken out among senators, and House leaders, about how President Trump’s impeachment trial ought to be conducted. In an opening salvo, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) sent Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) a letter outlining the procedures he believes the Senate should employ — asserting that subpoenas should be issued to four senior administration officials whom Trump prohibited from testifying in the House’s impeachment inquiry (notably, former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney).

McConnell replied on the Senate floor that Schumer “misunderstand constitutional roles” and flatly rejected his proposals. Then, in an opinion article in the New York Times, Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) accused McConnell of laying the groundwork for “a Senate coverup.” Now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says she may hold off on sending the articles of impeachment until she’s confident the Senate will hold a fair trial.

This debate is remarkable because McConnell is unlikely to be making the key decisions about the shape of a Senate trial. The contours of the trial will be set by rules dating to the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, in 1868. Those rules leave answers to such questions as whether witnesses will appear, and when the trial may be adjourned, to the chief justice of the United States, John G. Roberts Jr., who — as set forward in the Constitution — presides over the proceedings. By comparison, Schumer and McConnell are bit players.

To be sure, senators can pass a special resolution setting rules for Trump’s trial, as they did for President Bill Clinton’s; such a resolution is the subject of last week’s skirmishing. But doing so would require more comity than is evident, as it needs a supermajority of 60 votes and there are just 53 Republican senators. Absent a special resolution, on the questions now causing debate, senators must defer to Roberts — or overrule him, if they dare.

McConnell could propose, in advance, a partisan resolution setting rules Democrats dislike, but then Democrats could filibuster. McConnell could try to do away with the filibuster, but that would require the support of almost his entire caucus, including vulnerable senators he needs to protect, who represent states that are increasingly voting Democratic — such as Susan Collins (Maine), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Thom Tillis (N.C.) and Martha McSally (Ariz.). It also would probably doom the filibuster for ordinary legislation, which McConnell wants to keep.

Assuming there’s no special resolution, once the House presents articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Senate’s standing rules make the chief justice responsible for both trial preparations and the trial itself; all motions would be directed to him. The motions could come either from the representatives the House appoints to manage its impeachment case or from the president’s defense lawyers.

To make clear their disdain for the entire process, the president’s lawyers could move for dismissal of the articles before the managers for the House even begin presenting evidence. Early motions to dismiss are allowed in criminal trials where the indictment or information fails to allege an actual crime. But unless Roberts believes the conduct described in the articles of impeachment would not constitute lawful grounds for removal of a president even if proven, he probably would deny such a motion. Whether or not one thinks Trump actually abused his office or obstructed Congress, surely the chief justice would not be prepared to say that no president could ever be impeached and removed for such acts.

The House’s impeachment managers, in turn, could move for the issuance of subpoenas to the current and former administration officials who refused to testify in the House on the president’s orders. Again, it’s difficult to see what basis Roberts would have for refusing to issue such subpoenas. The power to compel unwilling witnesses’ testimony is fundamental to the prosecutorial function, which the House assumes in an impeachment proceeding. (If witnesses still defied the subpoenas, the issue would go to court, probably in an expedited process.)

On either a motion to dismiss from the president’s lawyers or a motion to subpoena witnesses from the House, the chief justice could, it is true, decline to rule and put the question to the full Senate. But declining to rule on such simple questions in favor of McConnell — who has declared his intent to shield the president — would widely be perceived as a hyperpartisan move and would call the integrity of all his decisions into question. Given Roberts’s repeated efforts to preserve the public’s esteem for the Supreme Court as a body above politics, he seems unlikely to take such a step.

Once Roberts ruled on a given matter, any senator could seek a vote of the Senate to overrule him. This would require only a simple majority. Republicans have such a majority — so long as they lose no more than two of their senators. However, voting to overrule Roberts — a staunch conservative appointed by a Republican president and confirmed by a Republican Senate — to short-circuit a full airing of the charges against the president might well make some senators uncomfortable. Between those senators who have announced their retirement — Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Mike Enzi (Wyo.) and Pat Roberts (Kan.) — and those facing difficult reelection battles (again, Collins, Gardner, Tillis and McSally), McConnell probably could not count on limiting defections to two.

Once the House rests its case, Trump’s lawyers would have to decide whether to mount a defense or to move for dismissal. Again, the decision about dismissal would not belong to McConnell. Granting a motion to dismiss at the conclusion of the House’s presentation of the evidence would be the equivalent of the Senate voting to decide the case in Trump’s favor, and the chief justice probably would allow it to go to the full Senate. Unless more than two Republican senators wanted to prolong the proceedings, the case presumably would end there.

In short, Democrats who complain that McConnell has not committed in advance to acceptable trial procedures fundamentally misconstrue his limited authority. And Pelosi’s withholding of the articles is nonsensical: It’s a bit like the electric company threatening not to send you a bill until you get rid of your television. As McConnell has pointed out, the House gains no leverage by “refraining from sending us something we do not want.” He would welcome the chance to avoid making vulnerable Republicans choose between alienating Trump’s supporters and offending moderates troubled by the president’s actions. The threat of not triggering such a trial — which makes the process look even more tactically political — is more likely to make him dance a jig than to offer any concessions.

McConnell has no reason to agree to special rules giving Democrats more than the Senate’s standing rules already provide. But those standing rules probably would provide for a reasonable airing of the charges against the president. They would force senators to vote in response to a full, public record. McConnell will no doubt be a determined and effective advocate for the president, but he simply lacks the power to turn the proceedings into the farce Democrats fear.

 

[fraurosena]

To be aired on Faux. Will this message come across to the rabid faux followers?

 

[fraurosena]

Ah, but now the crux of the matter becomes the question if this information will convince MoscowMitch to call them to testify. Somehow I highly doubt that.

 

[fraurosena]

I think she may be on to something here...

 

[fraurosena]

All these things are true. But they're forgetting one very, very important fact.

Pompeo, Mulvaney and Esper decided themselves not to comply with the Congressional subpoena's. Trump may have told them not to, but ultimately it was their own choice. Trump has no legal imperative to stop them from testifying. So they willingly chose not to testify. We can find Trump's conduct egregious, dangerous, and appalling. But so is theirs. And maybe even more so. Because they clearly know that what Trump was and is doing is wrong and illegal, and they chose, and still choose to this day, to aid and abet him.